Prince Andrew

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Xipe Totec

Something nasty in the woodshed
This is a man so detatched from any idea of everyday reality that it seems to have never occured to him that any of society's rules or laws might actually apply to him. He appears to expect that he can just tell something inconvenient to go away, and it will simply do so.

Must be interesting, being him at the moment.
 
This is a man so detatched from any idea of everyday reality that it seems to have never occured to him that any of society's rules or laws might actually apply to him. He appears to expect that he can just tell something inconvenient to go away, and it will simply do so.

Must be interesting, being him at the moment.
Cross-posted from the Sleazy Johnson thread.
 

Mugshot

Über Member
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson has apparently had his car fire bombed.
This, (it is alleged by Robinson), is as a result of the work he's been doing, and his documentary called "The rape of Britain", that is about to air on "gettr" (no, me neither), which has helped to convict Ghislaine Maxwell.
Sorry my mistake, it's to do with his investigation and the evidence he has uncovered on Prince Andrew which he has handed over to the relevant UK and US authorities.

I think that's right.

Anyway, i would imagine there'll be some crowd funder or something where you can make a donation to buy him a new one if you'd like to.
 

glasgowcyclist

Über Member
Prince Andrew appears to be relying on a private agreement drawn up by a guy he ‘barely knew’ to protect him from the accusations of a girl he never met, that occurred on a date where he was at a party in a High St pizza parlour where nobody saw him.

While he’s expected to proffer a defence, this doesn’t strike me as the most substantial I’ve ever heard.

Also, this secret settlement agreement has me wondering about a few things.
When did Andrew first learn of its existence?
How did that knowledge come about?
Was it before or after the complaint from Ms Giuffre was lodged?
Has he ever seen it or a copy of it and, if so, when and how?
If, as he has previously suggested, he had no real connection with Epstein, why is he now relying on a document that only affords protection to people connected with Epstein?

Lots to ponder…
 
Prince Andrew appears to be relying on a private agreement drawn up by a guy he ‘barely knew’ to protect him from the accusations of a girl he never met, that occurred on a date where he was at a party in a High St pizza parlour where nobody saw him.

While he’s expected to proffer a defence, this doesn’t strike me as the most substantial I’ve ever heard.

Also, this secret settlement agreement has me wondering about a few things.
When did Andrew first learn of its existence?
How did that knowledge come about?
Was it before or after the complaint from Ms Giuffre was lodged?
Has he ever seen it or a copy of it and, if so, when and how?
If, as he has previously suggested, he had no real connection with Epstein, why is he now relying on a document that only affords protection to people connected with Epstein?

Lots to ponder…

I'd guess the existence of Giuffre's claim against Epstein was public knowledge as it was issued in a US State. There will be a template for such claims being settled even if the actual terms were not disclosed.

Asking for the agreement to be unsealed was more a well aimed shot in the dark than a fishing expedition.
 
Prince Andrew appears to be relying on a private agreement drawn up by a guy he ‘barely knew’ to protect him from the accusations of a girl he never met, that occurred on a date where he was at a party in a High St pizza parlour where nobody saw him.
It just reads as he put his d!ck in a little girl and is trying to get away with it.

While he’s expected to proffer a defence, this doesn’t strike me as the most substantial I’ve ever heard.
He tried ''it's photoshopped, ''who is that Epstein anyway?'' he might have ''That girl forced herself upon me!'' ''Alltough i'm pictured with my hands almost in her @ss really nothing happened pinky swear'' and maybe some other entitled rich kid bs excuse but i assume his laywers told him to stfu after that Pizza interview.
Also, this secret settlement agreement has me wondering about a few things.
It was not really secret but it contents where sealed, so the fact that there was a settlement was not a secret, what exactly was in it was secret.(until now)

When did Andrew first learn of its existence?
How did that knowledge come about?
That's indeed interesting to know, considering some pieces i have seen for it mention something about royal or royalties that might imply Andrew paid along for it? One thing to guy about Guys like Epstein is that they do nothing for free, so if the general wording could be read as a get out of jail free card, it's likely Andrew paid for it. The other option is that is was sealed so Epstein could use it as leverage later.(i haven't read in enough to see on who's request it was sealed at the time.

Was it before or after the complaint from Ms Giuffre was lodged?
Has he ever seen it or a copy of it and, if so, when and how?
If, as he has previously suggested, he had no real connection with Epstein, why is he now relying on a document that only affords protection to people connected with Epstein?

Lots to ponder…
If he has seen an copy it has to be before it was sealed or there is an other juridical issue, although Epstein is death so he can't be held responsible anymore.
Not sure if it makes an diffrence if it's before or after the complaint has been logded in this case..
 
This is a man so detatched from any idea of everyday reality that it seems to have never occured to him that any of society's rules or laws might actually apply to him. He appears to expect that he can just tell something inconvenient to go away, and it will simply do so.

Must be interesting, being him at the moment.
Would have been so much more interesting if he was in an Us jail, with all other inmates knowing who he is and what he is in for suspected of having done. A shared cell would be such a fun experience for Andrew, maybe just as much as him an a little girl in one room... But unfortnually i don't think that's likely to happen.
 
"gettr" (no, me neither)
An instant grocery delivery service m’Lud. Useful for when you run out of milkshake and similar comestibles.
 

glasgowcyclist

Über Member
I'd guess the existence of Giuffre's claim against Epstein was public knowledge as it was issued in a US State
I was referring to her complaint against Prince Andrew, alleging she was forced to have sex with him.


There will be a template for such claims being settled even if the actual terms were not disclosed.
Settlement agreements typically include non-disclosure agreements that bind both sides, including not revealing the existence of the agreement or the sum settled for.


Asking for the agreement to be unsealed was more a well aimed shot in the dark than a fishing expedition
But Prince Andrew was aware of the protection he hopes it offers him prior to it being unsealed by the court. How did he come into that knowledge?

Addressing another comment up thread; I believe the relevant age of consent for Ms Giuffre was 18, making her a minor (not a little girl but certainly a child) at the time of the the alleged intercourse with Prince Andrew. That would constitute statutory rape.
 
OP
OP
Pale Rider

Pale Rider

Veteran
How did he come into that knowledge?

It was almost certain Roberts would have agreed to keep quiet about what went on in Epstein's properties, not least to protect Maxwell which he would wanted to have done at the time.

Looks to me as if those prosecuting Maxwell swerved around the agreement by focusing on other victims.

I believe the relevant age of consent for Ms Giuffre was 18,

The age of consent is different in the states where Epstein's properties are located,

Roberts was also having relevant birthdays at the time to confuse matters further,

it doesn't make a great deal of difference in the grand scheme of things, although would if someone was trying to run a defence of consent.
 
There was some notion being discussed on the radiogram last night that there is a loophole in the Epstein agreement that makes it null and void in this case. In-brief, something along the lines that Epstein needs to be alive in order for it to be effective/operable. I've not heard more about this in today's news.

Another bit of info. pertaining to this whole case is that Ghislaine M. believes that Epstein was murdered in prison to silence him to protect others. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but if that's her belief we could assume that's she's not going to squawk anytime soon.....
 
Top Bottom