Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit

The man is the undisputed expert on how to look bad in the public eye, Instead of a single line and sticking to it, his defence oscillates randomly between "I Never Met Her, It's a Pack of Lies', 'She Wasn't Coerced, She's A Gold Digger' and 'Well It's Already Settled'. I dunno what he's paying these lawyers but either they're taking him for a ride or he's doing a Trump and ignoring every bit of advice they give him.
 
The man is the undisputed expert on how to look bad in the public eye, Instead of a single line and sticking to it, his defence oscillates randomly between "I Never Met Her, It's a Pack of Lies', 'She Wasn't Coerced, She's A Gold Digger' and 'Well It's Already Settled'. I dunno what he's paying these lawyers but either they're taking him for a ride or he's doing a Trump and ignoring every bit of advice they give him.
I suspect he's actually following their advice. The 'gloves off and throw the kitchen sink at her' are this firm's speciality, and a common US approach to civil litigation.
 
,
I suspect he's actually following their advice. The 'gloves off and throw the kitchen sink at her' are this firm's speciality, and a common US approach to civil litigation.

Hardly surprising that, after 95 years of moderation, Brenda's now drowning her sorrows in alcohol
 
On a speed read of the main document, they don't seem to be challenging the authenticity of the photographs. Also, I didn't see an outright denial that he had met her.
I didn't see anything to that effect. I suspect that, if it goes that far*, he'll maintain the line that he had no recollection of meeting her (to avoid giving a hostage to fortune), and not admit the authenticity of the photos. I guess he could probably find an expert witness who'd say they could be a fake, but not sure he'd bother, given they don't prove anything anyway.

*I doubt it'll get as far as being disputed on the substantive evidence - the claim will be barred as a result of the previous agreement, or there'll be a jurisdictional challenge, or he'll settle, or allow judgement in default on the basis it can't be enforced against him in the UK.
 
Last edited:
I didn't see anything to that effect. I suspect that, if it goes that far*, he'll maintain the line that he had no recollection of meeting her (to avoid giving a hostage to fortune), and not admit the authenticity of the photos. I guess he could probably find an expert witness who'd say they could be a fake, but not sure he'd bother, given they don't prove anything anyway.

*I doubt it'll get as far as being disputed on the substantive evidence - the claim will be barred as a result of the previous agreement, or there'll be a jurisdictional challenge, or he'll settle, or allow judgement in default on the basis it can't be enforced agadir him in the UK.
Yep, I'm sure you are right and the previous agreement is the point where this process stops.
 
It’s gonna be a festive Xmas in the Andy Battenburg nosweater household. All the gang will be there , playing charades, pulling crackers , eating Xmas pud. And every time they look at Andrew , it will be written on their expressive faces - nonce.
 
It’s gonna be a festive Xmas in the Andy Battenburg nosweater household. All the gang will be there , playing charades, pulling crackers , eating Xmas pud. And every time they look at Andrew , it will be written on their expressive faces - nonce.
Don't they always go to church on Xmas Day? I wonder if Brenda will touch on it during her speech might watch it this year if she does.
 
It does say that that picture was hers to sell to the press, wonder if she has more, also lots of "well she went on to do ..." which although fairly grubby isn't justification or protection from anything

Don't think It'll stop her publishing a book in the future
 
If the outcome is a judgement that he must pay $X to her, that would be a debt that is enforceable in the UK, no?
Not necessarily.

It would only be enforceable if he couldn't demonstrate that it fails to satisfy six conditions. The most difficult for her would be jurisdiction. Since he wasn't in the US when proceedings were served, she'd effectively have to establish he submitted to jurisdiction through prior agreement or voluntary engagement with proceedings. Also, the bulk of any damages she would be awarded in a US court would most likely be punitive, which would probably it unenforceable here, as a matter of public policy.
 
Last edited:
It’s gonna be a festive Xmas in the Andy Battenburg nosweater household. All the gang will be there , playing charades, pulling crackers , eating Xmas pud. And every time they look at Andrew , it will be written on their expressive faces - nonce.
Wonder if they still remember uncle Louis with affection? Seem to recall one of Charlie's senior flunkies was also accused of raping a junior flunky a few years back.
 
Back
Top Bottom