Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
johnny crossan said:
Why don't you quote the second part of that sentence which is specific?
The Queen poured millions of pounds into her son’s civil suit against Giuffre, The Daily Telegraph reported. And, as Andrew’s income is not enough to cover the £12 million ($16.3 million) settlement, she will reportedly be helping to cover those costs too. According to the Daily Mirror, the Queen agreed to contribute £2 million ($2.7 million) as long as she was not connected to any personal payment to Giuffre. Instead, the money will go towards Giuffre’s victim support charity.
Click to expand...
It doesn't contradict the first, so I am not sure why you are posting it.
She paid money to Giuffre's charity, to cover the civil suit costs, and to the settlement.

Still, we are bandying amounts. The fact is that Queen Elizabeth paid money to a trafficked minor allegedly abused by her son.

I am not sure what you are trying to defend here.
We are talking about trafficked children and young women who were forced to entertain members of the Royal Family at the behest of a convicted offender.
When details of the member of the family emerged, the head of that family paid money to make a civil suit go away. I understand why, but I am not sure what you are fighting for here.
 
Last edited:
oldius said:
Allegations against Savile were similarly unproven.
If the police are forbidden from investigating, then they will always remain so.
Thankfully, we take more account of the words of abused children now (I think).
Click to expand...
True, perhaps Andrew will do everybody a favour an expire before his accusers ever get him into court. Wonder what his two daughters think about their dad? Very nice girls everybody seems to think too.
 
johnny crossan said:
True, perhaps Andrew will do everybody a favour an expire before his accusers ever get him into court. Wonder what his two daughters think about their dad? Very nice girls everybody seems to think too.
Click to expand...
It must be utterly shameful for them. For your father to be accused of such abuse - I cannot imagine anything worse for a man's daughter.
 
oldius said:
It doesn't contradict the first, so I am not sure why you are posting it. She paid money to Guiffre's charity, to cover the civil suit costs, and to the settlement.Still, we are bandying amounts. The fact is that Queen Elizabeth paid money to a trafficked minor allegedly abused by her son.
I am not sure what you are trying to defend here.We are talking about trafficked children and young women who were forced to entertain members of the Royal Family at the behest of a convicted offender.
When details of the member of the family emerged, the head of that family paid money to make a civil suit go away. I understand why, but I am not sure what you are fighting for here.
Click to expand...
You are the one claiming a contradiction not me and I'm not defending anything except the facts against malicious speculation. Neither you nor anybody else except him know whether that description is accurate. Guiffre was six months short of eighteen when she was recruited by Maxwell btw - distasteful as it may be plenty of 17 year olds consort with older men quite legally.
 
johnny crossan said:
You are the one claiming a contradiction not me and I'm not defending anything except the facts against malicious speculation. Neither you nor anybody else except him know whether that description is accurate. Guiffre was six months short of eighteen when she was recruited by Maxwell btw - distasteful as it may be plenty of 17 year olds consort with older men quite legally.
Click to expand...
Not in the US though
 
johnny crossan said:
You are the one claiming a contradiction not me and I'm not defending anything except the facts against malicious speculation. Neither you nor anybody else except him know whether that description is accurate. Guiffre was six months short of eighteen when she was recruited by Maxwell btw - distasteful as it may be plenty of 17 year olds consort with older men quite legally.
Click to expand...
I was just asking you a question. The allegation are serious and I am trying to understand what you are trying to defend.
As for her age, to an extent it is immaterial, even if she were over 18. He is a member of the Royal Family.
She was a vulnerable young woman forced to entertain him. Others trafficked were much younger. Time will tell if he is alleged to have abused much younger girls.

Regarding your wider point, I am neither a republican nor monarchist.
I look at people, and I look at the behaviours within this family and cannot fathom why they are respected. It is no more than that. If their behaviour was impeccable, then I would respect that.
 
oldius said:
I was just asking you a question. The allegation are serious and I am trying to understand what you are trying to defend.
As for her age, to an extent it is immaterial, even if she were over 18. He is a member of the Royal Family.
She was a vulnerable young woman forced to entertain him. Others trafficked were much younger. Time will tell if he is alleged to have abused much younger girls.
Click to expand...
I repeat, I'm not defending anything I'm challenging the characterisation of the current allegations as proven facts - including speculation about unspecified other 'victims'. He has not been found guilty of any criminal offence.
 
johnny crossan said:
I repeat, I'm not defending anything I'm challenging the characterisation of the current allegations as proven facts - including speculation about unspecified other 'victims'. He has not been found guilty of any criminal offence.
Click to expand...
That is known, and true.
It is why the release of the files is so vital, and that testimony from victims can be properly heard.
Of course, if payments are made to stop cases going to court, they are never proven.
Alleged victims can turn down such offers, of course.
Alleged abusers who believe they are innocent also don't have to make those offers and can defend themselves in court.
 
Last edited:
oldius said:
She wasn't a volunteer, fella, she was bestowed with immense wealth and privilege as a result of that service. Effectively, it was her job. As a consequence of that job, she was able to give away £12m to protect her son from facing court. In my view, that is not a good look.

I absolutely respect your point that a mother will do what they can to protect their children, so I do not think she is entirely to blame here. He brought this on and appears to have repeatedly abused trafficked minors supplied to him by a convicted sex offender. If this were not the Royal Family, I suspect many more people would not dream of defending them. She may have been a fantastic woman - I have never met her. She may have been highly skilled at her job - I don't know enough about her job to analyse her skillset. She did, however, raise a family who appear not to respect their roles, their marriages, or their debt to the nation.
Click to expand...
Nothing that the Royal Family have "bestowed" on them is a "job". A "job" involves grafting for a living, doing things you don't necessarily don't want to do in order to provide for your family, and if you're lucky being able to do something you like to do and get paid for it.

The royals are born into wealth and inherit a lifestyle the rest of us can only ever dream of. Their "job" consists of allowing their likeness to appear on tat so tourists can buy it on the streets of London, and on special occasions they appear on a balcony to wave at the thousands of plebs who have gathered to catch a glimpse of and bow down to their overlords.
 
bluemc said:
Nothing that the Royal Family have "bestowed" on them is a "job". A "job" involves grafting for a living, doing things you don't necessarily don't want to do in order to provide for your family, and if you're lucky being able to do something you like to do and get paid for it.

The royals are born into wealth and inherit a lifestyle the rest of us can only ever dream of. Their "job" consists of allowing their likeness to appear on tat so tourists can buy it on the streets of London, and on special occasions they appear on a balcony to wave at the thousands of plebs who have gathered to catch a glimpse of and bow down to their overlords.
Click to expand...
I don't know enough about their day-to-day roles to either agree or disagree with you.
As to their wealth and lifestyles, of course.
 
johnny crossan said:
You are the one claiming a contradiction not me and I'm not defending anything except the facts against malicious speculation. Neither you nor anybody else except him know whether that description is accurate. Guiffre was six months short of eighteen when she was recruited by Maxwell btw - distasteful as it may be plenty of 17 year olds consort with older men quite legally.
Click to expand...
oh dear..
 
bluemc said:
Nothing that the Royal Family have "bestowed" on them is a "job". A "job" involves grafting for a living, doing things you don't necessarily don't want to do in order to provide for your family, and if you're lucky being able to do something you like to do and get paid for it.

The royals are born into wealth and inherit a lifestyle the rest of us can only ever dream of. Their "job" consists of allowing their likeness to appear on tat so tourists can buy it on the streets of London, and on special occasions they appear on a balcony to wave at the thousands of plebs who have gathered to catch a glimpse of and bow down to their overlords.
Click to expand...
clueless prejudice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top