All the focus on H & M - where's the outrage against Andrew?

[modeoftransport]

Thread after thread of pulling apart Harry and Meghan. 0.1% discussing what Andrew did?

What is going on with MN?

Nobody is defending him @Mylovelygreendress. It's just a cheap jibe at me for being logical and pointing out facts. And it is a fact, not a defence, in any way to state that guilt or otherwise in respect of PA/Guiffre has not been established. It is also a fact, that a settlement is a way of ending a legal case where no blame is established and which is very often done for economic reasons, and in this case, to avoid reputational damage.

I think it's truly pathetic to keep insulting my intelligence when all I am doing is pointing actual facts.

Just because some want Andrew to be guilty, nobody actually knows other than the parties concerned. I won't be silenced by the attempts to make me look stupid, because I am only saying what is true. Some folks can't handle that because it jars with their agenda, but tough shit!

Nobody in general has sympathy for PA - his family who know him best may do. Otherwise they would have cut him completely adrift.

It's not an unreasonable supposition.

Indeed he did. Still doesn't prove him guilty.

No one had defended PA. It’s seems perfectly clear to me that people find him abhorrent

I find it's incredibly stupid to insist that the settlement proves guilt. It proves nothing!! No matter how much you want it to.

What's shocking is the ignorance of how the system works!

That was meant to be looking at it from his perspective, just to make it clear for you.

I agree with you on this. He is arrogant and stupid and I doubt he has an "honourable" bone in his body. There is a pattern in his behaviour.

Who is making you look stupid or insulting your intelligence? It seems to me as if you are hoping someone is as you sound quite angry about posts on here.

I know exactly what a settlement is, no need for explanations.

Personally I think Andrew and indeed his mother caved in and settled because it was nearing the Platinum jubilee (if I remember correctly) and they wouldn't want that overshadowed. Also no way would Andrew take the stand, because of who he is, and who knows where it would have led! Besides which most civil cases settle and do not end up in court. So it was unsurprising that this would happen.

p.s. I'm not interested in looking at the whole thing from his point of view. He lied in his Newsnight interview, which I talked about in previous posts. Nuff said!

I have no idea why you think I am "angry". I'm really not. Read the posts - there are several attempts to disparage me and make me look silly and insist that I am defending Andrew, which I am clearly not. Don't pretend there aren't!

I agree with you about the settlement. Between the imminent Jubilee, the scandal of any details that may have emerged under cross-examination, and for economic reason. Most cases settle as you've said. What is risible is that so many people seem to think the settlement implies guilt, and however much they may wish it to be so, it does not.

I hadn't really looked at it from his point of view mainly because I dislike him and I don't want to think about him that much. However, imagine the ramifications if he never actually slept with VG? He absolutely deserves his downfall because of his association with Epstein, especially after he was convicted. I really do not know why he was so stupid and arrogant. Lying about the association was not exactly his finest moment either, to say the least.

While being caught out lying certainly speaks volumes about a person's character, and the fact that the person has lied in any instance casts aspersions on their honesty in general, this does not prove that he had sex with VG.

What is causing the speculation is that the settlement is the only thing there is to go on. Because Andrew will never see the inside of a court, in order to prove his innocence. He hasn't even cooperated with the FBI as a witness, when he was actually at the parties and was clearly good friends with both Epstein and Maxwell. Which means he must know who else was there and what went on but has decided not to tell the authorities. Instead he has chosen to 'defend' himself on TV and lie, clearly and laughably obviously.

ok, so why would an innocent man pay millions to the "victim" in a "settlement"

I think I saw somewhere that there were rumours he didn’t want to settle but was forced to by Charles/QE/William.

The thing is you don’t know if he’s innocent or guilty because it hasn’t been proved in a court of law. You can only have your opinion

Yes. I recall seeing this too.

I think the theory is that no-one wanted it overshadowing the upcoming jubilee but I'd also be surprised if anyone wanted the clown pontificating on any kind of official stand for fear of he might let slip.

There’s that as well! Great word ‘pontificating’!

but tell me why an innocent man would pay out millions in a "settlement"

(strange how PA is deemed innocent until proved guilty, but others are not)

@Samcro see my post above. I’m not sure how true that is though. A friend of dh settled in the USA because it was cheaper than paying legal fees.

He may have been persuaded to so he doesn’t embroil the RF in further scandal. The point still remains that he hasn’t been charged with anything so you can’t name him as guilty. You can think it but nothing has been proved

I do hope you are on the charity threads saying the same about PH.

Saying what about Harry?

wouldn't it have looked far better if this innocent man had gone to court to prove he was innocent?
The pay off just confirms many peoples' view that he is hiding an awful lot.

Puzzling how he refuses to speak to the FBI too. Again, reasonably easy for an innocent man to prove his innocence I would have thought

?

I most certainly am not saying he’s innocent. I believe he slept with with VG.

Whether he knew that she was trafficked is another matter. But he should have looked at her age and questioned why an attractive young girl would want to willingly have sex with a man old enough to be her father.

It’s beyond grim.

But I’d also like to know why his security didn’t get him out of there and why with all those high profile men there is only ever been a woman convicted.

@NewAgeNewMeI'm certainly not defending Andrew. It's not a mystery why young women sometimes hang out with old guys. It's an age old story .

Rather than read our posts, here’s a useful blog post from an Canadian lawyer setting out the six adavntages of settling, even if you are innocent. It covers risk, time, cost, privacy, creativity and finality. For Andrew, risk would have been a motivating factor I am sure. For QEII finality would have been ery motivating we can imagine.

The risk factors he points out are very true:

Risk
There are no “slam dunks”. Every case is risky. If you maintain that your case, or any part of it, is too strong to fail then at least accept that the judge or jury can still “get it wrong”. Therefore, even if you feel certain, lawsuits are inherently uncertain. Settling on terms which are short of your best-case scenario is rational since:
– a third-party decision maker is taken out of the equation, leaving those who know their own case best (including you and your lawyer) to craft the outcome, and
– no one suffers their worst-case scenario after trial (or beyond).
Also consider that:
A lawyer can never guarantee you a win—and often the “winner” and “loser” of a lawsuit are unclear anyway because you can win on some issues and lose on others.
While you might still believe that being declared a loser after trial is better than settling, if people are honest with themselves then they will admit that they hate losing

For Andrew, coming into a jury trial in New York on a “he said, she said” issue as a rich UK Prince was obviously a huge risk, irrespective of whether he believed himself innocent or not.

https://mitchellrose.ca/6-reasons-to-settle-a-legal-dispute/