52% of 18-24 year olds want monarchy abolished

[babsanderson]

This was in a yougov poll. Support for the monarchy is at an all time low amongst younger people.

It's probably cheaper to settle

Yep. Those royals really have to watch the pennies.

It would inevitable lead to information concerning other family members' private and financial business being exposed. PA and the RF would want to avoid that at all costs.

Can't imagine why.

Look at Meghan’s trial against ANL.She won, but it was a pyrrhic victory for her as she walked out of court established as a liar. Imagine what else might have come out if she hadn’t won at summary judgement stage. Once a court process starts, it’s very very hard to control what happens next.

Imagine what else might have come out if she hadn’t won at summary judgement stage.

Andrew's rep was shot anyway. He had nothing to lose and potentially his much coveted public role to regain.

The costs are loose change to a man who can afford to have his £200k Bentley resprayed in a bespoke colour.

She couldn't physically make him but he had to comply with court procedures. His lawyers would never let her give evidence without his lawyers cross examining her. That's how we'd see the evidence tested. Clearly, PA would not need to testify but all his private business and documentation would still be exposed to public view.

Why aren't you equally critical of VG refusing to go to court to give evidence on two separate occasions? Once settling out of court, once apologising and dropping her claim when the defendant refused to settle? Why is that not equally suspicious to you?

Personally I don't blame her and it doesn't make me think any less of her or cause me to change my judgement of her. Most civil cases are settled out of court.

So why then have the RF 'forced' him to resign all positions and confined him to virtual house arrest ? In the eyes of a 'reasonable person' it would be fair to assume that there is a case to answer and by his actions he chooses not to.

First of all, you say his reputation was shot. He might not think that. He might still feel he has self-worth and he doesn't want all his other private business being revealed.
Look how much of Amber Heards private medical files were made publicly available in court and afterwards. How medical people, who she believed she was talking in confidence to, revealed all sorts of her private thoughts.
I'm just a lowly person, done nothing awful, but there are things I would not want revealed about me in the community where I live. I cant see PA or VG being any different.
Amber Heards costs were over $8m and she didnt even have the best team. Depps were estimated to be considerably more. Itsxaclotbif moneybto gamble on an uncertain outcome

So why then have the RF 'forced' him to resign all positions and confined him to virtual house arrest ? In the eyes of a 'reasonable person' it would be fair to assume that there is a case to answer and by his actions he chooses not to.

Because this whole story is bad for them as an institution, clearly.

It doesn’t matter is he’s innocent or not, his reputation is so tarnished that he’s bad for their business. People get ousted from positions all the time because their reputations are bad for business.

And, Andrew’s reputation wasn’t solely lost because of the Giuffre court proceedings. The papers had published literally thousands of stories about his poor judgment in maintaining a friendship with Epstein from 2010 onwards, causing him to have to give up his trade envoy role. There was considerable grumbling about him being front and centre at various royal events for years. Being front and centre of civil court claim and his disastrous interview just brought all that to a head.

Anyway the gagging order expires in February as it was only for a year so she is free to tell her story how she wants. To my untutored eye that looks like a bad deal indeed.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11589939/Prince-Andrew-sex-abuse-accuser-Virginia-Giuffre-freed-gagging-clause.html

Why aren't you equally critical of VG refusing to go to court to give evidence on two separate occasions?

VG is a private citizen.

She hasn't been taking the UK taxpayer (literally) for a ride for decades.

Another red herring. Take the money out of it then answer the question.

Anyway the gagging order expires in February as it was only for a year so she is free to tell her story how she wants. To my untutored eye that looks like a bad deal indeed.

Yep.

I was quite surprised Andrew's v. expensive lawyers agreed to such a short term but it will be interesting to see what if anything she has to say.

It will certainly be interesting, bearing in mind that suing goes both ways.

I think we can safely say having seen the Emily Maitlis interview that PA will never willingly go into the witness box and swear an oath.

It's not about how people got paid. Or even how much.

It's about two people committed the same, non-illegal act. They avoided going to court. You read that as suspicious and wrong of PA. Why do you not think the same of VG - even more so because she avoided court twice?

And I would agree, that's a very wise decision of his! 😒

His lawyers said that was why he paid $3m rather than 12.

I think we can safely say that having backed away from Dershowitz, Giuffre’s unlikely to go into the witness box either.

Another red herring. Take the money out of it then answer the question.

I have but to reiterate:

She's funding herself and therefore free to conduct her legal actions as she sees fit.

Andrew as a near lifetime publicly funded hanger on figure with a massive public profile for a family long held up as an example of decency and integrity is a subject of legitimate public interest in his actions.

That’s leaving the money in. I suppose I should have been pedantic and said funding not money.

Thank f the young have some common sense!

They're both funding themselves.
They're both of public interest. She's made claims against big names in the US. People want to hear what she has to say.
They're both entitled to protect themselves from the public gaze. Neither have done anything wrong in settling.
I don't understand why two people have settled out of court, and for that same action, one is condemned, one is given a pass.

I agree. Good thing there aren’t any here.

People want to hear what she has to say.

And I hope she gets the chance to say it.

I don't understand why two people have settled out of court, and for that same action, one is condemned, one is given a pass.

One has spent decades in the public eye demonstrating his oafish nature and contempt for the little people he was supposedly there to serve dutifully while treating the public purse like a piggy bank and the other.....hasn't.

Legally speaking they're undoubtedly on the same footing but it's not surprising a lifetime's worth of questionable morals demonstrated over and over again affects perceptions.

People want to hear what she has to say.

And I hope she gets the chance to say it.

She's already had two chances to say it but has declined to do so. Don't you find that suspicious? You would if it were PA.