Prince Andrew Thread 2

[Roussette]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4442126-Prince-Andrew

Here is previous thread.

I've started a new thread because today and tomorrow is crucial as far as the pending civil case.

And I also had a few comments I wanted to say to posters at the end of the last thread, but it ran out.

@diddl

"But VG's lawyers will have known about her settlement with Epstein, so if it's likely she can't sue any of his associates because of it, why bring the civil case in the first place?"

To keep the whole thing in the public eye?

Because firstly they were looking for an out of court settlement with PA and secondly there was no guarantee that her settlement with Epstein would be unsealed. I think that was due to Epstein's old lawyer who is currently suing VG for defamation.

The queen protecting him makes me very unhappy to have her as our Head of State.

Quite intriguing that this thread appears (so far) to be free of the low-quality thinking ("..but sex at 17 isn't a crime ...") that seemed so much a feature of the last thread

Yes, the rape apologists have left the building...

@Ciaram55

The queen protecting him makes me very unhappy to have her as our Head of State.

Ah well, you can vote for a different Head of State at the next election.

Oh, wait...

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/28/queens-consent-investigation-petition

Very worrying the amount of power the monarchy do indeed still hold.

This was discussed on the Eddie Mair show on LBC about an hour ago:

www.globalplayer.com/catchup/lbc/uk/episodes/BUrViX5n79xjUYHCw9wT3MnUU/

Listen from: 2:37:35

Apparently page 2 of the document has something very interesting!

@Roussette

Quite intriguing that this thread appears (so far) to be free of the low-quality thinking ("..but sex at 17 isn't a crime ...") that seemed so much a feature of the last thread

Yes, the rape apologists have left the building...

We can only hope

[quote Roussette]They were 12 year old triplet girls.

nypost.com/2019/08/19/jeffrey-epstein-was-sent-three-12-year-old-french-girls-as-birthday-gift/[/quote]
Dear god. So sick.

@RubyTrees

This was discussed on the Eddie Mair show on LBC about an hour ago:

www.globalplayer.com/catchup/lbc/uk/episodes/BUrViX5n79xjUYHCw9wT3MnUU/

Listen from: 2:37:35

Apparently page 2 of the document has something very interesting!

Includes commentary by a lawyer.

@Ciaram55

The queen protecting him makes me very unhappy to have her as our Head of State.

Agree 100%. We can't be rid of the monarchy soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

A point made on the RCP podcast (sorry, I know I keep banging on about it!) was that the Prosecutor’s made a smart move in only bringing charges on a small number of counts. Enough women have come forward that multiple charges could have been made on behalf of each of them, but the more charges made the shakier the case can become because the defence only need to find a flaw in one charge for the whole case to potentially collapse. By keeping it to just 6 (I think it was) they’ve built a much stronger case that will be harder to take down.

@Ciaram55

The queen protecting him makes me very unhappy to have her as our Head of State.

Yep.

From body language u tube, they said the one question would have loved to be asked to pa in interview "why do you think people do this kind of thing".

@RubyTrees so there’s still hope .

@RubyTrees - what does p2 say?.

This release makes it even worse for PA and public perception in my eyes.

His lawyers are saying he can't now be hold accountable BECAUSE of this agreement.

Fucking stinks. To Fucking hell.

So both legal teams will have seen the document prior to it being made public and both believe there is something within the wording of the document which can prove their client’s case (be that either dismiss or continue) have I got that right?

@RubyTrees
Thank you.

Page 2 appears to say, and I might have this wrong.... it is not to be used by anyone else. i.e. PA.

One part of the doc means no one can sue again. Page 2 is significant and goes against that and won't waive all claims against any other potential defendants. They hint that it is unenforceable (by PA's team). It seems like 'potential defendants' means 'current' defendants at the time. Not future defendants. And this quite possibly means it doesn't release PA.

Also the low costs ($500K) whilst substantial to some, given the gravity and potential defendants, it is quite low according to the lawyer.

That's what I've got from it anyway. I might have it wrong.
Very interesting.

If the Monarch went on a killing spree there is literally no legal recourse.

This is true of almost all heads of state.

The Freedom of Information Act exempts the entire Royal Family - why is this do you suppose

It doesn't. There is no exemption for the Royal Family in the Freedom of Information Act. They have the same exemption as every other citizen of the UK, including you and me. The Act applies to information held by public authorities. The Queen is not a public authority, nor is any other member of the Royal Family.

I doubt a GDPR submission to the Royal Family would be filled, and now we have left the EU there is no appeal to any court that could enforce it.

You would be wrong. Requests are dealt with by the Royal Family's Information Assurance team. If you have concerns, you can go to the ICO.

The Royal Household is exempt from things like the Equalities Act, their wills are sealed (nobody else's will is sealed), they are exempt from tax...the list just goes on and on (and on).

Again, much of this is standard for a Head of State. And other people's wills are sealed. It is unusual but the executors of any will can apply for the will to be sealed. To succeed, they must convince the court that it is undesirable or inappropriate for the will to be open to inspection.

CaveMum that makes perfect sense. Keep it small but watertight

Again, much of this is standard for a Head of State. And other people's wills are sealed. It is unusual but the executors of any will can apply for the will to be sealed. To succeed, they must convince the court that it is undesirable or inappropriate for the will to be open to inspection

This was discussed at length a while back. An ordinary member of the public would find it near impossible to seal their Will.

Easy for the RF, they just seal it.

I want more transparency. As it is there is no IHT for sovereign to sovereign. Given their massive eye watering wealth, WHY??

@Roussette , that’s what I understood from the 2nd page . The lawyer said (as did a pp) that it’s too vague and courts don’t like ‘vague’ . It was talking about not being able to sue anyone regarding past allegations and not the present one against PA. (I did understand it, just can’t put it into words 🤦‍♀️)

[quote Maireas]@RubyTrees - what does p2 say?.[/quote]
"As a material consideration in settling, the parties agree that the terms of this settlement agreement are not intended to be used by any other person nor be admissible in any proceeding or case against or involving Jeffrey Epstein either civil or criminal."

@Vapeyvapevape
You've got it! I put it into my own words which makes sense in my head but not to anyone else lol