IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th February 2022, 01:17 AM   #241
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 17,414
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I (don't) hate to say ITYS, but.....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post13704774

In that post, which I wrote on January 16th, I even predicted that settlement would come "within a month or so". And everything else was on point as well.

(Mixture of decent sources and a decent understanding of civil law)
Before you get too smug

"Within a month" means under a month, "or so" then takes it right up to the date he would have been in court.

Timing gone effectively you predicted a settlement. As did others once he sold his £18m+ chalet to settle £6m debt giving him a £12m+ fund.

You said the queen would be paying it all, I am not sure that is established and whether Andrew can pocket his chalet earnings.

You also said the settlement would be high double figures. High double figures suggests north of £50m. The press suggests it was just into double figure.

The other stuff you said had already happened.

Have you thought about becoming a psychic? You seem have their techniques, vague predictions, ignoring misses, false claiming of accuracy, predicting things that are known off pat.

Sorry but what do you expect on a skeptics forum when fantastic predictions are claimed

Last edited by Lothian; 16th February 2022 at 01:56 AM.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 01:18 AM   #242
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 17,414
Double post
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 01:21 AM   #243
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 17,414
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Clearly Giuffre's lawyers ran this, a masterclass in hypocrisy and greed.
If it were 2m to her and 10m to the charity there would be some vestige of ethical behaviour.
Call me old fashioned but perhaps it is Andrew who is the bad guy in this case.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 01:26 AM   #244
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,896
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Utter bollocks.... your sympathies are misplaced. They were making the bastard pay for what he did... and good on them for doing so. Windsor is a thoroughly obnoxious and odious creep... I have no sympathy for him.
I accept your determination is carefully reasoned, but I remain unmoved by the hang em high declarations against Windsor. He was both miscreant and wealthy beyond imagination.
A great result for one opportunist.

Last edited by Samson; 16th February 2022 at 01:27 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 01:38 AM   #245
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 17,414
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I accept your determination is carefully reasoned, but I remain unmoved by the hang em high declarations against Windsor...
A great result for one opportunist.
You are right I am sure that as a young child she thought there is a fantastic opportunity for me to be sexually abused by older men, trafficked round the world and in 30 years I can be rich. Those poor men suckered into abusing her, we should set up a fund and support group for them.

Last edited by Lothian; 16th February 2022 at 02:43 AM.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 02:44 AM   #246
cow_cat
Mr. Parodied
 
cow_cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Between the Sun and the Stars
Posts: 2,160
Oh the Grand Old Duke of York,
He had 12 million bucks.
He used it to pay off all the
Trafficked girls he liked to ....

... err have never met, apparently.
__________________
Now that is Scientific Fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is Scientific Fact.
-'Dr' Neil Fox, speaking on brasseye

Used to have another username, but I hated it.
cow_cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 04:01 AM   #247
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,062
I think Windsor and his team of lawyers were terrified of what might happen if he had to testify under oath. After all, he is so totally lacking in self-awareness that after he finished the Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis he was actually under the impression that he had handled it pretty well, not realising that it was in reality a complete and utter disaster. Maitlis ran rings around him, and if she could do that, a couple of master questioners like Giuffre's lawyers would have ripped him a new one - he'd end up not knowing whether his arse had been counter-bored or centre-punched.

Another thing that went against him was the rather stupid and ridiculous claims he made, such as his alleged inability to sweat, his claim that he was covered by Epstein's Florida NDA, his claim that he had never met her despite a photograph that clearly shows him with his arm around her, and the further claim the photo was doctored.

Ann Olivarius, the senior partner of the McAllister Olivarius law firm who has acted in cases on both sides of the Atlantic, said “She said she wanted an apology, she wanted an amount of money and she wanted him to acknowledge what he’s done. It seems to me that she has gotten those things."

“She got an apology because he has now praised her for being courageous. She’s gotten money for a charity in trafficking, and she got him to settle which is an admission, clearly, that he is frightened to go forward, he has got too much exposure, he cannot afford on a risk management basis to go forward."

“She had leverage, she used it and she triumphed. I say this is good news all round, and it’s good news for him because we know he couldn’t have handled this deposition, it was going to be a disaster,”
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 04:07 AM   #248
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 42,064
Don't forget that it couldn't have been a nightclub in London because he always wears a suit, shirt and tie when he is in London.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 04:10 AM   #249
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 25,451
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I think Windsor and his team of lawyers were terrified of what might happen if he had to testify under oath. After all, he is so totally lacking in self-awareness that after he finished the Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis he was actually under the impression that he had handled it pretty well, not realising that it was in reality a complete and utter disaster. Maitlis ran rings around him, and if she could do that, a couple of master questioners like Giuffre's lawyers would have ripped him a new one - he'd end up not knowing whether his arse had been counter-bored or centre-punched.

Another thing that went against him was the rather stupid and ridiculous claims he made, such as his alleged inability to sweat, his claim that he was covered by Epstein's Florida NDA, his claim that he had never met her despite a photograph that clearly shows him with his arm around her, and the further claim the photo was doctored.

Ann Olivarius, the senior partner of the McAllister Olivarius law firm who has acted in cases on both sides of the Atlantic, said “She said she wanted an apology, she wanted an amount of money and she wanted him to acknowledge what he’s done. It seems to me that she has gotten those things."

“She got an apology because he has now praised her for being courageous. She’s gotten money for a charity in trafficking, and she got him to settle which is an admission, clearly, that he is frightened to go forward, he has got too much exposure, he cannot afford on a risk management basis to go forward."

“She had leverage, she used it and she triumphed. I say this is good news all round, and it’s good news for him because we know he couldn’t have handled this deposition, it was going to be a disaster,”
Yup.

It's not a draw, when the one who claimed that he wanted his day in court to clear his name decides to fold. When there is a lot of seemingly0incriminating evidence that presumably he wanted examined in court so he could explain how it wasn't.

The financial cost of settling is set against the reputational damage that also would have affected his income.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 05:36 AM   #250
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 42,064
According to the Mail “Sex case surrender has saved the Jubilee”
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 05:41 AM   #251
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 42,064
GB News is going with "Meghan Markle will not return to UK because she feels winning the British public over is a lost cause"
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 05:54 AM   #252
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 42,064
Meanwhile

Police to investigate Prince Charles' charity
The Metropolitan Police is to investigate claims Prince Charles' charity offered honours help to a Saudi citizen.

The force said it is investigating alleged offences under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60404077
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 11:28 AM   #253
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 5,600
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Its not quite as straightforward as that.

You still don't seem to understand that one of the sex acts being sued over took place in London, and that means, regardless of the fact that the lawsuit was filed in New York.. the US Federal laws regarding age of consent apply, not the New York State Laws. The US Federal the age of consent is 18. Additionally, another of the places where Giuffre claims she was trafficked to Windsor for sex was St James' Island in the US Virgin Islands. The age of consent there is 18.

Now, if age of consent was not an issue here, don't you think at least one of Windsor's team of high priced lawyers would have noticed?
The post I was replying to was,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
The time in New York would qualify as statutory rape even if she had given consent.
Not London, not USVI.

Also this court case was under NY law NOT US federal law. As you correctly pointed out the case was held in a Federal court because neither party are state residents, but the court would apply NY law. The law under which it was brought allowed damages to be sought for sexual abuse by those who were under 18 at the time of the abuse in New York. It does not allow damages to be sought for abuse that occurred in other jurisdictions.

Since the court case did not go forward, it is unclear exactly what case would have been made. It may be like in the Maxwell case where the Federal judge ruled that sex with someone over the age of consent in England was not illicit sex under Federal law, that the sex act itself was not to be regarded as criminal, but evidenced a pattern of behaviour. I think for Federal trafficking laws to apply to a UK resident having consensual sex with a US citizen in the UK when over the age of consent in the UK would be a jurisdictional over reach too far. For federal law to apply Windsor would either have to have travelled from the US to the UK for purposes of having sex, or being a US citizen or resident have trafficked Giuffre for the purposes of an illicit sex act.

I think the alleged sex act in the USVI is the one indisputably criminal act by virtue of being statutory rape, and there is no statute of limitations. The difficulty is that Giuffre describes this as being part of an orgy. So in theory there should be eye witnesses to the act, and potentially other offenders. We will see if Giuffre makes a criminal complaint to the USVI police. Giuffre will be time barred in bringing a civil case in USVI.

Next thing you know is that English publicans will be prosecuted by the ATF for selling drinks to 18 yr old US students!
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 12:04 PM   #254
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,062
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
The post I was replying to was,

Not London, not USVI.

Also this court case was under NY law NOT US federal law. As you correctly pointed out the case was held in a Federal court because neither party are state residents, but the court would apply NY law. The law under which it was brought allowed damages to be sought for sexual abuse by those who were under 18 at the time of the abuse in New York. It does not allow damages to be sought for abuse that occurred in other jurisdictions.

Since the court case did not go forward, it is unclear exactly what case would have been made. It may be like in the Maxwell case where the Federal judge ruled that sex with someone over the age of consent in England was not illicit sex under Federal law, that the sex act itself was not to be regarded as criminal, but evidenced a pattern of behaviour. I think for Federal trafficking laws to apply to a UK resident having consensual sex with a US citizen in the UK when over the age of consent in the UK would be a jurisdictional over reach too far. For federal law to apply Windsor would either have to have travelled from the US to the UK for purposes of having sex, or being a US citizen or resident have trafficked Giuffre for the purposes of an illicit sex act.

I think the alleged sex act in the USVI is the one indisputably criminal act by virtue of being statutory rape, and there is no statute of limitations. The difficulty is that Giuffre describes this as being part of an orgy. So in theory there should be eye witnesses to the act, and potentially other offenders. We will see if Giuffre makes a criminal complaint to the USVI police. Giuffre will be time barred in bringing a civil case in USVI.

Next thing you know is that English publicans will be prosecuted by the ATF for selling drinks to 18 yr old US students!
Well if age of consent was not at issue, why didn't Windsor's lawyers try to use the fact that Giuffre was 17 as a technicality to get the lawsuit dismissed?

It seems this rather obvious step was overlooked? I wonder why?
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 12:12 PM   #255
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,257
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
The post I was replying to was,

Not London, not USVI.

Also this court case was under NY law NOT US federal law. As you correctly pointed out the case was held in a Federal court because neither party are state residents, but the court would apply NY law. The law under which it was brought allowed damages to be sought for sexual abuse by those who were under 18 at the time of the abuse in New York. It does not allow damages to be sought for abuse that occurred in other jurisdictions.
.....

Let's note once again that if Giuffre did not or was not able to give consent to sex, then she was raped, and her age didn't matter. And that's what she says:
Quote:
In her civil case, Ms Giuffre alleges that the prince sexually abused her three times - at Maxwell's London home that night, and later at Epstein's homes in Manhattan and Little St James in the Virgin Islands.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59974220

The continuing chatter about age of consent is just a distraction. Her age made her vulnerable to a predator's threats and manipulation. It doesn't mean she gave free and knowing consent.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 01:09 PM   #256
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 25,451
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60407806


Prince Andrew's statement seems to contradict answers he gave me - Emily Maitlis
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 01:37 PM   #257
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,062
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60407806


Prince Andrew's statement seems to contradict answers he gave me - Emily Maitlis
So his total lack of self awareness means that he can't keep his story straight, to the extent that he seems incapable of reading a transcript of his interview to make sure that any subsequent statement he makes in a legal document related to the lawsuit comports with what he said previously.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 02:16 PM   #258
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Leching at tractors (in Wales)
Posts: 27,808
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
So his total lack of self awareness means that he can't keep his story straight, to the extent that he seems incapable of reading a transcript of his interview to make sure that any subsequent statement he makes in a legal document related to the lawsuit comports with what he said previously.
I suspect that he just isn't used to his word ever 'being questioned'. Officer and a gentleman, and all that
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 02:24 PM   #259
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,062
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I suspect that he just isn't used to his word ever 'being questioned'. Officer and a gentleman, and all that
Well who the **** does he think he is, a prince or something!!?
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 02:47 PM   #260
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 25,451
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Well who the **** does he think he is, a prince or something!!?
Not HRH, although I do think he embodies the dignity and honour that the institution of monarchy has historically demonstrated and which it deserves.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 04:27 PM   #261
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,062
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Not HRH, although I do think he embodies the dignity and honour that the institution of monarchy has historically demonstrated and which it deserves.

Nice (back-handed) compliment...
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 04:52 PM   #262
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,233
Umm I believe many are missing the true driving force behind this (relatively) quick settlement, once the motion to dismiss was denied.

The hidden hand behind all of Andrew's legal difficulties in this case has been the Queen. She (and her advisers, and Charles and William) have an overriding instinct to protect the monarchy at almost any cost - they truly do fear the rise of republicanism (once the Queen dies, of course) if sufficient mud-dragging of the RF takes place.

They were prepared to allow Andrew to try to get the Giuffre case thrown out in January. However, once that didn't happen, Plan B immediately swung into action.

And Plan B was: 1) immediately strip Andrew of patronages and his (external) HRH status, in a pre-agreed and choreographed manner; 2) put the mechanism in play for Andrew to pay whatever it took to settle this matter out of court, as soon as possible. The Queen (I believe) has funded almost all of the settlement (which, incidentally, is actually likely to run to multiple tens of millions - everyone's still forgetting both sides' legal costs, and the quanta being mentioned for Giuffre and the charity stuff are very probably too low as well.

Simply put, the Queen and Charles/William wanted to put a stop to all further controversy on this matter as soon as possible, once they knew it was otherwise destined to proceed to trial. That would have been the case in any "ordinary" year. But 2022 is not an ordinary year: it's the Queen's Diamond Jubilee year. The RF see this (probably correctly) as a mechanism for engendering love and respect - not only for the Queen herself, but also for the Monarchy as an institution.

And they simply were not prepared to have - between now and October - the media running parallel stories on 1) the latest instalment of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, and 2) the latest sleazy details on Andrew's court case.

THIS is what the settlement has always been about. Nothing whatsoever to do with Andrew himself - he would have had zero choice in the matter. And it doesn't matter whether or not Andrew and his lawyers expected to win in court (or, indeed, whether or not the Queen and her advisers/lawyers expected Andrew to win in court): the very fact that there was going to be a tawdry sex-based trial of one of the Queen's sons - plus all the build-up to that trial (the depositions, the leaks...) made it inconceivable to HMQ and the RF that the case could continue going forward towards trial, once the motion to dismiss was denied.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 07:36 PM   #263
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,062
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Umm I believe many are missing the true driving force behind this (relatively) quick settlement, once the motion to dismiss was denied.

The hidden hand behind all of Andrew's legal difficulties in this case has been the Queen. She (and her advisers, and Charles and William) have an overriding instinct to protect the monarchy at almost any cost - they truly do fear the rise of republicanism (once the Queen dies, of course) if sufficient mud-dragging of the RF takes place.

They were prepared to allow Andrew to try to get the Giuffre case thrown out in January. However, once that didn't happen, Plan B immediately swung into action.

And Plan B was: 1) immediately strip Andrew of patronages and his (external) HRH status, in a pre-agreed and choreographed manner; 2) put the mechanism in play for Andrew to pay whatever it took to settle this matter out of court, as soon as possible. The Queen (I believe) has funded almost all of the settlement (which, incidentally, is actually likely to run to multiple tens of millions - everyone's still forgetting both sides' legal costs, and the quanta being mentioned for Giuffre and the charity stuff are very probably too low as well.

Simply put, the Queen and Charles/William wanted to put a stop to all further controversy on this matter as soon as possible, once they knew it was otherwise destined to proceed to trial. That would have been the case in any "ordinary" year. But 2022 is not an ordinary year: it's the Queen's Diamond Jubilee year. The RF see this (probably correctly) as a mechanism for engendering love and respect - not only for the Queen herself, but also for the Monarchy as an institution.

And they simply were not prepared to have - between now and October - the media running parallel stories on 1) the latest instalment of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, and 2) the latest sleazy details on Andrew's court case.

THIS is what the settlement has always been about. Nothing whatsoever to do with Andrew himself - he would have had zero choice in the matter. And it doesn't matter whether or not Andrew and his lawyers expected to win in court (or, indeed, whether or not the Queen and her advisers/lawyers expected Andrew to win in court): the very fact that there was going to be a tawdry sex-based trial of one of the Queen's sons - plus all the build-up to that trial (the depositions, the leaks...) made it inconceivable to HMQ and the RF that the case could continue going forward towards trial, once the motion to dismiss was denied.
Nope, I disagree with much of this

Firstly, he pretty much ignored the Queen and Prince Philip's advice by marrying Sarah Ferguson. He did his obligatory time in the military and after that, he adopted the rich, privileged, playboy lifestyle for the next 35 years, partying and nightclubbing with his elite pals and plenty of fast women. He essentially did exactly what he pleased, when he pleased. What on earth makes you think he would suddenly take any notice of mummy now?

Secondly, if the Queen was so worried about the reputation of the Royal Family, and Andrew does what mummy says as you suggest, why didn't she tell him to end his friendship with Epstein and Maxwell when Epstein became a convicted sex offender. I mean, that damaged his reputation more than anything else until 2015 when the Virginia Roberts scandal hit

Thirdly, if the damage wasn't already done by 16/11/2019 (the day the BBC Newsnight interview was aired), it certainly was on that date. Why didn't mummy instruct him to settle then?

Lastly, I do not believe for one minute that she would not have allowed the lawsuit to proceed if there was a very good chance of winning, because that would be vindication for Andrew, and by proxy, for the Royal Family itself.

No, I think that while the Queen may ultimately have had an influence on the decision, she would have listened to Andrew's lawyers, who would have advised her that her son would get utterly ripped to shreds in the deposition, and if he still wanted to proceed, she could expect a repeat performance or worse on the witness stand. I think it was no co-incidence that the abrupt volte-face settlement came just days before that deposition.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 08:25 PM   #264
The Common Potato
Muse
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 527
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A tie is where both teams finish with the same score (very rare).
Thirty-five years on, the people I used to play village cricket with don't let me forget it! The scores were level, numbers 10 and 11 (me) batting. My call, from the bowlers end; I got 3/4 of the way to the striker's end, and was sent back. I was run out but only be a foot or two. An easy single. Meh...

Last edited by The Common Potato; 16th February 2022 at 08:37 PM.
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2022, 08:52 PM   #265
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,062
Originally Posted by The Common Potato View Post
Thirty-five years on, the people I used to play village cricket with don't let me forget it! The scores were level, numbers 10 and 11 (me) batting. My call, from the bowlers end; I got 3/4 of the way to the striker's end, and was sent back. I was run out but only be a foot or two. An easy single. Meh...
Off topic
Its rare....in 145 years of test cricket, over 2000 test matches have been played between 13 teams... about 25% of test matches have been drawn... but only two have been tied... 1960 and 1986
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2022, 02:29 AM   #266
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 42,064
Remember that time Meghan Markle dragged down the reputation of the Royal Family by guest editing Vogue?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2022, 05:48 AM   #267
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,715
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
The hidden hand behind all of Andrew's legal difficulties in this case has been the Queen.
That's an interpretation of the photograph I didn't expect to see.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2022, 09:23 AM   #268
Carrot Flower King
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 2,360
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Remember that time Meghan Markle dragged down the reputation of the Royal Family by guest editing Vogue?
And we must also remember that much British meejah coverage wasn't at all racist and was in no way sexist, 'cos we were told so!
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2022, 06:57 AM   #269
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 52,190
Meanwhile, on Twitter:
Originally Posted by @GaryLineker
Reports that Palace have spent as much as £12m on Giuffre. I’m not sure it’s enough to avoid going down.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2022, 05:12 PM   #270
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 25,146
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Wow, that one needed a second set of eyes.
__________________
Fight like a Ukrainian.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2022, 02:41 AM   #271
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,896
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
What does "avoid going down" mean in this context?
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2022, 03:15 AM   #272
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,062
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
What does "avoid going down" mean in this context?
Its a something of a double-entendre. "Going down" is a slang term with sexual connotations, but of course, since Gary Lineker is a former English Premier League and International soccer player (and now a commentator) so he is also using it in the context of relegation from a higher league to a lower league. A team near the bottom of the league table is often said to at risk of "going down" at the end of the season.

You could interpret what is happening to Mr Windsor as "relegation".
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd February 2022 at 03:23 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2022, 03:42 AM   #273
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 17,414
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Its a something of a double-entendre. "Going down" is a slang term with sexual connotations, but of course, since Gary Lineker is a former English Premier League and International soccer player (and now a commentator) so he is also using it in the context of relegation from a higher league to a lower league. A team near the bottom of the league table is often said to at risk of "going down" at the end of the season.

You could interpret what is happening to Mr Windsor as "relegation".
Going down does have a sexual connotation but in this case it is another meaning :- Going to prison that Mr Lineker is using for the Double entendre.

So it could be

Crystal palace being relegated
Or
Andrew going to prison
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.