Is It Wrong Not To Help The Homeless?
Society & Culture1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by calmck. 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.
I don't think she's THAT wealthy. She settled with Epstein for a relatively paltry £500,000 and gave an undertaking that she would not pursue anyone who might have been involved in their dealings. Obviously not a woman of her word and willing in the first instance to let her quest for justice cease to the tune of half a mil...
My instinct tells me that this is all about money and fame and one sure fire way to up your offer is to first declare that it's not about the money, you can't be bought at any price and you just want your day in court...
My instinct tells me that this is all about money and fame and one sure fire way to up your offer is to first declare that it's not about the money, you can't be bought at any price and you just want your day in court...
I don't think he would ever be found guilty, I really don't. He's the son of the British Monarch, the most famous woman in the world. It would be a diplomatic disaster for a court in the US to find him guilty.
This is a show trial and Guiffre is just playing the game. Money is her ultimate goal and she's banking (no pun intended) on Andrew offering to settle before it goes to court.
This is a show trial and Guiffre is just playing the game. Money is her ultimate goal and she's banking (no pun intended) on Andrew offering to settle before it goes to court.
//Apparently she is not looking to settle and is determined to go to court.//
Yet settle she did with Epstein and for a relatively modest amount. She then broke the terms of the agreement - I wonder did she pay the money back to Epstein's estate once she reneged on the deal?
If she wants to guarantee a maximum pay off, she must first insist that she won't settle for any price and wants to go to court.
Yet settle she did with Epstein and for a relatively modest amount. She then broke the terms of the agreement - I wonder did she pay the money back to Epstein's estate once she reneged on the deal?
If she wants to guarantee a maximum pay off, she must first insist that she won't settle for any price and wants to go to court.
> It may be that certain people know the Prince better than we do ...
> Just a thought
Even I know that in his youth he was known as "Randy Andy" - a reputation quite unlike his siblings'. And now many years later stories like this arise. A coincidence, maybe.
> The Queen has served the country well but.............I shudder when I see what is to follow. Maybe it's time to abolish royalty, after all it's only an accident of birth isn't it.
Charles and especially William seem decent enough, but to me it's cruel, especially in modern times. I see the royals almost as "slaves", born into a life of service with very little in the way of choice since they're indoctrinated into it from birth - very much like being indoctrinated into a religion from birth. Pampered slaves, extremely well treated and privileged slaves, but slaves nonetheless. I think if we retired them with thanks and with a few hundred million in the bank, we'd be doing them a huge favour.
> Just a thought
Even I know that in his youth he was known as "Randy Andy" - a reputation quite unlike his siblings'. And now many years later stories like this arise. A coincidence, maybe.
> The Queen has served the country well but.............I shudder when I see what is to follow. Maybe it's time to abolish royalty, after all it's only an accident of birth isn't it.
Charles and especially William seem decent enough, but to me it's cruel, especially in modern times. I see the royals almost as "slaves", born into a life of service with very little in the way of choice since they're indoctrinated into it from birth - very much like being indoctrinated into a religion from birth. Pampered slaves, extremely well treated and privileged slaves, but slaves nonetheless. I think if we retired them with thanks and with a few hundred million in the bank, we'd be doing them a huge favour.
She want money, fame media coverage and all the benefits that go with it, like film rights, book rights, etc, etc. Poor lady!! Personally, it sickens me. Prince Andrew was an utter fool and acted badly like a lot of blokes would do in his circle and I don't feel sorry for him. However, perhaps she was groomed, but at 17 she had her head screwed on as to what she was doing and making money out of it. She could have always said no.
I think he's still the Duke of York although there are calls for that title to be taken away from him too. I'm not sure it can be really though. He's still the second son of the monarch.
https:/
https:/
I agree Naomi. What trouble have the other three brought to the Queen? Anne is a huge asset, Edward is now working hard on her behalf, and Charles has always supported her. The problems with his first marriage were unfortunate, and brought lots of publicity, but he didn't act like an idiot. He was just virtually forced into a marriage that was a disaster.
