Settling out of court is an admission of guilt

It is not an admission of guilt. It's an admission that PA wants to be rid of the publicity asap. Thank goodness the money is coming from himself and the Queen. And thank goodness it's going to a worthy charity so all's well that ends well.

A worthy charity? All of it?

all's well that ends well Caleo? This has been the tip of an incredibly grubby iceberg with 3/4 of the sordid goings on hidden below the water line. So many other well known names were in Epstein's inner circle. Trump and Clinton to name just two. Accepting hush money has, in effect, given the green light for these types of men to use and abuse women caught up in these rings. PA is as guilty as he is entitled. I hope he keeps well away from the public eye from now on.

Times article today seems to be saying that this deal only keeps Giuffre quiet during the Queen's Jubilee celebration year.

WhiteWavemark where did you read that the RF have publicy stated they will not 'bank roll' Prince Andrew? I haven't seen or heard that anywhere - who said it?
PA is not hard up - the chalet sale will likely pay his costs.
We will never know the truth - although no doubt VG will be writing a book about 'her truth' at some point. Prince Andrew chose some pretty disgusting friends, and perhaps his moment of realisation came with the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, as he had insisted she was his friend and Epstein merely an associate. As VG recruited girls for Epstein I don't see her as overly credible, and her testimony was evidently riddled with innacuracies which is why she wasn't called to give evidence in Ghislaine Maxwell's trial. What a sordid bunch - or as Terry Thomas might have put it 'What an absolute shower'.

accepting hush money has, in effect, given the green light for these types of men to use and abuse women caught up in these rings
The settlement accepts that VGiuffrei was trafficked, abused and has been subjected to public criticism.
Are you putting more blame on this victim?

No one seems to be aware that between 90% and 95% of civil cases in the USA end in an out of court agreement and do not go to trial. That is how their system works and how both sides would have been told it usually works.

In this case, we do not know the rights and wrongs of either side as it has not been tested. That is the point of this agreement. Many are made in this country regarding employment cases, etc. We may have an opinion that the employer – who pays – was in the right, or an opinion that the employee who agrees to silence on the subject was in the right but we cannot know.

In those cases the one thing we do know is that the money that pays for these cases is from tax. In this case it appears to be coming from the private purse. It has so far been "quoted" as anything from £5 billion to £12 billion going into Virginia Giuffre's charity. Again, we do not know.

The difficulty in this matter is that the situation isn’t about abduction & out & out a ‘ criminal’ activity, it is about the sad lack of morals of those who have no regard whatsoever for those that they see fit to use & abuse.
Any decent man worth his salt would not become involved with such activities.

Saw this:

Oh the grand old Duke of York
Never met that girl but then
He gave her a cheque for a couple of mil
That was signed by his Mum again

Can you imagine the fate of an ordinary man without influence or family money, who was accused of the same things as PA?

I read that VGs lawyers will take cut of the money as fees. Before the settlement it was , I think, said they were working for free.

An ordinary man without influence or family would have been of no use to VG, regardless of whether he was guilty or not.

Atqui

I read that VGs lawyers will take cut of the money as fees. Before the settlement it was , I think, said they were working for free.

Go9d, why shouldn’t they be paid for hours of work

Bridgeit

The difficulty in this matter is that the situation isn’t about abduction & out & out a ‘ criminal’ activity, it is about the sad lack of morals of those who have no regard whatsoever for those that they see fit to use & abuse.
Any decent man worth his salt would not become involved with such activities.

Exactly.

Also, the idea that Prince Andrew can work to support victims of sexual abuse and trafficking is absolutely abhorrent

Well hopefully the settlement money will be put to good use.

The money will presumably pay the legal fees and go into Ms Giuffre’s charity that works to support victims.
Pity Andrew and his legal team didn’t read the room and make this joint statement a year or more ago.
Calling the victim money grabbing sex kitten so recently wasn’t a good strategic move, much less a sensible way to defend andrew

No settling out of court is not an admission of guilt. It means that those involved have done the sums and simply cannot afford to fight to the bitter end, or do not feel psychologically capable of dealing with all the stress.

There is also the fear that the court may award less money in damages that you would get by settling out of court.

I also have a feeling that if you reject an out of court settlement, go to court and are awarded less than you were offered in the settlement you can also be left having to pay the other parties legal fees, because you turned down a generous offer and made the other party incur extra legal costs for no advantage.

varian

Can you imagine the fate of an ordinary man without influence or family money, who was accused of the same things as PA?

The police obviously didn't believe there was enough evidence to bring a case against Prince Andrew. This, in contrast, was a civil case where the two parties agreed on a resolution. Both will feel it is the best they might get. That is not an admission from either party.

If anyone wanted to bring a similar case against someone with little or no money I am sure they would be advised against it by their lawyers. What would be the point? If you end with an NDA, paid for by the person accused to save them going to court, you are talking about a simple financial negotiation. It is a long way from proving guilt and more like two people protecting their reputations. Yes, it will be an emotional time for those involved; it should not be for the lawyers. They will look at the facts including how much their client could expect to get or pay.

M0nica, I have a feeling that it is quite common for the courts in the US to award a lower amount than the one couldn't agree on. This is to encourage settlement rather than taking up court time. It would explain the 90% - 95% settlement rate.

I got the impression he denied meeting her so why pay someone he never met.

James O'Brien's epic take on the Prince Andrew saga | LBC

m.youtube.com/watch?v=fFMLu-OWWI4

James O'Brien explains why he feels sorry for the Queen | LBC

m.youtube.com/watch?v=wRzpWUnauuI#

Hits nail on head

DaisyAnne Yes, I think that is so, like the plea bargains you often hear of happening in the USA, where someone, who may be innocent admits to partial wrong doings for fear of what might happen if he was found guilty. I understand the conviction rate in US criminal courts is also around 90-95%.

Settlements out of court are not always fair on the parties involved. A friend lived in the family home with her parents for 40 years. her parents rented the house and when the owner wanted to sell up my friend bought it.

A litigious neighbour, as soon a she had bought it, claimed that a 2 foot strip of the land she occupied belonged to him. She had all the evidence to show this was not true, but when, after several years it got to court.the judge said he was fed up with petty property battles between neighbours and they were to leave the court and negotiate a settlement. She couldn't afford to challenge the judge's ruling and ended up ceding a one foot strip of her land to her neighbour.

Goodness M0nica, I didn't know the stats were so high in criminal cases.

I imagine it works both ways when it comes to the civil courts. Some will pay over the odds to protect themselves against litigious, but not necessarily harmed, opponents and some will have to accept less than they deserve because they cannot afford the fight. Very typically American in that fighting and winning comes higher in the courts than justice. I'm afraid we are going the same way and often at the expense of our taxes.

As the Romans found, circuses appeal to the masses. This slugging out between the lawyers has certainly stirred the gossips and the news outlets are happily feeding on it.