Has H R H Got A Get Out Of Jail Free Card

[Stickybottle]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59857168

I wonder if he has rediscovered the ability to sweat ?
No doubt he is !

[naomi24]

//Andrew has already lost this case, and Giuffre has won, if the majority of people end up thinking he raped her and avoided being sued based on an agreement drawn up between a sex offender and his victim. //

I agree, ellipsis. Something that was meant to protect Epstein's friends could well end up condemning them and leaving them with no opportunity to clear their names.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // //Andrew has already lost this case, and Giuffre has won, if the majority of people end up thinking he raped her and avoided being sued based on an agreement drawn up between a sex offender and his victim. //

I agree, ellipsis. Something that was meant to protect Epstein's friends could well end up condemning them and leaving them with no opportunity to clear their names. //

I heard another lawyer on the radio today, came in late, so I'm not sure if she represents Ms Giuffre or not -

She agreed with the lawyer whose view I posted yesterday - that the Agreement may not be seen as binding by the judge today.

And she also pointed out that Ms Giuffre also has the option to pursue Prince Andrew through the UK judicial system since she alleges that he abused her at an address in London.

That does assume that the Agreement will stand up today, and again on appeal, which is by no means certain.

What is assured though, is that Prince Andrew does not emerge from this well at all.

Having comprehensively destroyed whatever goodwill he may have built up over decades of tolerated boorish and arrogant behaviour, through his willingness to accept the yards of rope handed to him by Emily Maitlis, and then kindly save her the tedious bother of hanging him with it, buy doing so himself -

He has spent the remaining time hiding and avoiding any sort of responsibility for the situation in which he finds himself, allowing his lawyers to place any and all diversions and chicanery to avoid him facing up to that of which he is accused.

He could have simply asked her to put up or shut up, and gone to defend himself.

Then, even if he had lost, he could at least retain the dignity of facing up to his behaviour and accepting the consequences.

Instead, he has made it look as though he will do anything and everything his money and status allow, to avoid the consequences of his appalling choices in friends.

People moan that the rich and famous routinely use that money and fame to try and avoid the responsibilities in law that fall on the rest of us.

What a shame that a son of the monarch is so very keen to prove to the world at large, that such a perception is one hundred per cent accurate.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // Something that was meant to protect Epstein's friends could well end up condemning them and leaving them with no opportunity to clear their names. //

Not so.

Any and all individuals who feel that their names and reputations are damaged by their association with Epsetin's grubby hole-in-the-wall pay-off to his victim are perfectly at liberty to do as she has done - sue in the civil courts and present their case there.

After all, if they are not guilty of any wrongdoing, why would they not wish to clear their names publicly for all to see?

[naomi24]

AH, We know ... but that would be something else.

[bednobs]

it's much more difficult to "clear your name" in the civil courts than criminal

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // AH, We know ... but that would be something else. //

Well if ' we know', then clearly no-one is left without a chance to clear their names, so your statement at 11.36 that people 'could end up' in that situation, is not accurate.

[andy-hughes]

bednobs - // it's much more difficult to "clear your name" in the civil courts than criminal //

Quite possibly - but if that is so, all the more reason for PA to have come out on the offensive, and got his defence in first, instead of hard-to-believe denials of meeting someone he has been photographed with.

[naomi24]

AH, It's accurate in those circumstances.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // AH, It's accurate in those circumstances. //

I have pointed out why it is not accurate - simply repeating your point does not make it so.

And who are the 'we' you refer to?

[naomi24]

AH, it's accurate in those circumstances.

'We' are the people who know.

[andy-hughes]

Fabulous!!

[naomi24]

Stop stirring, PP. it’s not clever.

[Peter Pedant]

// She agreed with the lawyer whose view I posted yesterday - that the Agreement may not be seen as binding by the judge today.//

yeah the one yesterday was an ex Fed prosecutor ( criminal only I think - he would be against a no-prosecution agreement unless he concluded it himself ). He ( the fed silly) concluded with - " dunno really: see what the judges says" and to day - it was a NY board lawyer who had sued for various groups and she said it was too wide as far as she was concerned - but mentioned no cases. She also said it was surprising that a trained lawyer had expressed it thus without thinking whether it wd stand up

[Peter Pedant]

can we keep to the point please naomi: None of the American laywers have cited cases where the exclusion clause was deemed to wide.

Perhaps it is not worth case-law

I was gonna apologise for posting on the subject - Giuffre and whether she is a wronged woman or a treasure hunter - but now I wont!
(this statement was made in the spirit of the case of stating and signing a document one day and then saying ( averring that is!) that that is NOT what you meant at all!) - watch this space !

[Peter Pedant]

deemed too wide
god dammit

[naomi24]

Stop stirring, PP.

[Ellipsis]

The lady on the radio today expressed it well. Something like "In the United States, the currency of justice is the dollar." In other words, if somebody has wronged you, they pay you, in cash. Therefore, justice-seeking and money-seeking is the same thing.

[naomi24]

That’s handy. I wonder which is paramount?

[andy-hughes]

Ellipsis - // The lady on the radio today expressed it well. Something like "In the United States, the currency of justice is the dollar." In other words, if somebody has wronged you, they pay you, in cash. Therefore, justice-seeking and money-seeking is the same thing. //

I heard that too.

She pointed out the cultural differences between the UK and the US, whereby in the UK, seeking financial damages is seen as money-grubbing - as witnessed by a number of posts on this site on the subject - whereas in the US, it is absolutely seen as the standard mark of justice served.