Prince Andrew pays £12M to someone he never met for something he never did...

[Taffin]

This might be a Lincoln Titanic post but I couldn't see another one on the G&O




Queen to help pay for £12m Prince Andrew settlement

Duke of York reaches deal in sex abuse case but makes no apology to accuser Virginia Giuffre

The Duke of York will pay his accuser more than £12million using money from the Queen, The Telegraph can disclose.

It was announced on Tuesday that Prince Andrew, 61, had reached an out-of-court settlement with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, meaning he will no longer face a jury trial on claims that he sexually abused and raped her on three separate occasions when she was 17.

The terms of the deal prevent either side from discussing the case or the settlement itself in public.

However, The Telegraph understands the total amount that will go to Ms Giuffre and her charity exceeds £12 million.

The Queen has already privately funded the Duke's legal fight to the tune of millions of pounds and will now partly fund the settlement in order to allow her son – and the entire Royal family – to draw a line under the case that had threatened to overshadow her Platinum Jubilee year.

Negotiations over the settlement are understood to have lasted for at least 10 days, with the Duke's team changing tack when the date for his deposition – which would have seen him questioned under oath by Ms Giuffre's legal team – was set for March 10.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/02/15/queen-help-pay-12m-prince-andrew-settlement/

[Taffin]

[Rascal full]

Queen not paying shit as per usual. Taxpayer have to bail out the spoilt, pampered wank stain.

[Taffin]

What's weird about this - hmm... or maybe not - is that this doesn't pop up on the front pages of Google News - not even the UK version

It's only because I subscribe to the Telegraph and was just having a quick lunch break that I even noticed this...

Just realised as I typed that means a paywall for most GetBiggers, so here's a recap from a left-wing paper (Guardian) if you even want reminding of the tawdry details



What has happened?

In an unexpected twist to a case that has been the subject of intense media scrutiny, documents submitted to a civil court in New York on Tuesday reveal that Prince Andrew plans to settle with Virginia Giuffre. She had claimed she was trafficked to have sex with the Queen’s second son on three occasions when she was 17, a claim he has consistently denied.

Prior to the settlement, the case was in the “discovery” phase, meaning that several witnesses, including Andrew and Giuffre, were lined up to give depositions. A civil sex assault trial was scheduled to follow between September and December.

What were the allegations?
Andrew was reportedly introduced to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein by British media heiress Ghislaine Maxwell in 1999. Epstein killed himself in his jail cell after he was arrested for sex trafficking girls as young as 14 in 2019. Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator, was recently convicted as a sex trafficker for luring girls into his orbit.

Giuffre, who is now 38, has alleged that Andrew met her in the Tramp nightclub in London in 2001 and sexually assaulted her at Maxwell’s home in Belgravia, London. She said he assaulted her on two further occasions, at Epstein’s New York home and at an “orgy” on his private island in the Caribbean. Giuffre has also accused Andrew of engaging in sexual misconduct on other occasions as an associate of Epstein’s.

It wasn’t until 2015 that details became public, when court documents filed in Florida in which Giuffre accused Epstein of trafficking her also alleged that Andrew had sexually assaulted her.

Was the case headed for court?
In August last year, Giuffre filed a suit in New York against the royal, citing battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Andrew attempted to block the lawsuit on grounds that Giuffre’s $500,000 2009 settlement with Epstein shielded him after this was unsealed on 3 January. However on 12 January Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that the suit could go forward. Kaplan also rejected Andrew’s claims that Giuffre’s civil allegations lacked necessary specificity.

Andrew’s former assistant, Robert Olney, and Shukri Walker, who claims to have seen Andrew in the Tramp nightclub, were to give their depositions following Andrew’s in March. Giuffre had not yet set a date in court for when she would give a detailed account of what happened.

Andrew’s legal team had asked to question Giuffre’s husband and her psychologist, claiming that she “may suffer from false memories”. Giuffre’s lawyer has said separately that their strategy was “to attack her character, her moral credibility”.

A date in March had been set for Andrew to give evidence under oath.

Was this expected?
Absolutely not. Andrew has strenuously denied the accusations until this point and has said he would never settle. Last month, his lawyers said he was not a co-conspirator of Epstein, demanded a jury trial and listed several reasons why they believe Giuffre’s case should not stand.

Giuffre’s lawyer had also insisted she wanted the case heard in court and that she would be unlikely to accept a “purely financial settlement”. He added that any resolution must “vindicate her and vindicate the other victims”.

It is thought the settlement will come as a relief to the Queen, since the royal family had feared the court case would overshadow platinum jubilee celebrations this year.

What does the settlement entail?
The full details, including the sum that Andrew will pay out, are not disclosed in the document, but Andrew has agreed to make a “substantial donation” to a charity supporting victims’ rights, and has accepted that Giuffre “suffered as an established victim of abuse”. He makes no admission of liability.

In the document he also commends Giuffre’s bravery and regrets his association with Epstein, stating that Andrew will demonstrate this “by supporting the fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims”. The text further outlines how Giuffre will dismiss the case once she receives the settlement.

What has the fallout been for Andrew so far?
Andrew’s reputation and standing within the royal family have taken a serious beating.

Andrew stepped back from his public duties as a member of the royal family in 2019 after a disastrous BBC TV interview where he claims he could not have had sex with Giuffre because he was at home after a visit to Pizza Express in Woking. He also attempted to refute Giuffre’s claim that the royal was “sweating profusely all over me” when they met at Tramp, stating he had a “peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat or I didn’t sweat at the time”.

The Queen stripped her son of a range of military affiliations and royal patronages.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/15/prince-andrews-settlement-with-virginia-giuffre-what-just-happened

[Rambone]

“Royal Family” what a silly concept

[GymnJuice]

“Royal Family” what a silly concept

The royals are the only people who have done less than the Kardashians to earn their money.

[Matt]

The terms of the deal prevent either side from discussing the case or the settlement itself in public.

Ah. Nice to get an update.

I had just asked my friend about the horny prince. I always forget his name.

PRINCE ANDREW.
The Horny Prince.

I'm glad the settlement includes a nondisclosure clause. In Canada, billions of dollars were given to Indigenous people, apparently with the same clause, regarding residential schools. That doesn't stop out Indigenous population from bitching and complaining about residential schools, and getting yet ANOTHER settlement with a nice percentage for their Jewish lawyers, for abuses that never happened in most cases.

This strategy will keep working, then suddenly it won't work.
And then it really won't work anymore.

I am fine with the horny prince settling this out of court like this. I have no idea if he's guilty, but when the body language panel on YouTube did an analysis of his interview with that female BBC reporter, he looked guilty as sin.

Either way, if this bitch [the 17-year-old he allegedly had sex with] talks about the case, she should go to prison.

The settlement specifically states she can't talk about it, and I think that should be adhered to. Unlike pathetic Canadians.

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

This might be a Lincoln Titanic post but I couldn't see another one on the G&O




Queen to help pay for £12m Prince Andrew settlement

Duke of York reaches deal in sex abuse case but makes no apology to accuser Virginia Giuffre

The Duke of York will pay his accuser more than £12million using money from the Queen, The Telegraph can disclose.

It was announced on Tuesday that Prince Andrew, 61, had reached an out-of-court settlement with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, meaning he will no longer face a jury trial on claims that he sexually abused and raped her on three separate occasions when she was 17.

The terms of the deal prevent either side from discussing the case or the settlement itself in public.

However, The Telegraph understands the total amount that will go to Ms Giuffre and her charity exceeds £12 million.

The Queen has already privately funded the Duke's legal fight to the tune of millions of pounds and will now partly fund the settlement in order to allow her son – and the entire Royal family – to draw a line under the case that had threatened to overshadow her Platinum Jubilee year.

Negotiations over the settlement are understood to have lasted for at least 10 days, with the Duke's team changing tack when the date for his deposition – which would have seen him questioned under oath by Ms Giuffre's legal team – was set for March 10.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/02/15/queen-help-pay-12m-prince-andrew-settlement/

No surprise...they dont want this hanging in the air

[Rambone]

The royals are the only people who have done less than the Kardashians to earn their money.

At least they earned it via capitalism through documenting their mudsharking adventures and overall whorish ways

[herne]

.

[illuminati]

Ah. Nice to get an update.

I had just asked my friend about the horny prince. I always forget his name.

PRINCE ANDREW.
The Horny Prince.

I'm glad the settlement includes a nondisclosure clause. In Canada, billions of dollars were given to Indigenous people, apparently with the same clause, regarding residential schools. That doesn't stop out Indigenous population from bitching and complaining about residential schools, and getting yet ANOTHER settlement with a nice percentage for their Jewish lawyers, for abuses that never happened in most cases.

This strategy will keep working, then suddenly it won't work.
And then it really won't work anymore.

I am fine with the horny prince settling this out of court like this. I have no idea if he's guilty, but when the body language panel on YouTube did an analysis of his interview with that female BBC reporter, he looked guilty as sin.

Either way, if this bitch [the 17-year-old he allegedly had sex with] talks about the case, she should go to prison.

The settlement specifically states she can't talk about it, and I think that should be adhered to. Unlike pathetic Canadians.

I have to disagree with you Matt
I hope all the details of the case do Come out - He's Nothing but an over privileged rich man
who knowingly hung around with a convicted paedophile .

He may be innocent only as he so strongly wanted his day in court with a jury why would he
agree to pay a vast sum of £ out.
It was a civil trial & he wouldn't of gone to prison if found Guilty.

I can't stand him & his Sick perverted German family.

[Matt C]

I have to disagree with you Matt
I hope all the details of the case do Come out - He's Nothing but an over privileged rich man
who knowingly hung around with a convicted paedophile .

He may be innocent only as he so strongly wanted his day in court with a jury why would he
agree to pay a vast sum of £ out.
It was a civil trial & he wouldn't of gone to prison if found Guilty.

I agree, but just one thing - if the little slut innocent victim of child sexual abuse is being paid so much to shut her trap not disclose information...shouldn't she not disclose it?  I mean - she's being paid NOT to talk about it...rightly or wrongly, shouldn't the law be followed?

Also, do we even know the details of what happened?

Is it POSSIBLE that Prince Andrew just thought he was hooking up with a 21-year-old slag?  Is that the English term for slut?  Lol.  We don't use the term "nonce" in Canada...diddler, molester, pedophile...those are all used here.

I'm not justifying his actions - I will go back and re-watch that BBC interview, and watch the body language panel speak on it.  But if all he did was thought he was fucking a young woman, that's a far cry from child rape.

Although one thing I find unjustifiable from what LITTLE I KNOW about this case - what very little I know, FYI:

Didn't Prince Andrew walk in Central Park in NYC with Jeffrey Epstein AFTER he was charged with child sex trafficking??

If so, then...maybe he's a heck of a lot more guilty than I am aware of.  But I DO think if this woman is being paid big bucks to shut up, that she should follow the terms set by the courts.  I think that IS fair.

How is she even being charged?  Does the USA have jurisdiction over this?  Do English people extradite their own people?  Sorry, illuminati - I really don't know much about this case, so don't think I'm disagreeing with you at all.  I just hate that people still cry victim even after being settled and paid out.  That's bullshit.  Why even bother settling? 

[POB]

What's weird about this - hmm... or maybe not - is that this doesn't pop up on the front pages of Google News - not even the UK version

It's only because I subscribe to the Telegraph and was just having a quick lunch break that I even noticed this...

Just realised as I typed that means a paywall for most GetBiggers, so here's a recap from a left-wing paper (Guardian) if you even want reminding of the tawdry details



What has happened?

In an unexpected twist to a case that has been the subject of intense media scrutiny, documents submitted to a civil court in New York on Tuesday reveal that Prince Andrew plans to settle with Virginia Giuffre. She had claimed she was trafficked to have sex with the Queen’s second son on three occasions when she was 17, a claim he has consistently denied.

Prior to the settlement, the case was in the “discovery” phase, meaning that several witnesses, including Andrew and Giuffre, were lined up to give depositions. A civil sex assault trial was scheduled to follow between September and December.

What were the allegations?
Andrew was reportedly introduced to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein by British media heiress Ghislaine Maxwell in 1999. Epstein killed himself in his jail cell after he was arrested for sex trafficking girls as young as 14 in 2019. Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator, was recently convicted as a sex trafficker for luring girls into his orbit.

Giuffre, who is now 38, has alleged that Andrew met her in the Tramp nightclub in London in 2001 and sexually assaulted her at Maxwell’s home in Belgravia, London. She said he assaulted her on two further occasions, at Epstein’s New York home and at an “orgy” on his private island in the Caribbean. Giuffre has also accused Andrew of engaging in sexual misconduct on other occasions as an associate of Epstein’s.

It wasn’t until 2015 that details became public, when court documents filed in Florida in which Giuffre accused Epstein of trafficking her also alleged that Andrew had sexually assaulted her.

Was the case headed for court?
In August last year, Giuffre filed a suit in New York against the royal, citing battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Andrew attempted to block the lawsuit on grounds that Giuffre’s $500,000 2009 settlement with Epstein shielded him after this was unsealed on 3 January. However on 12 January Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that the suit could go forward. Kaplan also rejected Andrew’s claims that Giuffre’s civil allegations lacked necessary specificity.

Andrew’s former assistant, Robert Olney, and Shukri Walker, who claims to have seen Andrew in the Tramp nightclub, were to give their depositions following Andrew’s in March. Giuffre had not yet set a date in court for when she would give a detailed account of what happened.

Andrew’s legal team had asked to question Giuffre’s husband and her psychologist, claiming that she “may suffer from false memories”. Giuffre’s lawyer has said separately that their strategy was “to attack her character, her moral credibility”.

A date in March had been set for Andrew to give evidence under oath.

Was this expected?
Absolutely not. Andrew has strenuously denied the accusations until this point and has said he would never settle. Last month, his lawyers said he was not a co-conspirator of Epstein, demanded a jury trial and listed several reasons why they believe Giuffre’s case should not stand.

Giuffre’s lawyer had also insisted she wanted the case heard in court and that she would be unlikely to accept a “purely financial settlement”. He added that any resolution must “vindicate her and vindicate the other victims”.

It is thought the settlement will come as a relief to the Queen, since the royal family had feared the court case would overshadow platinum jubilee celebrations this year.

What does the settlement entail?
The full details, including the sum that Andrew will pay out, are not disclosed in the document, but Andrew has agreed to make a “substantial donation” to a charity supporting victims’ rights, and has accepted that Giuffre “suffered as an established victim of abuse”. He makes no admission of liability.

In the document he also commends Giuffre’s bravery and regrets his association with Epstein, stating that Andrew will demonstrate this “by supporting the fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims”. The text further outlines how Giuffre will dismiss the case once she receives the settlement.

What has the fallout been for Andrew so far?
Andrew’s reputation and standing within the royal family have taken a serious beating.

Andrew stepped back from his public duties as a member of the royal family in 2019 after a disastrous BBC TV interview where he claims he could not have had sex with Giuffre because he was at home after a visit to Pizza Express in Woking. He also attempted to refute Giuffre’s claim that the royal was “sweating profusely all over me” when they met at Tramp, stating he had a “peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat or I didn’t sweat at the time”.

The Queen stripped her son of a range of military affiliations and royal patronages.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/15/prince-andrews-settlement-with-virginia-giuffre-what-just-happened

The news isn’t the news anymore everything online is propaganda  for big government. Your best bet is to find a podcast that isn’t censored yet with someone you trust with facts about what’s going on. Also changing your web browser from Google to something like duck duck go should help till they are bought and paid fully

[Walter Sobchak]

For $16,000,000 I’d let the soggy Prince bugger Shizzo’s ass until his kidneys fell out.

[SF1900]

I agree, but just one thing - if the little slut innocent victim of child sexual abuse is being paid so much to shut her trap not disclose information...shouldn't she not disclose it?  I mean - she's being paid NOT to talk about it...rightly or wrongly, shouldn't the law be followed?

Also, do we even know the details of what happened?

Is it POSSIBLE that Prince Andrew just thought he was hooking up with a 21-year-old slag?  Is that the English term for slut?  Lol.  We don't use the term "nonce" in Canada...diddler, molester, pedophile...those are all used here.

I'm not justifying his actions - I will go back and re-watch that BBC interview, and watch the body language panel speak on it.  But if all he did was thought he was fucking a young woman, that's a far cry from child rape.

Although one thing I find unjustifiable from what LITTLE I KNOW about this case - what very little I know, FYI:

Didn't Prince Andrew walk in Central Park in NYC with Jeffrey Epstein AFTER he was charged with child sex trafficking??

If so, then...maybe he's a heck of a lot more guilty than I am aware of.  But I DO think if this woman is being paid big bucks to shut up, that she should follow the terms set by the courts.  I think that IS fair.

How is she even being charged?  Does the USA have jurisdiction over this?  Do English people extradite their own people?  Sorry, illuminati - I really don't know much about this case, so don't think I'm disagreeing with you at all.  I just hate that people still cry victim even after being settled and paid out.  That's bullshit.  Why even bother settling? 

So you defended pedophilia in another thread, defending TA, now you’re defending another potential pervert who preys on young girls.

[illuminati]

I agree, but just one thing - if the little slut innocent victim of child sexual abuse is being paid so much to shut her trap not disclose information...shouldn't she not disclose it?  I mean - she's being paid NOT to talk about it...rightly or wrongly, shouldn't the law be followed?

Also, do we even know the details of what happened?

Is it POSSIBLE that Prince Andrew just thought he was hooking up with a 21-year-old slag?  Is that the English term for slut?  Lol.  We don't use the term "nonce" in Canada...diddler, molester, pedophile...those are all used here.

I'm not justifying his actions - I will go back and re-watch that BBC interview, and watch the body language panel speak on it.  But if all he did was thought he was fucking a young woman, that's a far cry from child rape.

Although one thing I find unjustifiable from what LITTLE I KNOW about this case - what very little I know, FYI:

Didn't Prince Andrew walk in Central Park in NYC with Jeffrey Epstein AFTER he was charged with child sex trafficking??

If so, then...maybe he's a heck of a lot more guilty than I am aware of.  But I DO think if this woman is being paid big bucks to shut up, that she should follow the terms set by the courts.  I think that IS fair.

How is she even being charged?  Does the USA have jurisdiction over this?  Do English people extradite their own people?  Sorry, illuminati - I really don't know much about this case, so don't think I'm disagreeing with you at all.  I just hate that people still cry victim even after being settled and paid out.  That's bullshit.  Why even bother settling? 

Andrew continued his friendship with Epstien after his conviction that is a fact & spent time with him
Why do you call her a slut ? if she was trafficked / used by Maxwell & epstien ?
I work with sexually abused girls - yes sadly some are just that way inclined from an early age & exploit it - many others are Not & are very Much Victims & have been manipulated / coerced into
the sex industry. And although she has been paid she is still a victim as No doubt others are & I very much hope they come forwards also.

As far as i know at the moment I don@t think there is a Non Disclosure clause - And if there is then that makes Zero sense re andrew & his innocence - He's paid a huge sum of Money to a woman
He claims He doesn't Know / Has never met / Hasn't had sex with & Also doesn't want Her to
Talk about these events that he says Never happened !! WTF Really.
 
You are appearing to Side with Him, I'm a Taken a back that you would.
He's an over privileged rich Twat & has paid his way out of a trial That only just recently he wanted & a trial by jury at That.  If the British police wasn't so Fcucking corrupt & controlled he should be investigated for being a Nonce as should many other members of his family.

As far as I can make out from all that have spoken about Andrew he is an Utter Khunt & thoroughly dislikeable man He deserves all the Crap & More that comes his way.

[G_Thang]

When did the descendants of German Usurpers pay for anything?

[illuminati]

Matt also remember that andrew has Mi5 / Mi6 & police intelligence around him - They & him
would know pretty much everything on all people he meets . Yet he had many paedophile
Friends & connections - he has chosen to Know & associate with these people.
He's as Guilty as Sin.

[Kwon]

GUILTY AS SIN!


Should be reported / deported!

[Taffin]

GUILTY AS SIN!


Should be reported / deported!

Hahahaa - yeah!  Send that Habsburg bastard back to Prussia!!

[joswift]

I agree, but just one thing - if the little slut innocent victim of child sexual abuse is being paid so much to shut her trap not disclose information...shouldn't she not disclose it?  I mean - she's being paid NOT to talk about it...rightly or wrongly, shouldn't the law be followed?

Also, do we even know the details of what happened?

Is it POSSIBLE that Prince Andrew just thought he was hooking up with a 21-year-old slag?  Is that the English term for slut?  Lol.  We don't use the term "nonce" in Canada...diddler, molester, pedophile...those are all used here.

I'm not justifying his actions - I will go back and re-watch that BBC interview, and watch the body language panel speak on it.  But if all he did was thought he was fucking a young woman, that's a far cry from child rape.

Although one thing I find unjustifiable from what LITTLE I KNOW about this case - what very little I know, FYI:

Didn't Prince Andrew walk in Central Park in NYC with Jeffrey Epstein AFTER he was charged with child sex trafficking??

If so, then...maybe he's a heck of a lot more guilty than I am aware of.  But I DO think if this woman is being paid big bucks to shut up, that she should follow the terms set by the courts.  I think that IS fair.

How is she even being charged?  Does the USA have jurisdiction over this?  Do English people extradite their own people?  Sorry, illuminati - I really don't know much about this case, so don't think I'm disagreeing with you at all.  I just hate that people still cry victim even after being settled and paid out.  That's bullshit.  Why even bother settling? 

Andrew commited no crimes, he had consensual sex with a girl of legal age

He should have just admitted he fucked her when asked.

Its his lies that have resulted in all this attention

[Irongrip400]

Is it going to her? I read he’s giving it to her charity earlier today, but this article says it goes to her and her charity. Pretty cool if he just donated it all to her charity, and none to her. Like the Marlboro man in “Thank You for Smoking”.

[AbrahamG]

So you defended pedophilia in another thread, defending TA, now you’re defending another potential pervert who preys on young girls.

@Matt - this is definitely not a good look for you. 

[Matt]

So you defended pedophilia in another thread, defending TA, now you’re defending another potential pervert who preys on young girls.

Superficially, it seems like that - but let's say you got banned for making a Michael Jackson joke, and someone said "SF1900 made a pedophile joke", or "SF1900 supports pedophilia humour", or something. Would I  come to your defense?

Damn right I would!

It comes down to "Innocent until proven guilty".

To be CLEAR...I think the horny prince sounds guilty as sin, lol. I mean...he appeared in public AFTER Jeffrey Epstein was found guilty. So...

He HAD to have known that was stupid. Makes me question his judgment on EVERYTHING.

I don't know what he committed rape though. But the settlement is very suspect. At the same time, there have been too many fake #MeToo cases that my default position is to NOT believe them.

I need more evidence first. And I advise caution to anyone who doesn't believe in the presumption of innocence.

[AbrahamG]

Superficially, it seems like that - but let's say you got banned for making a Michael Jackson joke, and someone said "SF1900 made a pedophile joke", or "SF1900 supports pedophilia humour", or something. Would I  come to your defense?

Damn right I would!

It comes down to "Innocent until proven guilty".

To be CLEAR...I think the horny prince sounds guilty as sin, lol. I mean...he appeared in public AFTER Jeffrey Epstein was found guilty. So...

He HAD to have known that was stupid. Makes me question his judgment on EVERYTHING.

I don't know what he committed rape though. But the settlement is very suspect. At the same time, there have been too many fake #MeToo cases that my default position is to NOT believe them.

I need more evidence first. And I advise caution to anyone who doesn't believe in the presumption of innocence.

For context can you provide the list of fake #metoo cases?  Or at least a few verifiable examples?