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

[existentialist]

Not sure for me. I wanted revenge myself.

Yeah, that was a massive generalisation on my part, TBF. The response of victims of abuse will be as diverse as the victims themselves. And it may be that the victims that I come into contact with are a self-selecting group who are more likely to favour a particular goal. And it wasn't revenge in my case...but I completely appreciate the desire of some victims to assert something other than powerlessness upon their persecutor.

Whatever, the one thing that doesn't change is that this - alleged - perpetrator is going to enormous, and convoluted, lengths to avoid even any semblance of due process...and that's probably common to most child sex abusers.

 

[existentialist]

She's suing him, she wants him to pay her, getting paid without a trial is less expensive for her and a sure thing.

I don't see how you can know that.

 

[existentialist]

i'm sure she's on a no win no fee arrangement with her lawyers. it's possible the defence lawyers are on the same (if andrew's paying them per hour atm he really ought to look for better representation)

Andrew isn't paying them, though, is he? And they don't strike me like the kind of legal firm that represents the kind of clients who want to do cases on a contingency basis

 

[existentialist]

The world demands a trial and I don't think giuffre, her lawyers and the yank courts are going to disappoint. Its going to be epic. I want Andrew to call character witnesses, I want long discussions of his sweat glands, I want surprise guest witnesses for the prosecution who don't even add much, just ex squaddies who testify he was a knob in the Falklands and did fuck all

I reckon he'll fold way before then. Or have some kind of accident. Does he still enjoy flying?

 

[Athos]

The world demands a trial and I don't think giuffre, her lawyers and the yank courts are going to disappoint. Its going to be epic. I want Andrew to call character witnesses, I want long discussions of his sweat glands, I want surprise guest witnesses for the prosecution who don't even add much, just ex squaddies who testify he was a knob in the Falklands and did fuck all

If she won't agree to settle, he could take the bold course of declining to appear (or being represented) at the hearing on some spurious grounds, just to avoid the possibility of an adverse finding after a contested trial. It'd mean judgement against him, but he'd have to hope that it wouldn't be enforceable against any assets in the UK.

 

[existentialist]

If she won't agree to settle, he could take the bold course of declining to appear (or being represented) at the hearing on some spurious grounds, just to avoid the possibility of an adverse finding after a contested trial. It'd mean judgement against him, but he'd have to hope that it wouldn't be enforceable against any assets in the UK.

But it would mean an implicit acknowledgement of some degree of guilt, even though I think you're probably right as far as what he might do is concerned.

 

[Athos]

But it would mean an implicit acknowledgement of some degree of guilt, even though I think you're probably right as far as what he might do is concerned.

Not necessarily; he could say he's innocent, but that he can't get a fair trial, so refuses to engage with the process.

 

[existentialist]

Not necessarily; he could say he's innocent, but that he can't get a fair trial, so refuses to engage with the process.

And how will that go down in the court of public opinion, do you think? Given that his sweatlessness and fondness for Pizza Express is already mainstream comedy and media fodder?

 

[Athos]

And how will that go down in the court of public opinion, do you think? Given that his sweatlessness and fondness for Pizza Express is already mainstream comedy and media fodder?

People will think he's guilty. But that's not the "implicit acknowledgement" of guilt to which you referred.

 

[elbows]

Re puppets:

Prince Andrew Allegedly Used a Puppet of Himself to Grope Victims at Jeffrey Epstein’s Home

The allegations were detailed in Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s unpublished manuscript, which was part of a trove of recently unsealed court documents.

www.vanityfair.com

Terrible stuff, though sadly not surprising.

It seems to be getting a bit harder to find clips on youtube from the original Spitting Image that involve Andrew than it used to be.

I did find one of the ones I could find in the past on youtube, but using twitter instead. But there used to be at least one other on youtube and I cant find it these days.

 

[existentialist]

Not necessarily; he could say he's innocent, but that he can't get a fair trial, so refuses to engage with the process.

He's already being openly laughed at about his sweatlessness and fondness for the Woking branch of Pizza Express. It'd be open season on him, and already is to a degree in mainstream media...

People with think he's guilty. But that's not the "implicit acknowledgement" of guilt to which you referred.

So...the sweatygate stories and the Pizza Express stories, already staples of even quite mainstream news and comedy, become weaponised to "he abused a woman under the age of consent" stories.

I can't see him bringing a successful libel action...can you?

 

[Pickman's model]

The world demands a trial and I don't think giuffre, her lawyers and the yank courts are going to disappoint. Its going to be epic. I want Andrew to call character witnesses, I want long discussions of his sweat glands, I want surprise guest witnesses for the prosecution who don't even add much, just ex squaddies who testify he was a knob in the Falklands and did fuck all

Sasaferrato

 

[Pickman's model]

I reckon he'll fold way before then. Or have some kind of accident. Does he still enjoy flying?

his next flight might involve a hard landing

 

[existentialist]

his next flight might be a one-way trip

The number of landings might end up being one fewer than the number of take-offs

 

[Pickman's model]

He's already being openly laughed at about his sweatlessness and fondness for the Woking branch of Pizza Express. It'd be open season on him, and already is to a degree in mainstream media...


So...the sweatygate stories and the Pizza Express stories, already staples of even quite mainstream news and comedy, become weaponised to "he abused a woman under the age of consent" stories.

I can't see him bringing a successful libel action...can you?

he has no reputation to damage

 

[Athos]

He's already being openly laughed at about his sweatlessness and fondness for the Woking branch of Pizza Express. It'd be open season on him, and already is to a degree in mainstream media

So...the sweatygate stories and the Pizza Express stories, already staples of even quite mainstream news and comedy, become weaponised to "he abused a woman under the age of consent" stories.

I can't see him bringing a successful libel action...can you?

No. All of that is true. And I've never argued otherwise. My point was that simply refusing to engage wouldn't necessarily amount to an acknowledgement of guilt, as you suggested.

 

[existentialist]

he has no reputation to damage

It's quite possible that he's delusional enough to think he has. A different refuge of the scoundrel...

 

[Pickman's model]

It's quite possible that he's delusional enough to think he has. A different refuge of the scoundrel...

the last refuge of this scoundrel

 

[existentialist]

the last refuge of this scoundrel
View attachment 304552

At this rate, those are going to end up being very porky penguins.

 

[Pickman's model]

At this rate, those are going to end up being very porky penguins.

don't forget the penguins of the british antarctic territory, plenty of penguins for him to go around

 

[Sasaferrato]

Sasaferrato

I've said all I have to say on this. To reiterate, he has not been convicted of anything at this time. Guilty of abominable behaviour? Yes. Guilty as testified by the witnesses? Yes. Guilty of any offence within the UK? I don't know.

I do think he should relinquish his military posts, pro tem. In the unlikely event of ever being publicly accepted again, they can be restored. He won't go to prison, I doubt if he will ever stand in a court. He won't ever be in the US again of course.

What an absolutely dreadful situation all round. I should think the only thing worse than being abused is seeing your abuser walk free, and seeming untouchable.

I am a monarchist, no surprise, but I do feel that Andrew has irreparably damaged the institution: yes I know, many of you would like to see it go, your view, as valid as mine; for the first time ever, if there was a plebiscite, I don't know how I would vote.

Thread is now on ignore.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

If she won't agree to settle, he could take the bold course of declining to appear (or being represented) at the hearing on some spurious grounds, just to avoid the possibility of an adverse finding after a contested trial. It'd mean judgement against him, but he'd have to hope that it wouldn't be enforceable against any assets in the UK.

Have heard in the dim and distant that it would be a debt and therefore enforceable in the UK. Although they have been laying the groundwork of no assets; no discernible income, lives in one of mummy's houses, free motor from Nonce Rover. What dough he does have stashed away has come in envelopes from despots and that. Perhaps the Swiss chalet..?

 

[bluescreen]

I've just seen a Graun article which quotes Jeanne Christensen, a lawyer expert in this sort of case, who reckoned Andrew was almost certainly not covered by the 2009 agreement.

For a New York attorney [...] it was hard to fathom why the Giuffre-Prince Andrew lawsuit had not been settled.
“I can’t believe they haven’t gotten rid of it already. I don’t get it, but then we don’t have a monarchy. It’s a head-scratcher that it’s ongoing to the degree that it is.”

That got me thinking. It's possible they haven't even attempted to settle. HWCS acts as if he's convinced of his blamelessness, and possibly even believes his own version by now. And the Family is famously mean. They won't pay a penny more than they have to for anything.

 

[Duncan2]

Way things are going he'll be lucky to get a complimentary e-scooter.

 

[ruffneck23]

I've said all I have to say on this. To reiterate, he has not been convicted of anything at this time. Guilty of abominable behaviour? Yes. Guilty as testified by the witnesses? Yes. Guilty of any offence within the UK? I don't know.

I do think he should relinquish his military posts, pro tem. In the unlikely event of ever being publicly accepted again, they can be restored. He won't go to prison, I doubt if he will ever stand in a court. He won't ever be in the US again of course.

What an absolutely dreadful situation all round. I should think the only thing worse than being abused is seeing your abuser walk free, and seeming untouchable.

I am a monarchist, no surprise, but I do feel that Andrew has irreparably damaged the institution: yes I know, many of you would like to see it go, your view, as valid as mine; for the first time ever, if there was a plebiscite, I don't know how I would vote.

Thread is now on ignore.

First post of yours Ive ever actually liked, and then you put the thread on ignore, tsk

 

[Athos]

Have heard in the dim and distant that it would be a debt and therefore enforceable in the UK. Although they have been laying the groundwork of no assets; no discernible income, lives in one of mummy's houses, free motor from Nonce Rover. What dough he does have stashed away has come in envelopes from despots and that. Perhaps the Swiss chalet..?

Enforcement isn't quite that simple; there's a number of conditions to be satisfied (I think I posted them some weeks ago. ETA: see below). But, even if enforceable, there's the issue of him increasingly appearing to have no assets; I think he's being sued re unpaid mortgage on the chalet. It might be a case of "settle, and Mummy will pay you; go to trial and you'll get nothing, even if you win."

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.

 

[Dystopiary]

Don't bite my head off, but is there any chance at all this could end up in a criminal court?

 

[Athos]

Don't bite my head off, but is there any chance at all this could end up in a criminal court?

In the US, yes, not impossible. Almost certainly not in the UK.

 

[Dystopiary]

In the US, yes, not impossible. Almost certainly not in the UK.

Thank you.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Real classy energy