Queen to spend millions funding Prince Andrew's defence

[adrianmolesmole]

I seriously think this will damage her reputation.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-prince-andrew-epstein-millions-legal-case-b1931084.html

Whole family is a joke.

Or might have been another thread, can't find it as I'm on a phone, it was in last couple of days

I think abusing 12 year old children is an indication of being a paedophile. But some posters say not, so it's an ongoing argument. It's certainly child sexual abuse in this country, although that particular case occurred in France.

But morally and ethically, it's the sexual abuse of children as young as 12, however you label it in your own head.

It's very upsetting.

Yes Roussette it was page 8 of 10 on this thread, after the poster's financial arguments fell apart. Barrel scraping.

Anyway, PA's links to the Canadian version of JE should remove all doubt. He is just indefensible. By the year 2000, which was when PA took his family to Nassau, there had already been various investigations into Nygard for rape, harrassment etc.

Thanks Church, yes now on laptop I can see the defence of JE not being a paedophile.

So according to BBC reports PA is going with his defence team getting him off on a legal technicality. This will be interesting.

This is an interesting podcast

www.theknowhowpodcast.com/post/episode-23-covering-a-royal-scandal-how-should-the-media-report-allegations-against-prince-andrew

A new podcast series On Royal Watch delves into the complicated relationship between the British royal family and the media. In today's episode, we focus on the ongoing allegations of sexual assault against the Duke of York. Listen to experts Dr. Leigh Gilmore and Jen Tarran talk about what media have done right, what they've missed, and if Prince Andrew's royal status shields him from further scrutiny

The BBC rolling 24 hour news channel has suddenly upped its game reporting on this.

“The Treasury has confirmed that the Queen’s income will be increased using taxpayer funds in order to offset losses to profit relating to the pandemic.”

The Queen's got the estimate from Andrew's legal team then

Well if the now unsealed papers being delivered to Andrew's v.v.v. expensive lawyers turn out to be the golden bullet he's hoping for she'll be quids in on the potential payout figure being bandied around.

Don't suppose that'll stop the troughing though.

I wonder if they're going to help him. Boies VGs lawyer seems confident not.

VG signed them in the first place, so presumably Boies & co. have some idea what they say. If he knew they wouldn't be helpful to Andrew, why fight over granting access? But Boies isn't exactly a bastion of legal ethics himself, so it's possible he did it just to run up the bill just in case Andrew gets stuck with VG's legal fees. "Loser pays" isn't standard in the US, though, so that may not happen even if she wins.

Is was discussed in Questiontime tonight.

Looks like the 2009 Epstein settlement had a clause preventing VG from suing "friends or associates" of JE. But PA can't have it both ways: he is keen to deny there ever was a friendship. Also the agreement never referred specifically to PA. We'll just have to wait until 29 Oct.

Oh yes.

(visted every one of his properties multiple times, flew on the Lolita Jet, went to his private island, went on yachting holiday with him, had him over to numerous Royal properties, entertained him at parties the royal family attended)

Yeah, barely knew the man says PA. Well that lie has come back to bite him on the arse, hasn't it....

Never rains but it pours:

(Apologies if anyone's posted this on here before, I haven't seen it).

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

Looks like the 2009 Epstein settlement had a clause preventing VG from suing "friends or associates" of JE. But PA can't have it both ways: he is keen to deny there ever was a friendship. Also the agreement never referred specifically to PA. We'll just have to wait until 29 Oct.

Legally, he probably can. If VG's basis for suing Andrew is based on her alleging a friendship or association Epstein, then it could be barred regardless of whether there was such a friendship or association. If she can't prevail without establishing such an association, and she previously received money in exchange for agreeing not to sue on that basis, then it can be cut off at a very early stage, without the need to determine the truth of any of the allegations.

The whole situation makes me feel ill.
It appears his whole defence is based on a NDA she signed in 2009 relinquishing any of Jefferies 'colleagues' from prosecution. At no point have they really spoke of innocence, hes hoping to get out on a technicality.
He should be ousted from the family, you cannot have a paedophidlic, sexual offender within the royal family?!

Legally, any attempt to demonstrate innocence would require going to trial, and would be very difficult this many years after the fact. For example, even if he really was at some restaurant that night, the waitress is unlikely to remember him 10+ years later. Even if she does remember Prince Andrew being there, she's unlikely to remember the exact date. If a "technicality" can end the whole thing well before that point, there's no reason not to go that route, even if he's innocent.

So are you saying that if you serve a member of the Royal Family a drink, you might well forget that fact 10 years later? Course you'd remember, it's not like the general public bumps into members of the RF as a matter of course!

I've seen two members of the RF (didn't go looking for them, they were both just there !) but I remember it distinctly. One was PAnne and one year (and one year only) I went to a horsey thing and she was there. It is really easy for me to find out when that was, I keep diaries!

Of course, working in Pizza Express might be different, but it's hardly like he goes there a lot! So if the waitress saw him there, it would obviously be that date.

@Roussette

So are you saying that if you serve a member of the Royal Family a drink, you might well forget that fact 10 years later? Course you'd remember, it's not like the general public bumps into members of the RF as a matter of course!

I've seen two members of the RF (didn't go looking for them, they were both just there !) but I remember it distinctly. One was PAnne and one year (and one year only) I went to a horsey thing and she was there. It is really easy for me to find out when that was, I keep diaries!

Of course, working in Pizza Express might be different, but it's hardly like he goes there a lot! So if the waitress saw him there, it would obviously be that date.

If I'd recognized them, yes, I'd remember that they'd been there and I'd served them. But I doubt I'd remember the exact date more than a decade later. I don't keep diaries, so at most, I'd be able to piece together the general time period from knowing when I quit that job. And would everyone in the UK recognize Prince Andrew? I don't know, especially if he was trying to avoid being recognized. Granted, if he was there with one or both of his daughters, they'd have been more recognizable. Most people who post here would probably recognize them, but I don't think that level of interest in the royals is typical of the population as a whole.

I think he's v worried and so are his lawyers. Otherwise why the Balmoral pantomime. If he had a strong case he would have/could have settled long ago, or at any rate been upfront. Now he just looks like a tit, regardless of what the NY judge decides.

@Lampzade

A poster said that they were a ‘fan’ of PA. I am shocked at this horrible twat having any ‘fans’ PA has always been an arrogant , entitled, rude idiot The fact that he continued a friendship with a convicted paedo and sex trafficker is actually shocking and shows how unbelievably stupid he is. There are so many more people that I will save my fandom for

Gonna have to correct you. It shows one of two things - monumental stupidity, OR an absolute addiction to the sort of sick criminal sexual activity that he could only get by buddying up with a paedophile / sex trafficker.

Or it could be both of course.

Well.... given he was there with one or both of the daughters, I think he'd be pretty recognisable!
and given he probably had security with him and people would be gawping at him

@PicsInRed

It's coming from the income of the DoL:

www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/

It's really time to revert the entire Lancaster estate to the elected State. No more funding of futile time wasting defences of aristocratic (alleged ) international trafficking sex offenders.

It would be much better used for funding the NHS and education.

All of these duchies don't make sense to me. It looks like it was land which was stolen from the British people by the monarch in 1265 and has been a private income source for the monarch for the best part of 900 years.

The queen has plenty of money stashed away, if she wants to use it to bail her disgusting son out then she can do so, it shouldn't be coming from duchies.

Hopefully, this fiasco will make the public question all of the royal estates and the dubious titles the queen hands out to her family.

Its the biggest con ever. No income tax is paid. No death duties. What a gravy train.

Vivienne I know we disagree on lots, but yes to this

It's sleazy to have sex with a 17 yo when you are in your 40s.

Do you ask everyone you ever slept with if they were trafficked?

Civil Case? She wants more money.