The prince and the paedophile

[Gordon]

Nope, if you have to sweat to get your point across it means your point doesn't carry enough weight to be convincing.

I think you've got a fucking typo in there, Spud.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope, if you have to sweat to get your point across it means your point doesn't carry enough weight to be convincing.

Is this aimed at Prince Andrew?

[Spud]

This post of yours is contemptible, and the sad thing is that I suspect you have no idea why.

I'd say more, but I fear if I spent longer considering what you said I'd have to immediately take a shower to remove the contamination.

I would be glad to put that right, and as this is partly a 'religion' forum I suggest it's relevant to think about whether the OT has anything to say about the case.
I'm guessing the latter half of the post is what bothers you.
What I meant by "Maybe we should assume the same here" is, perhaps we should assume that Giuffre is telling the truth, just as the woman in Deut 22:26 is assumed to be telling the truth and not found guilty of adultery, due to lack of evidence (it happened in the countryside). This would be wrong though - since there is no evidence that Giuffre was abused by Andrew, she cannot be assumed to be telling the truth. So I shouldn't have compared that verse with this case. I thought the verse might have meant that the woman's word should always be believed. But it doesn't mean that.
And I don't think you can assume he is guilty because he paid her money - which you seem to be doing.
By "but that she only spoke out when she was no longer being paid by Epstein, does suggest she was motivated enough by money to be, at least to an extent, complicit in what took place" I am referring to the fact that she continued working as a masseuse without saying anything. Where Deut. 22 is relevant here is that it expects a young woman to raise the alarm if she is being raped. I think it is reasonable to expect that Giuffre could have said something nearer the time, and her accusation against Andrew becomes less convincing the longer she leaves it.
We are perhaps wrong in thinking that Andrew is paying her, personally, millions; that he is offering to support her charity is perhaps a goodwill gesture.

[SteveH]

I think the thread title is wrong. Getting your end away with a wiling 17-year-old is not paedophilia as normaly understood. In most countries, it's not even ilegal.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the thread title is wrong. Getting your end away with a wiling 17-year-old is not paedophilia as normaly understood. In most countries, it's not even ilegal.

I refer you to my reply #5 on the thread, and your reply #6

[Dicky Underpants]

..........
 Where Deut. 22 is relevant here is that it expects a young woman to raise the alarm if she is being raped. I think it is reasonable to expect that Giuffre could have said something nearer the time, and her accusation against Andrew becomes less convincing the longer she leaves it.
We are perhaps wrong in thinking that Andrew is paying her, personally, millions; that he is offering to support her charity is perhaps a goodwill gesture.

I think you should do a little more research into some other reasons why women do not immediately speak out at the time they were abused.
I think your posting of a text from Deuteronomy to illustrate your point is pretty disgusting, but I suppose we should be grateful you didn't quote Numbers 31.

[Gordon]

I would be glad to put that right, and as this is partly a 'religion' forum I suggest it's relevant to think about whether the OT has anything to say about the case.

Lovely: but it doesn't, as you have already demonstrated.

I'm guessing the latter half of the post is what bothers you.
What I meant by "Maybe we should assume the same here" is, perhaps we should assume that Giuffre is telling the truth, just as the woman in Deut 22:26 is assumed to be telling the truth and not found guilty of adultery, due to lack of evidence (it happened in the countryside). This would be wrong though - since there is no evidence that Giuffre was abused by Andrew, she cannot be assumed to be telling the truth. So I shouldn't have compared that verse with this case. I thought the verse might have meant that the woman's word should always be believed. But it doesn't mean that.

Even lovelier, were it not for the simple fact that we won't get to hear any evidence from either party and sexual abuse is sexual abuse whether it occurs in the centre of George Square in Glasgow or on the banks of Loch Lomond (which is just up the road from here and most definitely "in the countryside") - hence we can ditch the OT as being of any relevance.

And I don't think you can assume he is guilty because he paid her money - which you seem to be doing.

I'm not: but I am wondering why someone who at first accused her of seeking a 'payday' and who more recently said he would see her in court, suddenly decides to settle for it seems a substantial sum that, by all accounts, he doesn't have himself. One can reasonably infer that he decided not to risk rebutting her accusations in court for, presumably, reasons that involved the possibility that the case would go against him.

By "but that she only spoke out when she was no longer being paid by Epstein, does suggest she was motivated enough by money to be, at least to an extent, complicit in what took place" I am referring to the fact that she continued working as a masseuse without saying anything.

So you don't think that her being exploited by powerful people might have deterred her from coming forward when she was still a teenager?

Where Deut. 22 is relevant here is that it expects a young woman to raise the alarm if she is being raped. I think it is reasonable to expect that Giuffre could have said something nearer the time, and her accusation against Andrew becomes less convincing the longer she leaves it.

She was being exploited at the time by powerful people and now she isn't, so presumably she now feels better able to address the exploitation she suffered as a teenager. I'm not convinced that the OT has anything relevant to say about the agency of women as regards their sexuality in current times.
 

We are perhaps wrong in thinking that Andrew is paying her, personally, millions; that he is offering to support her charity is perhaps a goodwill gesture.

Or he is buying her off rather that rebut her allegations in court (and in public) - which isn't a good look on any basis, and his fall from grace as administered by his mother just adds to the doubt about the credibility of his assertions of innocence.

Stop digging.

[Spud]

Lovely: but it doesn't, as you have already demonstrated.

Even lovelier, were it not for the simple fact that we won't get to hear any evidence from either party and sexual abuse is sexual abuse whether it occurs in the centre of George Square in Glasgow or on the banks of Loch Lomond (which is just up the road from here and most definitely "in the countryside") - hence we can ditch the OT as being of any relevance.

I'm not: but I am wondering why someone who at first accused her of seeking a 'payday' and who more recently said he would see her in court, suddenly decides to settle for it seems a substantial sum that, by all accounts, he doesn't have himself. One can reasonably infer that he decided not to risk rebutting her accusations in court for, presumably, reasons that involved the possibility that the case would go against him.

So you don't think that her being exploited by powerful people might have deterred her from coming forward when she was still a teenager?

She was being exploited at the time by powerful people and now she isn't, so presumably she now feels better able to address the exploitation she suffered as a teenager. I'm not convinced that the OT has anything relevant to say about the agency of women as regards their sexuality in current times.
 
Or he is buying her off rather that rebut her allegations in court (and in public) - which isn't a good look on any basis, and his fall from grace as administered by his mother just adds to the doubt about the credibility of his assertions of innocence.

Stop digging.

Was she was forced to continue working as a masseuse? I think she did so because she enjoyed the lifestyle and wages. Apparently this is evident from her book, but I may be wrong.

Apparently one reason for the settlement is that it would cost him less than to go to court.

Clearly she was wronged, the question is was Andrew part of that and is she seeking to profit from it.

Yesterday I took some time to read Lady Victoria Hervey's claims about the photo of VG in G. Maxwell's house with Prince Andrew. She produced images of photos that show VG at a party on a boat in the south of France a few months after the alleged incident in GM's house (which was March 10 2001). She is wearing the same trousers and vest in both the house and on the boat. Two pictures of her on the boat show her holding a jumper and standing among party-goers.
Firstly, how likely is it for her to have been wearing only a vest in front of an open window on the evening of 10 March, when the top temperature in London that day had reportedly been 12C and the first week of that month had seen snow and sub-zero temperatures? Secondly, the same outfit, plus a jumper, was suitable for weather in S France two months later. Thirdly, another photo from VH shows G Maxwell by herself in the doorway but without PA and VG.

This suggests her main evidence, the photo, which Andrew claims he has no recollection of, is faked.

[Spud]

You are so

There are plenty of intelligent people who don't swear.

[Gordon]

Was she was forced to continue working as a masseuse? I think she did so because she enjoyed the lifestyle and wages. Apparently this is evident from her book, but I may be wrong.

Apparently one reason for the settlement is that it would cost him less than to go to court.

Clearly she was wronged, the question is was Andrew part of that and is she seeking to profit from it.

Yesterday I took some time to read Lady Victoria Hervey's claims about the photo of VG in G. Maxwell's house with Prince Andrew. She produced images of photos that show VG at a party on a boat in the south of France a few months after the alleged incident in GM's house (which was March 10 2001). She is wearing the same trousers and vest in both the house and on the boat. Two pictures of her on the boat show her holding a jumper and standing among party-goers.
Firstly, how likely is it for her to have been wearing only a vest in front of an open window on the evening of 10 March, when the top temperature in London that day had reportedly been 12C and the first week of that month had seen snow and sub-zero temperatures? Secondly, the same outfit, plus a jumper, was suitable for weather in S France two months later. Thirdly, another photo from VH shows G Maxwell by herself in the doorway but without PA and VG.

This suggests her main evidence, the photo, which Andrew claims he has no recollection of, is faked.

All of which would have been addressed during a court case, which he has paid a lot of money to avoid.

[Dicky Underpants]

There are plenty of intelligent people who don't swear.

And millions more who do. Swearing is no indication whatever of a person's intellectual or moral capacity. Try it some time - it might improve your blood pressure and psychological health. It might even help you think better

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

All of which would have been addressed during a court case, which he has paid a lot of money to avoid.

It would have been more expensive to go to court so he saved money by settling.

The legal fees would have been huge if he went to court and the personal information Andrew would have to reveal to defend himself and all the members of his family and friends who would have been required to attend to testify or to provide statements and may be subjected to having their personal information all over the papers - it's an absolute headache for not just Andrew but his kids, his relatives, his friends. Many people bank on the people they sue making just that calculation and paying them off rather than going to court. If her priority was establishing the truth she would refused the settlement.

If Andrew lost he might have to pay costs for both sides. The court award if he lost may have been bigger than his current settlement pay-out. If he won, she would probably have appealed, which means more legal costs, time and headache for him defending the appeal.

I wouldn't read too much into Andrew settling - he is being pragmatic. I wouldn't put my friends and family through a civil court case - I would just settle regardless of the truth. 

[Nearly Sane]

It would have been more expensive to go to court so he saved money by settling.

The legal fees would have been huge if he went to court and the personal information Andrew would have to reveal to defend himself and all the members of his family and friends who would have been required to attend to testify or to provide statements and may be subjected to having their personal information all over the papers - it's an absolute headache for not just Andrew but his kids, his relatives, his friends. Many people bank on the people they sue making just that calculation and paying them off rather than going to court. If her priority was establishing the truth she would refused the settlement.

If Andrew lost he might have to pay costs for both sides. The court award if he lost may have been bigger than his current settlement pay-out. If he won, she would probably have appealed, which means more legal costs, time and headache for him defending the appeal.

I wouldn't read too much into Andrew settling - he is being pragmatic. I wouldn't put my friends and family through a civil court case - I would just settle regardless of the truth. 

Because when he said he was at Pizza Express no one noticed he was there.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Because when he said he was at Pizza Express no one noticed he was there.

Yup pretty much that's all it takes to be guilty.

In an ideal world it would require some actual evidence of guilt before people are found liable or guilty of something.

But in the real world that's not how it works. In the absence of any actual evidence of breaking any laws that would lead to a criminal trial, it's a civil case which is decided on a balance of probabilities and it's "he said she said" and that's a big risk to take in a long-drawn out civil court case with potential for multiple appeals and bad publicity while the case continues.

I wouldn't put my family through that. Especially not my kids if they are forced to fly to the US to testify on my behalf - it's messy and expensive and what do you gain? Even if he was in a Pizza restaurant, nothing stopping him from going to a party after. People don't document every moment in order to be able to recall where they were whereby they can prove it in court. All it takes is for the question "is it possible......" and the jury has something to hang your guilt on if they don't like you.  Lots of people make up their minds on things without needing any actual objective evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

Yup pretty much that's all it takes to be guilty.

In an ideal world it would require some actual evidence of guilt before people are found liable or guilty of something.

But in the real world that's not how it works. In the absence of any actual evidence of breaking any laws that would lead to a criminal trial, it's a civil case which is decided on a balance of probabilities and it's "he said she said" and that's a big risk to take in a long-drawn out civil court case with potential for multiple appeals and bad publicity while the case continues.

I wouldn't put my family through that. Especially not my kids if they are forced to fly to the US to testify on my behalf - it's messy and expensive and what do you gain? Even if he was in a Pizza restaurant, nothing stopping him from going to a party after. People don't document every moment in order to be able to recall where they were whereby they can prove it in court. All it takes is for the question "is it possible......" and the jury has something to hang your guilt on if they don't like you.  Lots of people make up their minds on things without needing any actual objective evidence.

Sorry, that's drivel. You're implyimg that asking a question about Andrea's statements is then an assumption of guilt.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sorry, that's drivel. You're implyimg that asking a question about Andrea's statements is then an assumption of guilt.

Assumption of guilt by the person asking the question? No I am not implying that.

I am talking about the unpredictability of a court case and the absence of any actual evidence linking him to doing anything illegal with Virginia. People can ask all the questions they want - it just gets a lot more expensive to answer those questions if you need a lawyer because someone is suing you.

[Nearly Sane]

Assumption of guilt by the person asking the question? No I am not implying that.

I am talking about the unpredictability of a court case and the absence of any actual evidence linking him to doing anything illegal with Virginia. People can ask all the questions they want - it just gets a lot more expensive to answer those questions if you need a lawyer because someone is suing you.

You do not know that there is an absence of any actual evidence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You do not know that there is an absence of any actual evidence.

No I don't.

I just mean from my perspective, commenting on this board, there is a presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence having been presented in the public forum to the contrary. That is not to say the person is innocent - but if I have not been presented with any evidence of wrong-doing it would just be speculation to assume they are guilty of anything other than being an entitled irritating twat or dancing with someone or hanging out with the wrong people - I haven't seen any evidence that he had sex with an under-aged Virgina, though he might well have had sex with lots of people where it wasn't illegal. So I don't know. Even where I was speculating about Harry and Meghan it wasn't in relation to them doing anything criminal. 

Andrew is a high profile figure and the photo is not exactly a smoking gun even if it is not faked and apparently Virgina does not have the original photo so who knows. Do we even know where the photo came from? I haven't been following it closely - did someone give her the photo? Or has she been keeping it all this time and if so why, as putting your arm around someone isn't illegal. 
 

[Spud]

Because when he said he was at Pizza Express no one noticed he was there.

He also implied he was at home with the children in the evening because his wife was away.

[Spud]

Regarding the photo: Someone pointed out on Youtube that if you zoom in using a PC to about 400-500%, you can see a mark on her cleavage. It looks like a computer icon of some sort, as though the image of her has been moved into position using a cursor.

[Nearly Sane]

He also implied he was at home with the children in the evening because his wife was away.

and?

[Nearly Sane]

Regarding the photo: Someone pointed out on Youtube that if you zoom in using a PC to about 400-500%, you can see a mark on her cleavage. It looks like a computer icon of some sort, as though the image of her has been moved into position using a cursor.

'someone pointed out on youtube'....

[Outrider]

Regarding the photo: Someone pointed out on Youtube that if you zoom in using a PC to about 400-500%, you can see a mark on her cleavage. It looks like a computer icon of some sort, as though the image of her has been moved into position using a cursor.

Because
a) people trying to take on the Royal Family hire second-rate photoshoppers;
b) YouTuber 'some random' has access to the originals to blow up to 500% effectively; and,
c) 20 year old photographs were taken with cameras that had high enough density images to be blown up to 500%.

Or, of course, YouTube is only not the worst possible place to be researching this because Twatter is also a thing.

O.

[SteveH]

Regarding the photo: Someone pointed out on Youtube that if you zoom in using a PC to about 400-500%, you can see a mark on her cleavage. It looks like a computer icon of some sort, as though the image of her has been moved into position using a cursor.

Oh, come on! That's stretching it a bit! Straying into the realms of conspiracy-theory, I feel, like the people who point to fleeting, blurry images in the footage of 9/11 to "prove" it was a government inside job.

[Spud]

'someone pointed out on youtube'....

Aye, they did. I wouldn't have noticed, if they didn't.