Charles may pay for Andrew's security

Smileless2012

I agree M0nica PA is arrogant and stupid but being arrogant and stupid doesn't mean you're a sex offender, and saying so isn't defending him.

Neither is stating the fact that he has never been tried and convicted for the offence.

Totally agree.

I imagine the Crown is footing the bill although i suppose it could be Charles personally, but in his capacity as King rather than brother.
I don’t think rights, wrongs, ethics or morals come into it, it’s a question of security for a member of the RF. End of.

I’m familiar with the differences between civil and criminal courts. Beyond reasonable doubt can leave children and adult victims feeling they’re seen as liars. Perpetrators walk out smiling ‘innocent’ .
The rate of prosecutions is a national disgrace

but in the civil courts the burden of proof is lesser; it is balance of probabilites.
for the criminal courts it needs to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
that is the same basic legal system in uk and america, as far as i know.
there seems to be some muddled thinking here in this discussion, or maybe confusion re general principles of legal procedures.
civil matters are not the same as prosecution.

VS
Penises do not have their own autonomy and are not dragging around unwilling participants.
Thank you for that!

In 2020, fewer than obe in 60 rape cases recorded by the police resulted in charges. 52,210 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales, only 843 resulted in charges - 1.6%

The argument about whether the girls/young women ensnared, groomed, trafficked and sexually exploited by Epstein and Maxwell, we’re willing sex workers continues on this forum. I see them as very similar to the Rochdale grooming girls. They were vulnerable, that’s why they were targeted. That’s why they were seen as ‘prostitutes’ despite being 13-14 when snared and groomed.

I’ve sat through trials were racists / incestuous fathers/step fathers were found not guilty. The CPS/police believed the cases had 85-90 % likelihood of conviction, they absolutely believed the allegations. The judge directed the jury thst the absence of independent evidence in support of the allegations meant conviction may be impossible.

I used to believe I’d support those prosecutions. Not so sure of that now. A not guilty finding leaves the perpetrator ‘innocent’.
I’ve seen children weeping because ‘they didn’t believe me’.
I’m not at all surprised VG took money rather than go to trial. If I was her lawyer, that’s what I’d advise.

but he has not been involved in any criminal proceedings as far as i know.
so talk of guilt, innocence, offence etc are inappropriate.
he paid to settle a civil claim.
that is frequently done to avoid the expense and time taken of going to court (civil procedure).

I agree M0nica PA is arrogant and stupid but being arrogant and stupid doesn't mean you're a sex offender, and saying so isn't defending him.

Neither is stating the fact that he has never been tried and convicted for the offence.

Its not OK because other people are doing it and love a sex party

He's not blameless because he didn't ask their names and ages

He is quite capable of taking responsibility. Penises do not have their own autonomy and are not dragging around unwilling participants

I do not think PA ever knowingly sought out underage girls, but he is a stupid and arrogant man and I suspect, if anyone, especially someone official, warned him off Epstein, and they did, his immediate reaction would be to seek his company, on the grounds that no-one was going to tell him who to choose as friends.

I doubt he ever considered what problems that might land him in. Epstein was rich, generous and massaged PA's ego and PA convinced himself that he was being a loyal friend rather than a gullible fool. Younger sons of the aristocracy, with not enough to occupy their time and considerably less wealthy than their older brothers, are drawn like moths to wealthy people, who will finance their pleasures, for the cachet or usefullness of having them in their social group. In return the recipient asks no uncomfortable questions

Isn't that, effectively what Colonel Fitzwilliam says to Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice, warning her off, by saying that men like him can only marry if they marry a woman wealthy enough to keep them in the style they accustomed to.

I do not think Prince Andrew is knowingly a pervert or sex offender, but he is stupid and a man who goes to parties where he knows the young women present are there to provide sex on demand - and how many hundreds of thousands of men in this country, alone, rich or poor are exploiting women that way? - I doubt it ever occurred him to wonder how old these young women were. They were at the party, earned their keep and were gone in the morning. I doubt if the mornng after he could even remember their names.

The fact is that the man paid

And he paid knowing that some would view it as an admission of guilt

But also knowing it would not be proof of guilt and that there are those, even women, who would defend him

Yes it is conjecture VS and it's conjecture that PA agreed to pay because he was guilty.

She'd already received a substantial pay out and like PA must do, live with the knowledge that the case was never proved, either way.

One thing I’ve learnt, is that if there’s any occasion where the accuser can be shown to have ‘made an error or misremembered’ any evidence it will be implied that we can’t be certain that they haven’t ‘made an error or misremembered in current evidence. Certainly that would be a big incentive to take the sizeable amount of money offered, however wrong that is.
But again it’s conjecture, surmising, deciding on the basis of hearsay etc.

Smileless that's conjecture, we have no idea whatmade her decision for her

All we can do is loom at how difficult this sort of cases are to get convicted

We wouldn't feel badly about anyone else getting compensation

And for a person in a public case, slated across the media, protecting her future financial security where she now is recognisable, is actually quite sensible.

Too many women are abused and carry that legacy in mental health issues and tarnished reputation amongst peers, communities, even their own families

This man, in the public eye, will now find it very difficult to reoffend.

And he may have been found innocent as 99% of those accused of this type offence, ultimately are.

I cannot condemn her in any way

Grany

Norah

Urmstongran

I think I’m more shocked by the colossal amount of money involved for PA’s security (regardless of who pays it).

£3 million p.a.?
How much do these security firms charge p.a.? Multiplied by several operatives to cover shift patterns & sick leave etc.

But £3 million? Sheesh. A mind boggling sum of money.

Someone will be earning, from the King's money, out into the economy, IF PA's private security happens - paid as stated.

Good for the security firm.

Security for the royals is over £100 million its paid for by the metropolitan police.

Apart from what is paid for the royals, which is not the point, the King may do as he wishes with his money. The King paying for PA security will release some of the King's own money into the economy.

Yes that's true but for me choosing not to pursue a case due to insufficient evidence and the worry of securing a conviction, is not the same as deciding not too in favour of a substantial financial pay out.

Also, the Crown Prosecution does not allow a case to go court unless it's reasonably confident of success.

People have representation, she probably took advice.

The other issue with women going to court with this type of allegation, is that if they cannot provide enough evidence he is found innocent and she is branded a liar.

Many women face this awful decision and its not an easy one

Women breaking the law too I should think. Another thing that puts women in danger is accepting a payout rather than having your day in court, and doing everything you can to have your abuser tried and found guilty.

Nor me Mollygo.

There are a lot of men out there "innocent until proven guilty" breaking the law right now.

They aren't carrying around a certificate of innocence

They are just men who are getting away with it.

And not being able to recognise that, puts other women in danger.

Smileless2012

Not at all. Innocent until proven guilty is the law whether we like it or not.

Yes, I know, but it’s not the impression I get.🤣

Not at all. Innocent until proven guilty is the law whether we like it or not.

Smileless2012

We don't know if PA used trafficked females for fun and if he did, we don't know if he knew they were trafficked.

Innocent until proven guilty only applies if you like the result. It’s a long-standing rule.
No we don’t know.
But we can surmise from what we read. Same as we surmise unproven things about other posters on GN.
Such fun.

Cabinet discusses plans for king's coronation as health strikes continue - theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/dec/20/rishi-sunak-health-nhs-strikes-nurses-ambulance-pay-offers-live?page=with:block-63a1a45e8f08d81fc5001ac1#block-63a1a45e8f08d81fc5001ac1

And for the second time rather than see the man she accused go to trial, she took a pay off. As you would.