That's fair enough. It would be pretty galling to find out public money was paying for this. But he was never going to be doing time. The outcome was always going to be financial even if the trial went ahead. So these questions regarding the source of any payment would be being asked regardless.I do not think for one minute you need to be out Kaz..I believe most sensible can see what happened here..it was very wrong..These poor vulnerable girls were manipulated for personal financial gain to act inappropriately..Frankly, I would rather see Andrew do time than a financial out of court settlement with the sums being mentioned..We the tax payers, are funding that in one way or another, and perhaps that is what galls people ??
Edit.. And I believe we the tax payers have a right to know who settled this out of court payment
I don't think anybody is trying to defend him; he's a wrong un'.Staggering the number of people on here trying to defend an absolute **** .
No needOoh, I’ve been elevated to troll.
Bless.
Believe me there is no such thing as unanimous on this forum or in life..the forum allows us to express opinions and we dont necessarily like them all..as long as they reasoned and not abusive, fine by me..Agree with Kas on this one.Karen hasn’t got unanimous support for her position, so is stamping her feet. It’s quite common.
Staggering the number of people on here trying to defend an absolute **** .
It maybe something that was requested, but she said NO, and seeing as she had him over a barrel there was probably little he could do about it, failing going to trialWho would pay £12m for something they claim they hadn't done and not have a gagging order included?
You are right..I believe Kas was making the point that we should respect the victims here which is quite right..as long as guys like Andrew settle out of court with NDA's we will never know the truth, and I suspect that the truth would be damning not only for Andrew but many others.Noncey as fuck this mate. Lot of posters showing true colours here.
Like Maxwell deciding to sing for her supperI don't think anybody is trying to defend him; he's a wrong un'.
All we know for a fact is that sweaty Andy went to a known sex offenders private island and was photographed with a girl who later went on to claim the he had sex with her despite knowing that she'd been groomed and procured by Epstein for the purpose of having sex with rich, privileged men. She was 17 at the time of the alleged offence, which she claims he also knew.
He then made up an absolute crock of sh*t story and gave an ill advised car crash interview which just made him look guilty as f*ck.
We also now know that he's paid her a large settlement which essentially puts the civil case to bed (no pun intended). We can only speculate the reason behind this, but if I were forced to guess I would say he was fearful of disclosure evidence which may further damage his reputation and/or open him up to criminal prosecution in any future case.
Either way it is conduct unbecoming for any military officer, let alone a high profile member of the Royal Family.
He lost his virginity aged 12 to his fathers girlfriend. I’m not sure he a barometer of anything.At 17 people are sexually active, I agree that it's weird - but theres a reason it's not illegal for someone to sleep with people 16 or older.
Anthony Kiedes from the Red Hot Chilli Peppers was dating an 18 year old girl from Australia when he was at the age of 50. I didn't necessarily see huge outcry about that at the time.
The issue here for me is not the age gap or the fact she was 17, but the surrounding topic of the fact she was trafficked and potentially coerced into it.