Scrutable

I read an article the other day suggesting that one of Maxwell's options for reducing her jail-time - indeed possibly reducing it to no more, or little more, than she will have ended up serving on remand - is to give evidence to dob in all the other offenders.

IvanV wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:34 am

I read an article the other day suggesting that one of Maxwell's options for reducing her jail-time - indeed possibly reducing it to no more, or little more, than she will have ended up serving on remand - is to give evidence to dob in all the other offenders.

Think she’ll go for appeal first, still denying it.

Man who says he doesn't remember meeting a teenager - when there's a photo of him with his arm around her waist (eugh!) - says she might be suffering from false memory syndrome.
Bastard
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... nd-husband

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:50 pm

Man who says he doesn't remember meeting a teenager - when there's a photo of him with his arm around her waist (eugh!) - says she might be suffering from false memory syndrome.
Bastard
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... nd-husband

Still got the same PR team then

Not 100% implausible that a celeb might not remember every young woman whose waist he's had his arm around, tbf.

There's further evidence, though.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:01 pm

Not 100% implausible that a celeb might not remember every young woman whose waist he's had his arm around, tbf.

There's further evidence, though.

It's very easy to forget people one has met, and even been intimate with.
I have forgotten over half the women I've had sex with in my life, and certainly a far greater proportion of the women I've kissed, danced with or had my arm around.

tom p wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:18 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:01 pm

Not 100% implausible that a celeb might not remember every young woman whose waist he's had his arm around, tbf.

There's further evidence, though.

It's very easy to forget people one has met, and even been intimate with.
I have forgotten over half the women I've had sex with in my life, and certainly a far greater proportion of the women I've kissed, danced with or had my arm around.

#NotSoHumbleBrag

Well, they can't remember him either.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:54 pm

Well, they can't remember him either.

I'd have thought that someone would remember their worst ever f.ck.

Demanding a jury trial https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... yers-court

Wonder if that means he's gonna go for a populist "I'm just a normal princely bloke shagging teenage girls, you'd do it too you know you would" defence, rather than the previous "I was eating pizza in a wok" shambles.

His response is bizarre. He's dropped his defences that he can't sweat and was eating pizza, presumably because he can't substantiate either part of the alibi.

Though he also seems to be suffering from terrible amnesia:

Among the allegations from Giuffre’s complaint that Andrew said he could not admit or deny were that:

Andrew and convicted sex-trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell have been photographed at numerous social events together.

Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to the charge of procuring a minor for prostitution.

Andrew had been on Epstein’s private plane and stayed at some of his homes.

The infamous photograph depicts Andrew, Giuffre and Maxwell at Maxwell’s home.

Andrew admitted in the disastrous 2019 Newsnight interview to having been on Epstein’s jet and having stayed at several of his properties, while Epstein’s conviction is a matter of public record. The prince’s court papers also raised eyebrows for their denial that Maxwell, whom Andrew met when she was at university, was a close friend.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... to-lawsuit

I really hope they get to dig out all kinds of juice documents in front of a jury, oh boy. As long as he ends up paying the costs.

From a satirical account on Twitter:
Thrilled for Prince Andrew who has justly paid to be innocent.

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:31 pm

From a satirical account on Twitter:
Thrilled for Prince Andrew who has justly paid to be innocent.

It was a civil case, which means the joke doesn't work. Paying is the way civil cases end.

IvanV wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:58 pm

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:31 pm

From a satirical account on Twitter:
Thrilled for Prince Andrew who has justly paid to be innocent.

It was a civil case, which means the joke doesn't work. Paying is the way civil cases end.

Really?

If I ran into your car parked in a parking bay in a car park and I sued you for damage to my car, would you pay up?

"We hail Virginia's victory today. She has accomplished what no-one else could: getting Prince Andrew to stop his nonsense and side with sexual abuse victims. We salute Virginia's stunning courage.”

Nonsense.

Nonce sense.

Surely that’s deliberate.

Rich Scopie wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:15 am

"We hail Virginia's victory today. She has accomplished what no-one else could: getting Prince Andrew to stop his nonsense and side with sexual abuse victims. We salute Virginia's stunning courage.”

Nonsense.

Nonce sense.

Surely that’s deliberate.

I hope so. After all, Prince Andrew does have more genes in common with crabs than with you or I.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:53 am

IvanV wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:58 pm

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:31 pm

From a satirical account on Twitter:
Thrilled for Prince Andrew who has justly paid to be innocent.

It was a civil case, which means the joke doesn't work. Paying is the way civil cases end.

Really?
If I ran into your car parked in a parking bay in a car park and I sued you for damage to my car, would you pay up?

Paying is the only kind of outcome to a civil case, whoever wins, even if no one wins. There are also lawyers to be paid. Indeed, that's often most of the paying. The vast majority of civil cases settle early, to reduce the amount of paying, usually to reduce the amount of paying to lawyers. There can be other considerations, like not wanting the evidence to be heard. Like wanting to get on with your life. Though in Andrew's case, settling means not being able to get on with his life.

Some people do sue without any merit at all to their case, because they reckon the other side will pay them to go away, for some reason. So, in relation to your question, would I pay someone who hit my car and sued, the answer is, maybe. Maybe there's a reason they've got me over a barrel. Maybe it's cheaper, all told, to pay them to go away. It is left to us to judge whether that is what happened in Andrew's case. Many of us will conclude it is not what happened. The plaintiff is smiling, the defendant is not.

I'm really disappointed tbh

IvanV wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:46 am

jimbob wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:53 am

IvanV wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:58 pm

It was a civil case, which means the joke doesn't work. Paying is the way civil cases end.

Really?
If I ran into your car parked in a parking bay in a car park and I sued you for damage to my car, would you pay up?

Paying is the only kind of outcome to a civil case, whoever wins, even if no one wins. There are also lawyers to be paid. Indeed, that's often most of the paying. The vast majority of civil cases settle early, to reduce the amount of paying, usually to reduce the amount of paying to lawyers. There can be other considerations, like not wanting the evidence to be heard. Like wanting to get on with your life. Though in Andrew's case, settling means not being able to get on with his life.

Some people do sue without any merit at all to their case, because they reckon the other side will pay them to go away, for some reason. So, in relation to your question, would I pay someone who hit my car and sued, the answer is, maybe. Maybe there's a reason they've got me over a barrel. Maybe it's cheaper, all told, to pay them to go away. It is left to us to judge whether that is what happened in Andrew's case. Many of us will conclude it is not what happened. The plaintiff is smiling, the defendant is not.

And the bold is why that doesn't make sense in this case.

Andrew said he wanted to clear his name. Instead he folded. If he was confident that the evidence was in his favour, it would have been worth his while to go through court, and explain the evidence which seems so incriminating at first glance. It would have helped his income in the future, which would all be based on his reputation.

To be fair, the rest of us can answer "Yes, I have a one night stand with a different person almost every night" and nobody cares. But Andrew Windsor might prefer not to confirm this under oath, thanks to the scum tabloids.

And purchasing adult sex from exploited victims of abuse is legal in the UK and US, but probably nobody would want it revealed in a blaze of global publicity.

Perhaps other under age victims of this sexual predator will come forward and get justice. Plus his adult victims who did not consent - based on the stories, though, a hell of a lot of them did consent.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... dApp_Other

Just plain old grift, for a change

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:16 am

And purchasing adult sex from exploited victims of abuse is legal in the UK and US, but probably nobody would want it revealed in a blaze of global publicity.

I think that might vary by state over here, which may complicate things.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:15 am

IvanV wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:46 am

jimbob wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:53 am

Really?
If I ran into your car parked in a parking bay in a car park and I sued you for damage to my car, would you pay up?

Paying is the only kind of outcome to a civil case, whoever wins, even if no one wins. There are also lawyers to be paid. Indeed, that's often most of the paying. The vast majority of civil cases settle early, to reduce the amount of paying, usually to reduce the amount of paying to lawyers. There can be other considerations, like not wanting the evidence to be heard. Like wanting to get on with your life. Though in Andrew's case, settling means not being able to get on with his life.

Some people do sue without any merit at all to their case, because they reckon the other side will pay them to go away, for some reason. So, in relation to your question, would I pay someone who hit my car and sued, the answer is, maybe. Maybe there's a reason they've got me over a barrel. Maybe it's cheaper, all told, to pay them to go away. It is left to us to judge whether that is what happened in Andrew's case. Many of us will conclude it is not what happened. The plaintiff is smiling, the defendant is not.

And the bold is why that doesn't make sense in this case.

Andrew said he wanted to clear his name. Instead he folded. If he was confident that the evidence was in his favour, it would have been worth his while to go through court, and explain the evidence which seems so incriminating at first glance. It would have helped his income in the future, which would all be based on his reputation.

There's lots of reasons why important people make foolish decisions, to start with there's pride and over confidence, not having a long term strategy, being unable to grasp the seriousness of a situation, getting advice from people who only tell you what you want to hear.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 1:27 pm

jimbob wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:15 am

IvanV wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:46 am

Paying is the only kind of outcome to a civil case, whoever wins, even if no one wins. There are also lawyers to be paid. Indeed, that's often most of the paying. The vast majority of civil cases settle early, to reduce the amount of paying, usually to reduce the amount of paying to lawyers. There can be other considerations, like not wanting the evidence to be heard. Like wanting to get on with your life. Though in Andrew's case, settling means not being able to get on with his life.

Some people do sue without any merit at all to their case, because they reckon the other side will pay them to go away, for some reason. So, in relation to your question, would I pay someone who hit my car and sued, the answer is, maybe. Maybe there's a reason they've got me over a barrel. Maybe it's cheaper, all told, to pay them to go away. It is left to us to judge whether that is what happened in Andrew's case. Many of us will conclude it is not what happened. The plaintiff is smiling, the defendant is not.

And the bold is why that doesn't make sense in this case.

Andrew said he wanted to clear his name. Instead he folded. If he was confident that the evidence was in his favour, it would have been worth his while to go through court, and explain the evidence which seems so incriminating at first glance. It would have helped his income in the future, which would all be based on his reputation.

There's lots of reasons why important people make foolish decisions, to start with there's pride and over confidence, not having a long term strategy, being unable to grasp the seriousness of a situation, getting advice from people who only tell you what you want to hear.

I love the implication that he might, conceivably, have a long-term strategy. Unless it involves slowly poisoning his brother, nephews & great nephews, then it's one that's not going to get him anywhere