Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

existentialist said:
Not necessarily. A lot of these abusers aren't doing it for sexual reasons, but for power-related ones - because they think they are above the law, and can get away with it. That's going to be true in spades for people who've been moving in privileged circles, and who may have succeeded in persuading themselves that they are beyond judgement.

Realising that - and I'd imagine a custodial prison sentence in a tough prison is a pretty good way of achieving that realisation - is likely to prompt some very disturbing realisations about things they regarded as core beliefs. It may even be that he was anticipating further revelations, and more disempowerment and humiliation, and suicide may well have started to look like a reasonable option (as an aside, quite a few of the suicidal people I have worked with will cite humiliation or "exposure", often of things that are actually quite trivial, as reasons to die).

I guess it's possible that his death could have been conveniently arranged, but there is a wealth of other possibilities, too.
Click to expand...
A balanced assessment
 
It's also worth remembering, when considering the conspiracy angle, that - and this is something I frequently tell my students - there is nothing anyone can do to prevent a sufficiently motivated and resourceful person from killing themselves. It is extremely difficult to provide a level of oversight that will prevent someone from gaining access to means, and it's probably fair to say that some, at least, of those responsible for guarding people may, deliberately or otherwise, be thinking "it'd be best all round if twatface shuffled off this mortal coil", and negligently (or even "negligently") allow such a thing to happen. And, let's face it, quite a lot of the rest of the world might well feel similar. Personally, I'd rather they had as full a natural life as possible in which to contemplate what they have done, and how far they have fallen, but I'm probably not in the majority.
 
existentialist said:
It's also worth remembering, when considering the conspiracy angle, that - and this is something I frequently tell my students - there is nothing anyone can do to prevent a sufficiently motivated and resourceful person from killing themselves. It is extremely difficult to provide a level of oversight that will prevent someone from gaining access to means, and it's probably fair to say that some, at least, of those responsible for guarding people may, deliberately or otherwise, be thinking "it'd be best all round if twatface shuffled off this mortal coil", and negligently (or even "negligently") allow such a thing to happen. And, let's face it, quite a lot of the rest of the world might well feel similar. Personally, I'd rather they had as full a natural life as possible in which to contemplate what they have done, and how far they have fallen, but I'm probably not in the majority.
Click to expand...
Completely agree - Brady and Hindley ought to have received the 'blind eye' treatment back in the day. Objections would have been few. But i'd have been personally uncomfortable (at least for a short time..)
 
existentialist said:
It's also worth remembering, when considering the conspiracy angle, that - and this is something I frequently tell my students - there is nothing anyone can do to prevent a sufficiently motivated and resourceful person from killing themselves. It is extremely difficult to provide a level of oversight that will prevent someone from gaining access to means, and it's probably fair to say that some, at least, of those responsible for guarding people may, deliberately or otherwise, be thinking "it'd be best all round if twatface shuffled off this mortal coil", and negligently (or even "negligently") allow such a thing to happen. And, let's face it, quite a lot of the rest of the world might well feel similar. Personally, I'd rather they had as full a natural life as possible in which to contemplate what they have done, and how far they have fallen, but I'm probably not in the majority.
Click to expand...
Both yer Stranglers' bass player and Jeffrey Epstein were very wealthy men, far more than the average con. I don't find it hard to imagine either or both of them bribing the guards to leave them in peace for a half an hour or so, miss a scheduled cell check and if necessary f*ck up the CCTV. They wouldn't have had to spell out: I want to top myself, so how about a few thousand dollars / Euros to let me do so... instead they could just say they wanted a private jodrell so how does X thousand $ / € sound to you lads?
 
Maybe Burnel was hoping that somehow Nonciamus Sweatamus would win in a legal dispute with Virginia Giuffre (Burnel was accused of abusing her).

If Andrew had managed to discredit VG, it might have given Burnel some hope for his forthcoming trial. Instead, the news that HWCS had caved in and spaffed £12m of UK taxpayers' money in order to keep Giuffre quiet just for this one year, the Queen's jubilee would, I should think, have been very dispiriting news for a 76-year-old man facing a trial for various rape charges. Especially while being held in La Santé, a notorious 130-year-old jail that was described as a merde-hole by Jean Genet back in the 1930s.
 
redcogs said:
Completely agree - Brady and Hindley ought to have received the 'blind eye' treatment back in the day. Objections would have been few. But i'd have been personally uncomfortable for a short time..
Click to expand...
I don't think so. There was always the chance that more info would come out. Poor Winnie Johnson never got to put her poor little lad to rest but while that pair were alive there was always a chance. And you could say them ending their days earlier would've been them getting off lightly, rather than having to be locked up for the rest of their days.
 
Dystopiary said:
I don't think so. There was always the chance that more info would come out. Poor Winnie Johnson never got to put her poor little lad to rest but while that pair were alive there was always a chance. And you could say them ending their days earlier would've been them getting off lightly, rather than having to be locked up for the rest of their days.
Click to expand...
Aye, no problem conceding the point. A lifetime prison sentence with the added extras is entirely supportable. In fact i recall at the time making that argument as an aspect of general opposition to state executions.
 
scalyboy said:
Maybe Burnel was hoping that somehow Nonciamus Sweatamus would win in a legal dispute with Virginia Giuffre (Burnel was accused of abusing her).

If Andrew had managed to discredit VG, it might have given Burnel some hope for his forthcoming trial. Instead, the news that HWCS had caved in and spaffed £12m of UK taxpayers' money in order to keep Giuffre quiet just for this one year, the Queen's jubilee would, I should think, have been very dispiriting news for a 76-year-old man facing a trial for various rape charges. Especially while being held in La Santé, a notorious 130-year-old jail that was described as a merde-hole by Jean Genet back in the 1930s.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, though I think there was an awful lot of benefit to the other Epstein-associated men from the media focus all being on Andrew.

HRH was always useful in that respect as he is both essentially meaningless and also never going to be someone who'd be surrendered to face actual justice, so the debate could be kept about how absurd he was or what shit his lawyers were trying to pull rather than straying into anything more (to them) serious. His settlement ended that for now, so I guess those involved were going to be under a lot more stress thinking they will be the next up to face the music... if not fearful that one or two people going down could potentially open all manner of cans of worms, even cans of worms as obvious as "modelling".
 
Under the headline NDA (No Debate on Andrew): MPs blocked from investigating whether public money was used to fund Duke of York's £12m settlement by ancient custom barring discussion of royals in Parliament, the Fail is carrying a story about (Middlesbrough (which they can't spell) Labour MP) Andy McDonald's concern about the funding of HWCS's settlement. He can't raise the question in Parliament because of the archaic rule that the monarchy can't be discussed in the House. So he's written to Steve Barclay (Downing St chief of staff) to confirm whether any taxpayer money was used at all to pay the out-of-court settlement and establish that 'no public funds have been or will be used in part or whole in satisfaction of the settlement'.

The article implies that he's waiting for an answer, and ends with the usual anodyne weaselly government spokesman's irrelevant reply to what was presumably the journo's enquiry, to the effect that Andrew is no longer on the Civil List

Interesting that it's the Fail, though.
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article-10558775/MPs-blocked-investigating-public-money-used-fund-Prince-Andrews-12m-settlement.html/SPOILER]
 
Bahnhof Strasse said:
Regarding where the dough is coming from; Queenie doesn’t want to be seen to pay a rape victim to stay quiet, so she has paid £2m to Virginia’s charity. The remaining £10m has come from a ‘bridging loan’ from her and Charles.

Will be one of those ‘loans’ that parents give to kids that no one pays any attention to the paying back part. When questions are raised as to the paying back there will be mumblings about the chalet and investments. Btw, every report on the chalet is no profit will be made on it and it was bought via gift of cash from mum and mortgage, plus deferred payment of a lump (court case last year for his honourable welching on that deal).

So in total the Queen and future king have paid a child rape victim to keep shtum.

God Save The Queen!
Click to expand...


metro.co.uk

Prince Charles 'to loan Andrew up to £7,000,000 to help with sex abuse payout'

Prince Andrew has just 10 days to pay the money to Virginia Giuffre as part of his deal.
metro.co.uk metro.co.uk

Prince Andrew is set to receive £7 million from his older brother to cover the payout for his civil sexual assault case against Virginia Giuffre.
After weeks of lingering questions about who exactly will foot the multi-million pound bill, it is understood Prince Charles will stump up the hefty sum, while the Queen will cover £2 million.
‘Once it (money from the chalet) hits his bank account, he can pay back his brother and whoever else has lent him money.
It is also understood he has to pay the money back to the Queen and his brother when he gets the cash from the £17 million sale of his ski chalet in Switzerland.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, it is, which is why the bit that says 'no profit will be made from the sale' has been bolded a few posts above.

It's long been mentioned on this thread that the chalet sale won't be putting money in his pocket.
 
SpookyFrank said:
Thought that chalet money was going to pay off a load of debts he already had.
Click to expand...


He bought it in 2014 for £18m, has supposedly arranged a sale this year for £18m.

The original £18m came from a gift from his mummy and a mortgage plus £6m deferred that he welched on, (apparently that is settled now as will be paid back out from the £18m sale).

So where’s the money coming from? The Queen and future king have paid off a child sex abuse victim to buy her silence. It’s a terrible thing for anyone to do, but the current and future head of state, Rule Britannia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Humberto
British Empire and Slave Trade Reparations
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
155
Views
6K
shambler
shambler
tony.c
Major suspect named in Stephen Lawrence murder by BBC
Replies
23
Views
2K
Saul Goodman
Saul Goodman
Elpenor
Prince William’s many good deeds
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
176
Views
10K
Petcha
P
BristolEcho
Modern Slavery at TN Trawlers
Replies
5
Views
577
CNT36
C
friedaweed
Gwynedd council calls for abolition of title Prince of Wales
Replies
2
Views
410
Serene
Serene
Back
Top Bottom