The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[Mister M]

2 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Or the alternative is, she was just after the money as predicted.   So much for getting to the truth, getting her side of the story out there, getting all this so-called evidence disclosed..

 

Well done love, you've done it again, another easy target with a public reputation to damage, another easy cheque without any credible evidence tested before a court..

He should've refused the money going to the charity and set out the truth in court then shouldn't he

[hackey lad]

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

He should've refused the money going to the charity and set out the truth in court then shouldn't he

Or you could say , she should have stood her ground and had  her day in court 

[Padders]

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

Got to agree with you 

I agree as well our kid,

This has spoilt it though for all of us scandal loving posters.

 

[Mister M]

2 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Or you could say , she should have stood her ground and had  her day in court 

Maybe - but the money going to her charity was probably a consideration, and paying her off wouldn't be too much of a hardship for Andrew.

 

[hackey lad]

2 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Maybe - but the money going to her charity was probably a consideration, and paying her off wouldn't be too much of a hardship for Andrew.

 

But I thought she wanted everyone to know the truth . Same as she wanted with Epstein 

Edited February 15, 2022 by hackey lad

[hackey lad]

9 minutes ago, Mister M said:

But then Jeffrey Epstein would hardly keep company with an unknown pauper

What difference does that make ? She said she had proof/evidence against Epstein , A billionaire but  kept quiet for half a million .  Shes got proof / evidence against Prince Andrew , wants her day in court to show everyone how bad he is but again accepts ? pounds . Probably put her cause / charity  back years 

[Mister M]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

....and get crucified by the trial by media and public opinion in the process.

 

It was a no-win situation and like any sensible commercially minded approach, it's cheaper to buy off, end it now and try to restore.

 

She would have known that  from day one and that is exactly why she went after the world famous prince instead of uknown pauper.

 

Money grabbing media whore in my opinion. Not a single thing she said or done has been credible but she knew exactly how to pick her targets.

 

The only one being crucified on here is Virginia Giuffre

And you think Prince 'I don't sweat' Andrew is credible?

 

[hackey lad]

2 minutes ago, Mister M said:

The only one being crucified on here is Virginia Giuffre

And you think Prince 'I don't sweat' Andrew is credible?

 

Well , we could have found out but not now 

[Cyclecar]

Not been stated, but can assume DOY pays his legals (c£6m) and her legals (c£4m), as well as something in the charity box to ease his conscience. 
 

I think she folded. There is compelling evidence that the photo of him, her, and the Madame is a photoshoppie. 

[Dromedary]

10 minutes ago, Cyclecar said:

Not been stated, but can assume DOY pays his legals (c£6m) and her legals (c£4m), as well as something in the charity box to ease his conscience. 
 

I think she folded.

It looks more like he did and was scared of any negative outcome for him and the firm.

 

10 minutes ago, Cyclecar said:

There is compelling evidence that the photo of him, her, and the Madame is a photoshoppie. 

Is there? If there was then it would be have been a win situation in court and he would not have given in so easily. Maybe he gave in just because there wasn't any evidence that it was a fake after all, not sure that photoshop 20 years ago was that good either. this seems to be a classic case of damage limitation.