By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Hopefully this will allow the victims justice by exposing such a deal and its implications etc. While it might not bring the Windsors down, it is another step away from the backward trajectory the country has taken elsewhere perhaps.
Guilty or innocent - who knows? What I think is certain is he will never stand trial, even if the evidence were to be overwhelming. One thing he is 100% guilty of is gross stupidity. Visiting a convicted sex offender to break off your friendship!!!!!!
bluescouser
0
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 19:23 - Jan 3 with 2318 views
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 18:25 - Jan 3 by cbower
Guilty or innocent - who knows? What I think is certain is he will never stand trial, even if the evidence were to be overwhelming. One thing he is 100% guilty of is gross stupidity. Visiting a convicted sex offender to break off your friendship!!!!!!
Should have let him stay in the Navy. Instead he just became a bored bloke with a non-job which gave him a lot of exposure to shady international business and finance types.
Doesn't excuse whatever he may (or may not) have done, but does explain how he ended up in that situation.
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 18:12 - Jan 3 by pointofblue
I agree. She went for the money in 2009 and it means she might not be able to take the claim further now.
That's true but I don't see how it stops her in reality. If Epstein was alive he could claim back the money if she went ahead with it I suppose. But I don't see how an agreement like that can work in practice.
Either way, for the document to specifically say that no Royals are to be sued it makes Andrew appear very very dodgy.
0
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 20:10 - Jan 3 with 2103 views
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 20:05 - Jan 3 by RadioOrwell
That's true but I don't see how it stops her in reality. If Epstein was alive he could claim back the money if she went ahead with it I suppose. But I don't see how an agreement like that can work in practice.
Either way, for the document to specifically say that no Royals are to be sued it makes Andrew appear very very dodgy.
And that is the problem - why bother extending the agreement to cover your mates if they were innocent?
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 18:25 - Jan 3 by cbower
Guilty or innocent - who knows? What I think is certain is he will never stand trial, even if the evidence were to be overwhelming. One thing he is 100% guilty of is gross stupidity. Visiting a convicted sex offender to break off your friendship!!!!!!
Mayber he's being required to protect the family name/instititution, but whether that's so or he's just refusing to go to the USA for questioning/court appearance as a personal decision, it's completely the wrong thing to do.
The boil needs to be lanced or it'll just fester under cover anyway. If he's actually innocent it's both stupid & sad to waste away a life in a virtual open prison looking like a coward, and people assuming it implies guilt anyway.
If he's guilty then it's better being exposed & dealt with for once and all, rather than becoming another of those shameful hushed-up royal secrets that become the subject of documentaries in 30 years time.
Maybe we need SB or others to comment here, but as this is a civil action and according the this deal Giuffre signed a settlement on the terms that no other people can be pursued could let the worms off the proverbial hook?
0
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 20:21 - Jan 3 with 2026 views
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 20:05 - Jan 3 by RadioOrwell
That's true but I don't see how it stops her in reality. If Epstein was alive he could claim back the money if she went ahead with it I suppose. But I don't see how an agreement like that can work in practice.
Either way, for the document to specifically say that no Royals are to be sued it makes Andrew appear very very dodgy.
From what I read the phrasing of the agreement was:
“remise, release, acquit, satisfy and forever discharge the said second parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant, from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including state or federal, cause and causes of action”.
Whether you can release such future charges is the key legal question.
0
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 20:38 - Jan 3 with 1959 views
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 20:21 - Jan 3 by WicklowBlue
From what I read the phrasing of the agreement was:
“remise, release, acquit, satisfy and forever discharge the said second parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant, from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including state or federal, cause and causes of action”.
Whether you can release such future charges is the key legal question.
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 19:59 - Jan 3 by Guthrum
Should have let him stay in the Navy. Instead he just became a bored bloke with a non-job which gave him a lot of exposure to shady international business and finance types.
Doesn't excuse whatever he may (or may not) have done, but does explain how he ended up in that situation.
Same with Harry - should have let him stay in the army.
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 19:59 - Jan 3 by Guthrum
Should have let him stay in the Navy. Instead he just became a bored bloke with a non-job which gave him a lot of exposure to shady international business and finance types.
Doesn't excuse whatever he may (or may not) have done, but does explain how he ended up in that situation.
He was too high in the order of succession in those days to be allowed to continue with a military career.
Furthermore, if Prince George (William's eldest) were to become King before he was eighteen (22 July 2031), then the Regent would be Andrew (assuming Harry doesn't return to live in the UK.
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 21:06 - Jan 3 by factual_blue
He was too high in the order of succession in those days to be allowed to continue with a military career.
Furthermore, if Prince George (William's eldest) were to become King before he was eighteen (22 July 2031), then the Regent would be Andrew (assuming Harry doesn't return to live in the UK.
It's all a bit messy.
I think logic says Edward or Anne would make more sense to be Regent than Harry or Andrew!
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 21:06 - Jan 3 by factual_blue
He was too high in the order of succession in those days to be allowed to continue with a military career.
Furthermore, if Prince George (William's eldest) were to become King before he was eighteen (22 July 2031), then the Regent would be Andrew (assuming Harry doesn't return to live in the UK.
It's all a bit messy.
Tho his grandfather remained in the Navy despite being second in line to the throne, even seing action during the First World War (notably at Jutland).
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 22:24 - Jan 3 by Zx1988
Even if the challenge succeeds, hopefully any other victims will have been emboldened by recent goings on to pursue their own legal actions.
Whatever happens from here on in, the damage is done.
There probably are too many who think he is innocent.
Some of the forelock tuggers will have that he is the victim of gold diggers - albeit underage gold diggers. Whilst cynics will have that he knew exactly what he was doing and like the rest thought that the rules did not apply to him, and none of it would come out anyway.
Somewhere in between, the rest of us fall.
The longer this plays, the more damage it will cause. Once the queen has gone his protection will as well, along with the free loading Fergie, I have no doubt. There is no love lost between Charlie and Juan Carlos jnr, and Porchie boy.
They both recognise the harm he is already causing, and what further harm could follow. It is the huge respect the Queen has that is probably keeping this show on the road.
As to ginger Tom in the US, Andrews two pop eyed daughters, the ghastly Fergie, there is a clear case for reform, and removal of their free loading life.
And not before time either.
0
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 22:51 - Jan 3 with 1514 views
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 22:47 - Jan 3 by HARRY10
Whatever happens from here on in, the damage is done.
There probably are too many who think he is innocent.
Some of the forelock tuggers will have that he is the victim of gold diggers - albeit underage gold diggers. Whilst cynics will have that he knew exactly what he was doing and like the rest thought that the rules did not apply to him, and none of it would come out anyway.
Somewhere in between, the rest of us fall.
The longer this plays, the more damage it will cause. Once the queen has gone his protection will as well, along with the free loading Fergie, I have no doubt. There is no love lost between Charlie and Juan Carlos jnr, and Porchie boy.
They both recognise the harm he is already causing, and what further harm could follow. It is the huge respect the Queen has that is probably keeping this show on the road.
As to ginger Tom in the US, Andrews two pop eyed daughters, the ghastly Fergie, there is a clear case for reform, and removal of their free loading life.
And not before time either.
Surely the point is that we do not know whether he is innocent or guilty. Even if he shagged the lady in quesiton, we do not know what he knew about how she go there or her age.
0
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 23:04 - Jan 3 with 1478 views
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 22:51 - Jan 3 by ZXBlue
Surely the point is that we do not know whether he is innocent or guilty. Even if he shagged the lady in quesiton, we do not know what he knew about how she go there or her age.
eh >
The point I made was that the damage is done, irrespective of whether he did have sex with her
And we do know her age at the time.
Do keep up.
0
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 23:29 - Jan 3 with 1409 views
Breaking Prince Andrew news on 23:26 - Jan 3 by HARRY10
eh >
The point I made was that the damage is done, irrespective of whether he did have sex with her
And we do know her age at the time.
Do keep up.
We dont know he knew her age at the time.
The point you made was, in effect, that he is guilty (as demonstrated by the references to forlock tuggers and there being too many people who think he is innocent) despite not having nearly enough reliable information to reach such a view.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
