Prince Andrew taken back into the fold this weekend.

[Wishiwasinmalta]

AIBU or will the popularity of the RF drop like a lead balloon if they keep on doing this?

Why are you do fixated on the amount @MarshaMelrose ? Does paying a sex trafficking victim 3 million create some sort of ethical dysfunction from paying 12 million in your world?

what’s your point?
PA prioritised and maintained a relationship with a child sex attacker for a long period of his adult life. Why are you spending ages quibbling over the reported amount of money he paid to cover up his level of involvement? Seems an odd way to invest your time!

*ethical difference

I know on MN that facts are often ignored in favour of hyperbole but facts are important to me. People quote £12m as if it's fact and then base conjecture and supposition on that unsubstantiated, unproven sum. Hence comments like...

While it may be technically true that he 'hasn't been found guilty of anything', having to dish out 12 million quid is a pretty substantial indicator that his behaviour has not been above board.

They assume that the behaviour is worse, the higher the sum is claimed to be. So clarifying that the sum was in fact £3m is pretty important. And that's my point.
I don't think the pursuit of truth is a waste of my time. Of course, you may think the pursuit of truth is a waste of yours. And you wouldn't be alone in thinking like that on this thread.

An unnamed source from his lawyers. That's more credible than open speculation.

An unnamed, uncredited source isn't confirmation of anything at all. Even if you take it on trust its 'from the lawyers' it could be the photocopy guy.

Confirmation would have been an official statement from them. None of that though.

And VG hasn't denied it, so

I doubt she saw it. That's the only place I've seen it reported. She doesn't have the same reputational impact to worry about as Andrew, I can't imagine why she'd even care.

It’s astonishing that he seems to think he even has a shot a public life again. Whose going to want a visit from a rapist?

Aw! Lovely personal dig you got in there to establish your moral high ground!

so in your pursuit of truth could you explain to dim little me what material difference it made if he dished up 3million quid to a victim of sex trafficking to cover up his involvement in her abuse ?

does that make him less odious? If not then what actually is your point?

Aw! Lovely personal dig you got in there to establish your moral high ground!

You asked me my point. I answered you. My point was to stick to the facts not speculation. If you think that gives me the moral high ground, then...OK. I can live with that.

so in your pursuit of truth could you explain to dim little me what material difference it made if he dished up 3million quid to a victim of sex trafficking to cover up his involvement in her abuse ?

Well, dim little you, it makes a difference when posters infer that what he did was worse or his guilt is more profound if he settled for £12m as opposed to £3m. But I already said this.

does that make him less odious? If not then what actually is your point?

Really? Again?
My point is that facts are more important than speculation, particularly when speculation leads to the conjecture or supposition that the larger the amount, the more guilty he is and the more heinous the acts he must have committed.

You seem to be struggling with identifying your own insults so here it is:
I don't think the pursuit of truth is a waste of my time. Of course, you may think the pursuit of truth is a waste of yours. And you wouldn't be alone in thinking like that on this thread.

perhaps if you could construct a coherent argument without a personal attack you might find you gain more traction.

I’m still not really sure what your point is? Are you genuinely suggesting that with a payoff of only £3 million to a victim of sex trafficking (based on speculation) means that PA is likely less ‘guilty’ (and if so how do you determine that?)

is a longterm friendship with a convicted child sex criminal not grounds enough for you to consider that perhaps Prince Andrew is a disgusting man? You instead need absolute proof of a payoff of more than £3 million before you’ll stop investing your time and energy in defending him,despite him spending years investing time, money and energy in prioritising relationships with child sex criminals?

bizarre hobbies some folk have!

perhaps if you could construct a coherent argument without a personal attack you might find you gain more traction.

But I have no interest in gaining traction with you. You asked me my point. I gave you my point.

I’m still not really sure what your point is? Are you genuinely suggesting that with a payoff of only £3 million to a victim of sex trafficking (based on speculation) means that PA is likely less ‘guilty’ (and if so how do you determine that?)

I didn't say that. I gave you a quote of a poster who said because it was such a large sum (£12m) that was a big indicator and proof of how badly he'd behaved. I say that's not how settlements work. You can't make an assumption of guilt based on an out of court settlement but if you did decide to, saying it must be very bad because it's a high sum is yet another assumption. And in this case it's not even an assumption based on truth, just on speculation.

is a longterm friendship with a convicted child sex criminal not grounds enough for you to consider that perhaps Prince Andrew is a disgusting man? You instead need absolute proof of a payoff of more than £3 million before you’ll stop investing your time and energy in defending him,despite him spending years investing time, money and energy in prioritising relationships with child sex criminals?

You're just making things up now because you have a narrative and you want everyone's comments to fit it; ie, if you don't post a comment insulting PA, then you must be defending him. Which is nonsense. You have never read any of comment of mine defending him. I have only stated facts. That the settlement wasn't £12m and assumptions cannot be made from out of court settlements. I know that personally because I was involved in an out of court settlement.

right so you’re literally just taking up pages of a thread quibbling over a number, even though that number has no relevance to your point?

Sorry if I missed it, but in the interests of ‘truth’ can you link to the evidence of the fact that the settlement wasn’t 12 million please?

right so you’re literally just taking up pages of a thread quibbling over a number, even though that number has no relevance to your point?

🤣🤣🤣🤣 You're so dramatic.
I've posted 18 times on a thread of 385. That's not even a page.
The number has relevance because....Oh, I'm not explaining again. I refer you to my earlier messages.

Sorry if I missed it, but in the interests of ‘truth’ can you link to the evidence of the fact that the settlement wasn’t 12 million please?

It's already been done by another poster on here. Or you could google it.

I have googled and I’ve read the thread - I can’t find any sources that reliably state the amount definitely wasn’t 12million as you state. I assume you aren’t referencing that article in The Sun as your source of Truth - they don’t exactly have a reputation for accuracy

you’re the one who has posted 18 times to assert the ‘truth’ that it definitely wasn’t 12 million so surely you have a reliable source/copy of the settlement documents to support that please?

After all you’ve consistently emphasised how important the truth is to you, surely if you posted 18 times asserting the ‘truth’ you have some kind of source to support your assertion?

@MarshaMelrose ?

If this article is true he has ( thankfully) no chance of being back in the fold.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11449187/Prince-Andrew-secretly-visited-Bahrain-week-personal-guest-royal-family.html