The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[ECCOnoob 1,041]

9 minutes ago, altus said:

Now prove the image on the left isn't the edited one. That right arm, i.e. the one that only appears in the left image, looks a more uniform colour than her other arm. Bit strange that.

If only there could be an independent party and judicial process  which could have assessed and come to a determination on such contention.

 

Clearly we will never know now that little miss 'victim' has chosen to take the money instead of continuing her so-called quest for the truth and justice.   

[hackey lad 3,972]

Just now, ECCOnoob said:

If only there could be an independent party and judicial process  which could have assessed and come to a determination on such contention.

 

Clearly we will never know now that little miss 'victim' has chosen to take the money instead of continuing her so-called quest for the truth and justice.   

[altus 540]

1 minute ago, ECCOnoob said:

If only there could be an independent party and judicial process  which could have assessed and come to a determination on such contention.

 

Clearly we will never know now that little miss 'victim' has chosen to take the money instead of continuing her so-called quest for the truth and justice.   

Indeed. Clearly we will never know now that the prince has chosen to pay off the victim instead of continuing his so-called quest for the truth and justice. See, that sort of accusation works both ways.

[ECCOnoob 1,041]

58 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

How anybody can think this bloke is innocent is madness,  he was naive and  kept bad company my backside,   he was  involved and  aware of every thing going off around him with Epstein,  he just didn't call round to Epsteins for the odd cuppa and a chat for ten minuets once a blue moon.  Paying someone off shows guilt, hush money, flippinhell, I knew from the start he would squirm his way out.  Slimey Toad.

People don't need to think. He is innocent. Not a single criminal charge has been made against him and not a single court of law has found him guilty. 

 

The only case which went anywhere near a court door was for civil monetary damages, which, much your disappointment, has fizzled away to no fault and no liability found.

 

That's it. Shows over. Under the rule of law he is as innocent as before any of this circus started.  People I'm sure we'll keep thinking whatever but the fact is commercial settlement it's just that. A financially beneficial decision in the party making it.

 

The old washerwomen and hysterical Media will have to find something else to gossip about now. 

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by ECCOnoob

[ECCOnoob 1,041]

1 minute ago, altus said:

Indeed. Clearly we will never know now that the prince has chosen to pay off the victim instead of continuing his so-called quest for the truth and justice. See, that sort of accusation works both ways.

Except, only one side of the parties was the one demanding Justice, demanding the truth must come out demanding a voice must be heard.

 

I think you will find the prince maintained denial of the accusations and had no liability right from the start of all this..... and guess what, that's exactly what the outcome has been.

 

Whatever the result she claimed she wanted by bringing the case she ain't got it. However, if as I keep saying, she was only in it for the money against an easy high profile target - well I have proven my point.

[altus 540]

7 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Except, only one side of the parties was the one demanding Justice, demanding the truth must come out demanding a voice must be heard.

 

I think you will find the prince maintained denial of the accusations and had no liability right from the start of all this..... and guess what, that's exactly what the outcome has been.

 

Whatever the result she claimed she wanted by bringing the case she ain't got it. However, if as I keep saying, she was only in it for the money against an easy high profile target - well I have proven my point.

The prince previously said he would never settle and wanted a jury trial so to imply she's the only one to go back on what they previously claimed is disingenuous. He is just as responsible for things not being tested in court as she is.

 

Andrew may have avoided facing the allegations in court and as such not been found liable. That doesn't mean things will go back to how they were before for him. His reputation is shredded, he's lost all his official positions and will never be a 'public' royal again.

[ECCOnoob 1,041]

10 minutes ago, altus said:

The prince previously said he would never settle and wanted a jury trial so to imply she's the only one to go back on what they previously claimed is disingenuous. He is just as responsible for things not being tested in court as she is.

 

Andrew may have avoided facing the allegations in court and as such not been found liable. That doesn't mean things will go back to how they were before for him. His reputation is shredded, he's lost all his official positions and will never be a 'public' royal again.

The question, is that fair?

 

She gets to ruin a reputation without a shred of evidence being produced, the high profile accused gets publicly named and shamed beyond any levels of recovery - regardless of fault or guilt, the court of public opinion and media passes its own entirely speculative and ill-informed sentence,  leaving nothing more the mounting costs and ever increasingly happy lawyers.

 

Whole thing stinks.  I certainly don't know enough about American law but it seems completely bizarre to me that a case can get so high profile, with so much media attention without even the basic provision of evidential proof and sworn allegations being established.

Edited February 15, 2022 by ECCOnoob

[altus 540]

5 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

The question, is that fair?

 

She gets to ruin a reputation without a shred of evidence being produced, the high profile accused gets publicly named and shamed beyond any levels of recovery - regardless of fault or guilt, the court of public opinion and media passes its own entirely speculative and ill-informed sentence,  leaving nothing more the mounting costs and ever increasingly happy lawyers.

 

Whole thing stinks.  I certainly don't know enough about American law but it seems completely bizarre to me that a case can get so high profile, with so much media attention without even the basic provision of evidential proof and sworn allegations being established.

Had he not gone through every loophole his lawyers could think of questioning Giuffre's motives/integrity/etc. to try and avoid a trial he claimed he wanted only to choose to settle after he'd exhausted all other options people might have viewed him a bit more sympathetically. Did he only settle because he realised he'd perform terribly in court[1]? Possibly. It's all academic now.

 

 

[1] His performance in the Maitlis interview showed he'll likely be his own worst enemy has he appeared in court.

[hackey lad 3,972]

Why did she settle , twice  , when she said she wanted justice?

[Dromedary 166]

2 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Why did she settle , twice  , when she said she wanted justice?

Why did he also settle when he said he wanted it to go to trial?

[cgksheff 44]

7 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Why did she settle , twice  , when she said she wanted justice?

It is an adversarial contest.

Neither side will ever suggest withdrawal until a deal is reached.

She will have been advised as to the probable net result if continuing, versus offers from Andrew.

[crookesey 635]

I suppose that the untouchability of the royals has been tested and found wanting. His father had affairs literally in their dozens and went to his grave with his reputation virtually unblemished, something that is no longer possible. I blame the Queen, there is no way that his goings on could have been missed by the royal machine, perhaps she had gotten used to it In respect of her late husband. I see this as a beginning to the end of respect for the royals by their closest protectors.