ChatterBank1 min ago
Oh No, Gag Her Forever Please.
Haven't we heard enough from this self-confessed liar. Surely the last thing we want is for the Andrew Saga to plunge 2023 News back into the cesspit which 2022 has become.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"A lot of people are really keen to assume motives and behaviour of people they do not know, with only the evidence of media coverage to fire their hostility."
That's exactly what you've done as well by stating she didn't sue for money, even though it's obvious money would be on the table at some point to make the issue 'go away'.
I'm sceptical simply because she repeatedly stated all she wanted was her day in court, until she was offered millions, at which point her day in court wasn't quite as important as she said it was.
That's exactly what you've done as well by stating she didn't sue for money, even though it's obvious money would be on the table at some point to make the issue 'go away'.
I'm sceptical simply because she repeatedly stated all she wanted was her day in court, until she was offered millions, at which point her day in court wasn't quite as important as she said it was.
Absolutely mozz.
If I was in her position, I would have done the same, I suspect most people would.
Detractors seem keen to assume that Ms Guiffre 'knew' money would be offered, which is nonsense.
But given the choice of dragging out the whole horrible business, including interrogation by the Palace's lawyers, or payment and peace of mind, she did what most of us would probably do in that situation.
But still she is judged and condemned, why remains a mystery.
If I was in her position, I would have done the same, I suspect most people would.
Detractors seem keen to assume that Ms Guiffre 'knew' money would be offered, which is nonsense.
But given the choice of dragging out the whole horrible business, including interrogation by the Palace's lawyers, or payment and peace of mind, she did what most of us would probably do in that situation.
But still she is judged and condemned, why remains a mystery.
I am sure her original motivation was her day in court, when she believed that was all she would get.
The offer of money was not there at the start. And she had no reason to assume anything other than that the Queen's son would go to court, with top counsel to defend him.
The offer of an end to the whole horrible business, and a settlement, would be hard to resist, but why she is pilloried for taking it, I don't know.
She did not look for this situation, she was placed there by Epstein and his sleazy associates, and chose to make a stand.
That is to be applauded. If only to show the world that money does not mean you get to be an abuser, no matter how wealthy you are, or who your mother happens to be.
Justice is for all of us.
The offer of money was not there at the start. And she had no reason to assume anything other than that the Queen's son would go to court, with top counsel to defend him.
The offer of an end to the whole horrible business, and a settlement, would be hard to resist, but why she is pilloried for taking it, I don't know.
She did not look for this situation, she was placed there by Epstein and his sleazy associates, and chose to make a stand.
That is to be applauded. If only to show the world that money does not mean you get to be an abuser, no matter how wealthy you are, or who your mother happens to be.
Justice is for all of us.
The point about going to court was to compel Prince Andrew to take responsibility for his actions.
That seems to have been achieved by him admitting responsibility by paying the money - if his legal team were so sure he would win, they would have told Ms Guiffre to bring it on, not offer a multi-million pound settlement to drop the case.
Aim achieved, financial security and peace to get on with her life, I would have done the same, most of us would.
But for some, that amounts to scheming and being beneath contempt.
I see only one person on this case who comes out with that result, and for some reason, acknowledgement of his part, and guilt, are sliding by unmentioned.
I find that odd.
That seems to have been achieved by him admitting responsibility by paying the money - if his legal team were so sure he would win, they would have told Ms Guiffre to bring it on, not offer a multi-million pound settlement to drop the case.
Aim achieved, financial security and peace to get on with her life, I would have done the same, most of us would.
But for some, that amounts to scheming and being beneath contempt.
I see only one person on this case who comes out with that result, and for some reason, acknowledgement of his part, and guilt, are sliding by unmentioned.
I find that odd.
//I see only one person on this case who comes out with that result, and for some reason, acknowledgement of his part, and guilt, are sliding by unmentioned.
I find that odd.//
I remember when the Savile case came to light, I saw many who considered his victims to be little more than money hungry parasites (not on here I hasten to add, it was before my AB life).
Victim blaming seems to be the go-to reaction from some areas.
I find that odd.//
I remember when the Savile case came to light, I saw many who considered his victims to be little more than money hungry parasites (not on here I hasten to add, it was before my AB life).
Victim blaming seems to be the go-to reaction from some areas.
Barsel - I know as much, or more accurately, as little, as anyone else on here, and what I know is my perception of events through a media lens.
My point here is concerned with the willingness of some to condemn Ms Guiffre as a money-grabbing schemer, with most making no mention of the two men whose actions brought her to the world's attention.
To address your point, legally Prince Andrew is not guilty of anything, he has not been convicted of anything.
Morally, his guilt is another matter.
Bur my posts revolve not around what I know, or not, but on the attitudes of the OP, and subsequent posts agreeing.
For that, all I need to know is what I can read, and what I think, and I have not suggested that I know anything more or less than that.
My point here is concerned with the willingness of some to condemn Ms Guiffre as a money-grabbing schemer, with most making no mention of the two men whose actions brought her to the world's attention.
To address your point, legally Prince Andrew is not guilty of anything, he has not been convicted of anything.
Morally, his guilt is another matter.
Bur my posts revolve not around what I know, or not, but on the attitudes of the OP, and subsequent posts agreeing.
For that, all I need to know is what I can read, and what I think, and I have not suggested that I know anything more or less than that.
I think some people cannot see the difference between grooming (thinking of the Manchester gangs) and what Epstein was doing.
He was providing high-class hookers (not young little girls) to entertain his friends, Prince Andrew being one of them.
They probably didn't have to pay cash as such but other types of favours as Prince Andrew said in his interview when asked if he now regretted being friends with Epstein and he replied No.
These girls were not 'forced' to sleep with anyone as they were handsomely paid and looked after.
I'm surprised that this woman is the only one who has come forward wanting to sue as I'm sure there would have been others.
Prince Andrew won't be the only one she slept with, but probably thought she would get more money from him than the others.
He was providing high-class hookers (not young little girls) to entertain his friends, Prince Andrew being one of them.
They probably didn't have to pay cash as such but other types of favours as Prince Andrew said in his interview when asked if he now regretted being friends with Epstein and he replied No.
These girls were not 'forced' to sleep with anyone as they were handsomely paid and looked after.
I'm surprised that this woman is the only one who has come forward wanting to sue as I'm sure there would have been others.
Prince Andrew won't be the only one she slept with, but probably thought she would get more money from him than the others.
Latest Posts
Sunak Crushed In Sky Tv Debate With...
News2 mins ago
Once Again Starmer Takes A Knife To A...
News7 mins ago
A First Step Towards A Dictatorship Of...
News11 mins ago
News13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.