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.

Sarah calls her ex 'an honourable man' and a 'giant of a man of principle' or some such guff.
She was in the grounds (80 acres) of Royal Lodge where she lives dressed in costume plugging her Mills & Boon book.

I will go and research the docs... need to understand it.

How utterly pitiful that our royal envoy can only access wall street through an absolute charleton who has cuckhood les wexlers money

Yes yes yes. And how utterly pitiful if he expects us to believe that that was his only way in to learn about money markets or whatever. He has access to such things at his fingertips, but make a conscious decision to go down the dodgy route. Added girls doncha know... as well as learning about Wall Street

Wow. Just watched both Body Language episodes. Very enlightening.

It;s a 2 parter thenightsky it gets worse in part 2!

Shame they didn't cover this....

PA: As far as Mr Epstein was concerned, it was the wrong decision to go and see him in 2010. As far as my association with him was concerned, it had some seriously beneficial outcomes in areas that have nothing and have nothing to do with what I would describe as what we're talking about today.

On balance, could I have avoided ever meeting him? Probably not and that's because of my friendship with Ghislaine, it was… it was… it was inevitable that we would have come across each other. Do I regret the fact that he has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming? Yes.

EM: Unbecoming? He was a sex offender.

PA: Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm being polite, I mean in the sense that he was a sex offender. But no, was I right in having him as a friend? At the time, bearing in mind this was some years before he was accused of being a sex offender. I don't there was anything wrong then, the problem was the fact that once he had been convicted…

EM: You stayed with him.

A Giuffre source told The Daily Beast: “This verdict obviously makes his case a lot more difficult. His argument is essentially the same as Maxwell’s—that these young women made it all up for money, and they were all just friends and there wasn’t any sex trafficking and the girls who are making these claims are liars and gold diggers. It’s all the same, blame-the-victim defense. This verdict demonstrates that you can’t obscure the overwhelming amount of evidence by these smokescreens, and that jurors are not prepared to blame the victim. This can’t be good for Andrew. But it’s hard to know what he takes on board and what he doesn’t. No sane person would have gone on television the way he did and just denied that photographic evidence, and shown a total lack of remorse.”

Just posted this on the Maxwell thread

twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1478012904960110596?t=ZvusdB6rUbxZGKGQ2XmCEA&s=19

The judge presiding over Ghislaine Maxwell's case ordered the government and defense to propose a sentencing schedule on Jan. 10, a week from today.

That letter should also include plans about the remaining perjury counts.

What about him receiving a Foot Massage 🤑🤑

It’s crazy, really, that Andrew is a matter of discussion anyway, with anybody at all treating him with equanimity (deference, even). Anybody else and this person would be absolutely massacred in the press.

Can you imagine what the tabloids would be saying of, say, Jeremy Clarkson or Alan Sugar or Arsene Wenger if it were known fact that they had been friends with Epstein, had taken loans from them to pay off their ex-wife’s debts, had been on a private jet to a private island known to be where girls were trafficked to for sex, had stayed in his house for four day AFTER he had been convicted of pedophilia, had a dinner party thrown for him, was photographed chatting amiably with him? These men would be done. Over. Pursued down every legal and non-legal avenue, with all the legal institutions doing their jobs and the press all over them.

I mean, where does Andrew get off on all this? It’s like the public are being gaslit. How stupid are we that he can go horse riding with the queen on private grounds, drive himself around, send his ex wife and daughters off skiing in Verbier for the holidays in a chalet there’s no way he could have paid for legitimately… It’s shockingly outrageous, hypercritical, duplicitous, immoral, arrogant, EVERYTHING

There’s a funny spoof of PA’s interview with an ‘advisor’ telling him what to say.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=ylF53eJZniw

PA really is a Sleazy Auld Bastard 🤮🤮

BBC news is reporting now that papers from 2009 have emerged regarding a 500k settlement between VG and JE.

The prince's lawyers say this previously-secret 2009 deal means she cannot sue him - because she agreed to end all legal action against anyone connected to the offender who could be described as a "potential defendant".

Link here

How stupid are we that he can go horse riding with the queen on private grounds, drive himself around, send his ex wife and daughters off skiing in Verbier for the holidays in a chalet there’s no way he could have paid for legitimately… It’s shockingly outrageous, hypercritical, duplicitous, immoral, arrogant, EVERYTHING

We are stupid enough to still have a Monarchy. As long as we have then any other batshittery is mere trivia.

Maybe my grandchildrens children will live free of the insult that they were born into a country where they are not equal to any.

And all the hand wringing over this story needs to be viewed through the prism of a nation that - by clinging onto the ludicrous notion of a Monarch - enabled this to happen. If you have stood and waved your little Union Flag as her madge rolled past, the you are a tiniest part of how this has been "allowed" to happen.

You may have gathered that my late DM was not really a poster child for Monarchy. And in my lifetime I've never had cause to disagree with her views.

“She was in the grounds (80 acres) of Royal Lodge where she lives, dressed in costume plugging her Mills & Boon book.”

The Daily Mail put quite a bit of effort into promoting SF’s bodice ripper, ‘A Heart for a Compass’ (an ironic title, seeing as her wonderful prince appears to have neither) with endless photo shoots and SF gushing about PA’s ‘honour’.

@100problems Andrews lawyers have sought to have the case dismissed on many technicalities, all of which the court has rejected. Lets wait and see what the court says about this technicality. They may also reject this.

The prince's lawyers say this previously-secret 2009 deal means she cannot sue him

Well... they would say that wouldn't they...

Horrible feeling at first glance of this document that it works in his favour

Dirty rotten scum bag

Really sad about all this

A bit more information and the 2009 agreement here
lawandcrime.com/high-profile/long-secret-jeffrey-epstein-settlement-at-issue-in-lawsuit-against-prince-andrew-made-public-for-first-time/

@Queenie6655 let's wait to see what the court says.
But if he gets off on a technicality, I and others will continue talking about it on social media and not letting anyone forget who he actually is.
And if he ever tries to do public appearances again, I will personally organise a demonstration outside.

BBC news is reporting now that papers from 2009 have emerged regarding a 500k settlement between VG and JE

The prince's lawyers say this previously-secret 2009 deal means she cannot sue him - because she agreed to end all legal action against anyone connected to the offender who could be described as a "potential defendant

How will the lawyers get round this ? Does anyone know what grounds they could use ?
I so so so hope they can .

But does that mean if the document works in is favour that they are admitting he is a defendant

[quote RedLines]This is a bit of an eye-opener
4 bodylanguage experts demolish the car crash interview

[/quote] That was a real eye-opener. Thanks for posting the link, @RedLines.

@Roussette and @RoyalFamilyFan naturally, they are the defence, but I heard the news on the 5pm news and thought it would be an update to our thread.

@SerendipityJane

Yes.

And that’s without commenting on the atrocities of the past that all monarchies still benefit from. We’re only just now seeing commonplace talk of those crimes.

Even if you want to set them aside, it’s enshrined in law that we can’t know anything approaching the full truth of their finances in the present.

It’s amazing that this still goes on when each citizen has a vote, and people - children - die of starvation and poverty-related diseases and illnesses and outcomes in this country. Massive, mass delusion. And for what? What do they do for anyone?

To me it looks like it's basically a get out of jail free card for abusers.

I'll wait for legal people to explain it more

I read an interesting piece that ABC in America were going to run the story about JE and an interview with VG back in 2015. Allegedly they were told by William's PR that if they did they would never get an interview with him and Kate. Some journalist at ABC has gone on the record saying this.

As this could (in the broadest sense) reflect badly on PW there have been lots of leaks from the Palace basically saying that PA acted alone, wouldn't take advice etc, possibly to deflect away from PW.

I was also reading today about Lord Mountbatten. A very unsavoury character indeed.