The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[ECCOnoob]

10 minutes ago, altus said:

The prince previously said he would never settle and wanted a jury trial so to imply she's the only one to go back on what they previously claimed is disingenuous. He is just as responsible for things not being tested in court as she is.

 

Andrew may have avoided facing the allegations in court and as such not been found liable. That doesn't mean things will go back to how they were before for him. His reputation is shredded, he's lost all his official positions and will never be a 'public' royal again.

The question, is that fair?

 

She gets to ruin a reputation without a shred of evidence being produced, the high profile accused gets publicly named and shamed beyond any levels of recovery - regardless of fault or guilt, the court of public opinion and media passes its own entirely speculative and ill-informed sentence,  leaving nothing more the mounting costs and ever increasingly happy lawyers.

 

Whole thing stinks.  I certainly don't know enough about American law but it seems completely bizarre to me that a case can get so high profile, with so much media attention without even the basic provision of evidential proof and sworn allegations being established.

Edited February 15, 2022 by ECCOnoob

[altus]

5 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

The question, is that fair?

 

She gets to ruin a reputation without a shred of evidence being produced, the high profile accused gets publicly named and shamed beyond any levels of recovery - regardless of fault or guilt, the court of public opinion and media passes its own entirely speculative and ill-informed sentence,  leaving nothing more the mounting costs and ever increasingly happy lawyers.

 

Whole thing stinks.  I certainly don't know enough about American law but it seems completely bizarre to me that a case can get so high profile, with so much media attention without even the basic provision of evidential proof and sworn allegations being established.

Had he not gone through every loophole his lawyers could think of questioning Giuffre's motives/integrity/etc. to try and avoid a trial he claimed he wanted only to choose to settle after he'd exhausted all other options people might have viewed him a bit more sympathetically. Did he only settle because he realised he'd perform terribly in court[1]? Possibly. It's all academic now.

 

 

[1] His performance in the Maitlis interview showed he'll likely be his own worst enemy has he appeared in court.

[hackey lad]

Why did she settle , twice  , when she said she wanted justice?

[Dromedary]

2 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Why did she settle , twice  , when she said she wanted justice?

Why did he also settle when he said he wanted it to go to trial?

[cgksheff]

7 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Why did she settle , twice  , when she said she wanted justice?

It is an adversarial contest.

Neither side will ever suggest withdrawal until a deal is reached.

She will have been advised as to the probable net result if continuing, versus offers from Andrew.

[crookesey]

I suppose that the untouchability of the royals has been tested and found wanting. His father had affairs literally in their dozens and went to his grave with his reputation virtually unblemished, something that is no longer possible. I blame the Queen, there is no way that his goings on could have been missed by the royal machine, perhaps she had gotten used to it In respect of her late husband. I see this as a beginning to the end of respect for the royals by their closest protectors.

[PRESLEY]

He didn't keep bad company he was drawn to bad company just like he was drawn to the Porn Star Koo Stark just like his father was drawn to the Prostitute  Christine Keeler during the Perfumer scandal  and  like one of Victoria's sons who was also drawn to prostitutes and King Charles drawn to Nell Gwin, Birds of a feather, , it runs in the blood but due the corrupt powerful positions they are in they squirm out of the seedy perverted situations they get into,  A letter was once sent to a so called Gentlemens club in London that Phillip frequented on regular occasions by his next of command and also best Pal bragging whilst touring the Cook Islands ect on the Brittania how many women they had been with, his  Pals  wife divorced him but the Queen due to the scandal it would have caused especially back then reluctantly  got Phillip  out of it. A bad seedy lot.   

[Padders]

6 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

He didn't keep bad company he was drawn to bad company just like he was drawn to the Porn Star Koo Stark just like his father was drawn to the Prostitute  Christine Keeler during the Perfumer scandal  and  like one of Victoria's sons who was also drawn to prostitutes and King Charles drawn to Nell Gwin, Birds of a feather, , it runs in the blood but due the corrupt powerful positions they are in they squirm out of the seedy perverted situations they get into,  A letter was once sent to a so called Gentlemens club in London that Phillip frequented on regular occasions by his next of command and also best Pal bragging whilst touring the Cook Islands ect on the Brittania how many women they had been with, his  Pals  wife divorced him but the Queen due to the scandal it would have caused especially back then reluctantly  got Phillip  out of it. A bad seedy lot.   

Don't tell me he was having it off with the Avon Lady.

[trastrick]

9 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

He didn't keep bad company he was drawn to bad company just like he was drawn to the Porn Star Koo Stark just like his father was drawn to the Prostitute  Christine Keeler during the Perfumer scandal  and  like one of Victoria's sons who was also drawn to prostitutes and King Charles drawn to Nell Gwin, Birds of a feather, , it runs in the blood but due the corrupt powerful positions they are in they squirm out of the seedy perverted situations they get into,  A letter was once sent to a so called Gentlemens club in London that Phillip frequented on regular occasions by his next of command and also best Pal bragging whilst touring the Cook Islands ect on the Brittania how many women they had been with, his  Pals  wife divorced him but the Queen due to the scandal it would have caused especially back then reluctantly  got Phillip  out of it. A bad seedy lot.   

Sound more like Sports Stars and Rock Stars, than Royals!  

[PRESLEY]

4 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Who told you Koo Stark was a porn star and Prince Philip had any dealings with Christine Keeler?  Sounds like old washerwomen gossip to me.

Just do some research before calling it washerwomen gossip, when you realise you are wrong you will still be in denial.  You have to see the lot you defend ie the Royals and Boris and his Goverment for what they really are. The Majority of the country can see it but sadly you can't. 

24 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Sound more like Sports Stars and Rock Stars, than Royals!  

Sports stars and Rock are not as seedy and Perverted.