Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

We'll always have the Pizza Express interview. One of my favorites of all time. 

[viii]

A fitting response from you, @EmCatlyn. I literally expected nothing less. 

[tabitha2]

Please. You know pulp writers will suddenly come out the wood work with “explosive! never before heard! Uncovered! new information! Hear what Andrews  dentist  has to say!” Tell all books that always get published after sensational trials like this .

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I am pretty sure that “No denial of anything” doesn’t constitute an admission of guilt.

Not legally, but in a common sense way it does.  

For the sake of argument here is a hypothetical.  Let's say you accuse me publicly on FJ of secretly editing the content of your posts so you appear to be saying things you never intended.  And for the hypothetical say you could sue me over this.  I deny the allegations in response to your posts calling me out.  

I know I'd never change your content, and you'd know what you originally typed.  For everyone else reading it's your word against mine.

Then I settle out of court with the following public statement, "“Buffy never intended to malign EmCatlyn’s character” and that she is “an established victim of comment tampering.”  

Although I am not saying I'm the one who tampered with your posts, my lack of an affirmative statement asserting that while you are a victim I am not the one that victimized you would absolutely be read by everyone as an admission of guilt.  

Same thing but much higher stakes on a world stage.  

[MamaJunebug]

6 hours ago, viii said:

The wording marks his guilt. No denial of anything. 

I also wish they'd disclose the actual sum of money he's going to pay, rather than say a 'substantial donation'. Substantial can mean different things to different people.  

Lawyer friend of mine was jubilant when he found out the lawyer for Ms. Giuffre was a guy named Boies, who’s incredible and commands thousands of dollars an hour. I’d say based on this that “substantial” means a high-level substantial. Anyway, I hope so. Let Andy & his minion Sarah scale back their lifestyle a lot. 

[sndral]

I found this part of the statement particularly interesting “…Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Griuffre’s character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks. It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years, Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others….” https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-settlement-jeffrey-epstein-1300515/
He should have learned from Clinton’s sex scandal & rather than using the ‘I never had sex with that woman’ defense in the face of that photo (and, you know, a memory that he actually probably did,) gone w/ a more believable defense of yes I had sex with her but thought she was legal & willing - he’d still have looked like the cad he is, but the attacks on her by the rabid royalty leghumpers would have been less vicious IMO.

It’s also interesting that contrary to his statement in the TV interview that he didn’t regret his friendship w/ Epstein now he’s sorry. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by sndral

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

Lawyer friend of mine was jubilant when he found out the lawyer for Ms. Giuffre was a guy named Boies, who’s incredible and commands thousands of dollars an hour. I’d say based on this that “substantial” means a high-level substantial. Anyway, I hope so. Let Andy & his minion Sarah scale back their lifestyle a lot. 

If he has to donate directly to her charity non-profits have to disclose financials publicly so eventually it would be pretty easy estimate how much it was if her np was based in the US.  I don't know if Australia has the same rules.  

 

[hoipolloi]

No official word, of course, but The Telegraph, a Tory house organ, are saying that the settlement is  £12 million, to be paid in large part by the Queen:

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

21 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

No official word, of course, but The Telegraph, a Tory house organ, are saying that the settlement is  £12 million, to be paid in large part by the Queen:

 

Lot of money to ensure her little boy isn't held accountable.  

How very Duggar like of her.  

[tabitha2]

That’s predictable if true. Andrew doesn’t have all that much money for a Royal person and Mom does. 

[Ozlsn]

6 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

If he has to donate directly to her charity non-profits have to disclose financials publicly so eventually it would be pretty easy estimate how much it was if her np was based in the US.  I don't know if Australia has the same rules.  

 

Depends on how big the charity is to a certain extent (large-med need to provide audited reports, small ones don't but provide statements), but it'll be on the ACNC website at some point.  Also depends over what timeframe as to how noticeable it would be and/or if it's donations across several charities.

[formergothardite]

5 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Lot of money to ensure her little boy isn't held accountable.  

How very Duggar like of her.  

Very Duggar like of her. Got to protect the predator son. And, no it isn’t protecting the crown or the royal institution or whatever excuse people will come up with. It would be a much better look for the royal family if they hung him out to dry. If he couldn’t pay off a settlement to the vulnerable teen he sexually assaulted, then let him deal with consequences of that. Show the world that the royal family won’t bail out one of their own when they are revealed to be a predator.

[tabitha2]

As long as it’s her personal money I’d say It’s just best to get it over and done with.Andrew will have the rest of his life to pay for his actions… no formal role or job in life , destroyed reputation, after mother no one in his family is going ever cater to his luxurious high living tastes that’s for certain.His former high living wealthy “friends” will now disappear because association with him now is not profitable or convenient.  He will end up an old man in an old manor largely deserted and forgotten except for Ex , his daughters and grandchildren visiting and private family events if the parties are feeling very charitable. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

As long as it’s her personal money I’d say It’s just best to get it over and done with.Andrew will have the rest of his life to pay for his actions… no formal role or job in life , destroyed reputation, after mother no one in his family is going ever cater to his luxurious high living tastes that’s for certain.His former high living wealthy “friends” will now disappear because association with him now is not profitable or convenient.  He will end up an old man in an old manor largely deserted and forgotten except for Ex , his daughters and grandchildren visiting and private family events if the parties are feeling very charitable. 

To the bolded, that is a much better life than much of the world.

Getting it over and done with means protecting a predator from the consequences of his actions.  

[Coconut Flan]

It's very mild and extremely delayed consequences from something that should have landed him in prison.

[hoipolloi]

As usual, the brilliant Cold War Steve -- a latter-day Hogarth -- absolutely nails it:

I love this comment:

"Oh the former duke of York, he had 12 million quid.

He gave it to someone he didn’t remember, for something he never did…"

 

[formergothardite]

5 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

It's very mild and extremely delayed consequences from something that should have landed him in prison.

Exactly. Getting to live out his days in a life of luxury that most of us can’t even imagine is only a punishment for an excessively spoiled, entitled prince. The queen is doing him no favors by bailing him out. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

18 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Exactly. Getting to live out his days in a life of luxury that most of us can’t even imagine is only a punishment for an excessively spoiled, entitled prince. The queen is doing him no favors by bailing him out. 

It's too late for her to have any effect on him, but she's doing the monarchy no favors by continuing the message to the public that accountability is for commoners and these people are above repercussions based on nothing but the accident of their birth.  

I honestly do not understand how people in this day and age are so okay with accepting that some are above them based on nothing but their parentage.  

Regarding money, 12 mil to these people is like my giving my kid $20 to pick up cat food and telling him to keep the change.  I know there is some legal distinction between private money and whatever belong to the crown, but that requires suspending the disbelief that these reigning monarchs don't have literally more money than they can spend their entire lives. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by HerNameIsBuffy

[EmCatlyn]

On 2/15/2022 at 2:35 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Not legally, but in a common sense way it does.  

For the sake of argument here is a hypothetical.  Let's say you accuse me publicly on FJ of secretly editing the content of your posts so you appear to be saying things you never intended.  And for the hypothetical say you could sue me over this.  I deny the allegations in response to your posts calling me out.  

I know I'd never change your content, and you'd know what you originally typed.  For everyone else reading it's your word against mine.

Then I settle out of court with the following public statement, "“Buffy never intended to malign EmCatlyn’s character” and that she is “an established victim of comment tampering.”  

Although I am not saying I'm the one who tampered with your posts, my lack of an affirmative statement asserting that while you are a victim I am not the one that victimized you would absolutely be read by everyone as an admission of guilt.  

Same thing but much higher stakes on a world stage.  

I know what you are saying, but I don’t see “lack of an affirmative statement” as an “admission of guilt.”  I see it as a compromise statement.  If someone refuses to admit guilt (either because they didn’t do something or because they just don’t want to admit it) the “compromise” wording shouldn’t be seen as an “admission of guilt.”

I have been in situations where the “compromise statement” did not reflect the truth for either side, but it was chosen to end the dispute. (Example: when I couldn’t get my son out of an abusive teacher’s classroom, I compromised on, “she doesn’t support his learning style.”  I wasn’t saying she wasn’t abusive, and she was no longer saying my son wasn’t an imp from hell.  But I got him away from her class.)

Let me emphasize that my concern isn’t about Andrew but about how we use language.  When someone carefully avoids saying something it is not accurate to equate that to an admission of guilt.  You can certainly argue that “failure to deny raises strong suspicions of guilt,” and you can always argue further that “failure to deny is equivalent to admitting guilt,” but I am uncomfortable with that because it seems to be conflating interpretation with fact.  He did not admit guilt.  He avoided admitting guilt, which some people might see as an indication of guilt but isn’t an “admission.”

So, maybe it’s nit picky, but I think we should not confuse text (what was said) with interpretation (how we understood it).  This isn’t to say that Andrew wasn’t guilty, just that he didn’t actually admit it.

We should just agree to disagree, but I want to be clear on what we are disagreeing on.😉

Edited February 17, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Clean up

[SoSoNosy]

I can understand her, to a point, from personal experience.  My mother adored my brother; he didn't do anything scandalous, he just didn't think he should have to work.  She told me that she "didn't know how to say no" to his financial demands/requests, so she put him on her bank accounts.  He spent her money freely until I caught on to what was going on, got myself put on the accounts, and threatened to prosecute him for elder abuse.  She couldn't stand the thought of him not talking to her anymore if she ever told him no.  He wasn't hurting her financially, really, she had plenty, but he also didn't need what he was spending.  

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, SoSoNosy said:

I can understand her, to a point, from personal experience.  My mother adored my brother; he didn't do anything scandalous, he just didn't think he should have to work.  She told me that she "didn't know how to say no" to his financial demands/requests, so she put him on her bank accounts.  He spent her money freely until I caught on to what was going on, got myself put on the accounts, and threatened to prosecute him for elder abuse.  She couldn't stand the thought of him not talking to her anymore if she ever told him no.  He wasn't hurting her financially, really, she had plenty, but he also didn't need what he was spending.  

I think the Queen is “helping” with Andrew’s costs and the settlement because it is in the best interests of the Crown to hush up this matter.

This doesn’t mean that she hasn’t spoiled/ paid his bills  and made excuses for him in the past.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

How much will Andrew's life change once Charles becomes King?  I know he's got a 75 year lease on his place in England and is trying to sell the Swiss chalet, but I'm just wondering how different his life will be on a day to day basis once he can't rely on his mother anymore.  

[rosamundi]

19 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

How much will Andrew's life change once Charles becomes King?  I know he's got a 75 year lease on his place in England and is trying to sell the Swiss chalet, but I'm just wondering how different his life will be on a day to day basis once he can't rely on his mother anymore.  

I guess a lot will depend on what Prince Phillip left him, and what The Queen will leave him in her will. He receives £20,000 a year pension for being in the Royal Navy, and The Queen paid him £250K (I think) a year for carrying out his Royal duties.

He may receive sufficient in inheritances from his parents that he can just live off the income from that, carefully invested, and pass that down to his daughters.

Charles may well decided that £250K a year to his brother to shut up and not make a scene is money well spent, but if it is paid, it will come from (and be made very clear that it comes from) his private money, not any of the money which is paid by the Government in relation to carrying out Royal duties.

Prince Philip's will is sealed for a hundred years (I think), and the Queen's will be likewise, although there is currently a court case rumbling on about the automatic sealing of Royal wills and whether that should be allowed or not.

[tabitha2]

His days of lavish entertaining and jet setting under the guise of work are done. With his inheritance and pension he can live a very comfortable but not luxurious  life similar to his Aristocratic unroyal cousins or Ann’s children. As That maybe easier said than done given his indulgent and foolish and Greedy nature I would not be surprised if he gets in money trouble by gambling , bad investments  or just living beyond  his means.  

[MamaJunebug]

9 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

given his indulgent and foolish and Greedy nature I would not be surprised if he gets in money trouble by gambling , bad investments  or just living beyond  his means.  

I confess: I have a bag of cheesy popcorn from Sam’s Club ready for while I watch the fun.