Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

I don't know the veracity of this, it is an MSN link, they are saying no money from mummy for Andrew.


From what I could tell she's fronting his lawyers fees, but won't be involved in any payouts, either to make it go away or ordered by a court after a guilty. Cos she has advisors that she actually listens to, I would imagine.

Meanwhile the nonce is trying to fast-track the offloading of the Swiss house so that by the time his guilty comes through he will own nothing at all, no houses (he lives in one of mummy's), no car (Nonce Rover give him a free one on loan cos of his mummy) and so on. The welching, sweaty nonce.
 
From what I could tell she's fronting his lawyers fees, but won't be involved in any payouts, either to make it go away or ordered by a court after a guilty. Cos she has advisors that she actually listens to, I would imagine.
You can imagine the conversation: 'right here's a few more million to fight this thing. Obviously, you won't need any more for a payout, as you are definitley not a sweaty nonce? That's right isn't it son? Y'know, I've always thought you were too honourable, so there's no chance you'll have to pay millions for being a child rapist? Yeah?
 
The 61-year old "wants to clear his name" from accusations that he sexually abused Giuffre three times when she was only 17 years old. But he does not want to do so in court as he fears that a trial could cause irreparable damage to the reputation of the British monarchy.

As such, Prince Andrew is said to be looking to settle the case outside of court. This would mean putting out a hefty sum which sources claimed could go as high as £3million. Queen Elizabeth II will reportedly "not assist" with the settlement.


I'm curious about how paying her 3 million quid would clear his name tbh
 
The 61-year old "wants to clear his name" from accusations that he sexually abused Giuffre three times when she was only 17 years old. But he does not want to do so in court as he fears that a trial could cause irreparable damage to the reputation of the British monarchy.

As such, Prince Andrew is said to be looking to settle the case outside of court. This would mean putting out a hefty sum which sources claimed could go as high as £3million. Queen Elizabeth II will reportedly "not assist" with the settlement.


I'm curious about how paying her 3 million quid would clear his name tbh
Ask Micheal Jackson. Oh wait….
 
Assuming the judge allows a trial to go ahead, his preferred choices might now be:

1. Go to trial and win. Lots of dirty laundry, the bad publicity gets wound up by several notches, but he get's a nominal victory.
2. Pay off. A loss in every sense, but slightly better than...
3. Go to trial and lose. All the bad publicity + cost + (slight) risk of criminal conviction. Royal family probably have to expel him.

His problem is that if the judge allows a trial, he loses control of all the above. Can't even guarantee Giuffre would accept 2.
 
The 61-year old "wants to clear his name" from accusations that he sexually abused Giuffre three times when she was only 17 years old. But he does not want to do so in court as he fears that a trial could cause irreparable damage to the reputation of the British monarchy.

As such, Prince Andrew is said to be looking to settle the case outside of court. This would mean putting out a hefty sum which sources claimed could go as high as £3million. Queen Elizabeth II will reportedly "not assist" with the settlement.


I'm curious about how paying her 3 million quid would clear his name tbh
I'm curious where he would get the money from.
 
From memory, didn't he owe £6M to the seller, and about £12M was mortgaged. Given the sale price people are talking about, and the fact he's not the sole owner, I can't see how he's got the equity in it to pay much. Which might be a deliberate strategy, of course.
 
We've covered this before, the chalet was bought with a mortgage and he still owed the sellers a large wedge, to be recouped through the chalet's sale. So doubt there's a whole lot left after that.


Latest figures I read was bought for £16.6m, selling 7 years later for £17.2m. It was a 'family investment', raised less than a semi in Stockwell would have done in the same time.
 
We've covered this before, the chalet was bought with a mortgage and he still owed the sellers a large wedge, to be recouped through the chalet's sale. So doubt there's a whole lot left after that.
I don't have a great deal of knowledge about the French property market or how much of the mortgage he's paid off, so I wouldn't like to guess how much he'll be able to raise tbh
 
I don't really like it very much at all, but will tune in for that episode of Can't Pay We'll Take It Away.
Images of him with the Maxwell brothers, some union jack waist-coated flag-waving Buck House fanbois and assorted wackos disconsolately wailing from the pavement But we do not stand under! We do not stand under!
 
Re: sale of chaelt. This is what was in the Mirror yesterday. Makes no mention of how much is owed on the mortgage.



Andrew, 61, owns Chalet Helora in the ski resort of Verbier with ex-wife Sarah Ferguson. It is understood to be his only method of raising substantial amounts of cash. The pair agreed last September to sell the seven-bedroom property to a wealthy European investor. They bought it from millionaire French socialite Isabelle de Rouvre in 2014 for £16.6m.

But the deal has not been completed. Sources close to the Duke suggest he wants to push the sale through “urgently”. Andrew and Fergie still owe £6.6million from the original purchase. Ms de Rouvre last year threatened to take them to court in Switzerland after they missed a payment date in December 2019.

The Yorks later agreed to pay the cash once they complete the sale of the property. As Andrew prepares to hear his fate Fergie, 62, and their children are this week enjoying “a final family holiday” at the chalet.
 
If Tatler is to be believed, they're selling for £17m, with £6.7M going to the former owner; they'll also have to settle what's left of the mortgage (reported to have been £13.25M in 2016). It appears it was owned jointly, so he'd only get a share of any remaining equity. All of which suggests he doesn't stand to make much from it, given the size of what he's facing.

 
Of the five charges she was convicted on, the verdicts were unanimous, so unless Maxwell's legal team are planning on arguing that this was some serious Jimmy Stewart-level jurorising then I don't necessarily see the judge automatically waving the white flag on this.
In US federal trials the verdict has to be unanimous, not majority. This is one of the things I have learnt in the past fortnight.
 
Back
Top Bottom