The Royals

kingstonian

ddraver said:

Surprised! I thought she wanted him to face the music...

I always felt that what she said and what she wanted were two very separate things. She had happily taken a settlement from Epstein so really not surprised she has now taken one from Andy too.

kingstonian

ballysmate said:

Didn't realise until today that the famous pic of Randy Andy with Giselle and his alleged victim is a picture of a picture. And as such, isn't really worth a w@nk evidentially. Andy's lawyers asked to see the original so that it could be substantiated whether it had been doctored.
Apparently she has forgotten where she put it after getting it back from the FBI.

Quite surprised such a valuable document wasn't secured safely in a vault somewhere.

I wasn’t aware of that either. Based on the info we’ve heard it didn’t sound like she had a particularly strong case against Andy, so this fact about the photo weakened it further.

ballysmate

kingstonian said:

ballysmate said:

Didn't realise until today that the famous pic of Randy Andy with Giselle and his alleged victim is a picture of a picture. And as such, isn't really worth a w@nk evidentially. Andy's lawyers asked to see the original so that it could be substantiated whether it had been doctored.
Apparently she has forgotten where she put it after getting it back from the FBI.

Quite surprised such a valuable document wasn't secured safely in a vault somewhere.

I wasn’t aware of that either. Based on the info we’ve heard it didn’t sound like she had a particularly strong case against Andy, so this fact about the photo weakened it further.

You, me and everybody's dog viewed that pic at face value. We weren't aware that a journalist had paid tens of thousands to take a photo of it and it was this photo that was peddled around the world.

rjsterry

kingstonian said:

ballysmate said:

Didn't realise until today that the famous pic of Randy Andy with Giselle and his alleged victim is a picture of a picture. And as such, isn't really worth a w@nk evidentially. Andy's lawyers asked to see the original so that it could be substantiated whether it had been doctored.
Apparently she has forgotten where she put it after getting it back from the FBI.

Quite surprised such a valuable document wasn't secured safely in a vault somewhere.

I wasn’t aware of that either. Based on the info we’ve heard it didn’t sound like she had a particularly strong case against Andy, so this fact about the photo weakened it further.

Not sure I agree. His legal team's main arguments seem to have been mainly technical points rather than a substantive reason why it couldn't have been him. The longer these things go on the higher the settlement will be - and the whole point is to agree a settlement; Court is the last resort not the goal - and settling at the last minute suggests he didn't have an easy way to dismiss the claim.

ballysmate

pblakeney said:

john80 said:

Does he really want to perjure himself by claiming the image is doctored and the girl was not there. Seems a risky strategy to me.

Clearly not.
Apparently happy to be guilty in the court of public opinion and out quite a few sovs.

Following the settlement, is he viewed any more guilty in the court of public opinion? I thought that verdict had been returned long ago.

pblakeney

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

john80 said:

Does he really want to perjure himself by claiming the image is doctored and the girl was not there. Seems a risky strategy to me.

Clearly not.
Apparently happy to be guilty in the court of public opinion and out quite a few sovs.

Following the settlement, is he viewed any more guilty in the court of public opinion? I thought that verdict had been returned long ago.

In my view likely but not certain.
That he thinks couldn't walk away absolved given his obvious prejudice tells me enough.

orraloon

That pic is now an NFT. Worth shitloadsamoney.

kingstonian

pblakeney said:

ballysmate said:

pblakeney said:

john80 said:

Does he really want to perjure himself by claiming the image is doctored and the girl was not there. Seems a risky strategy to me.

Clearly not.
Apparently happy to be guilty in the court of public opinion and out quite a few sovs.

Following the settlement, is he viewed any more guilty in the court of public opinion? I thought that verdict had been returned long ago.

In my view likely but not certain.
That he thinks couldn't walk away absolved given his obvious prejudice tells me enough.

He probably sees this as a victory, in the same way as he saw his tv interview as a success. Completely delusional.

kingstongraham

Where's he getting the dough from?

tailwindhome

kingstongraham said:

Where's he getting the dough from?

The Head of State

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

Where's he getting the dough from?

The source isn't great but there is some headlines here that don't make great reading for Andy.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10381287/prince-andrew-billionaire-money-royal/

rick_chasey

Complaining about royals spending a lot of tax money doesn’t make sense to me.

They’re royals, that’s literally the point. They are the state. It’s their money.

Real issue is he’s a nonce and he’s getting away with it.

rick_chasey

Also, why are people getting so animated about not having the physical picture?

You know it’s about what the picture is showing, not the actual picture, right?

After all, it itself is just a representation of what the light was doing at the moment the shutter was opened.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Complaining about royals spending a lot of tax money doesn’t make sense to me.

Did you read the link above?
Quite possibly very dodgy money and not necessarily collected from bank of mum.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Complaining about royals spending a lot of tax money doesn’t make sense to me.

Did you read the link above?
Quite possibly very dodgy money and not necessarily collected from bank of mum.

Yeah it’s a lot of “he took a private jet at £x of tax payers money”

Him getting backhanders from autocrats - what do you expect? This is what royals do.

Not all, sure. But you don’t get to pick your royals and some will be badduns.

Plenty of Brits could do deals in Azerbaijan etc and no one would mind one bit. Hell, I’ve even pitched business for the national Azerbaijani oil trading business SOCAR and attended their event at IP week.

People mind because he’s a royal. But what you gonna do?

pblakeney

Corruption is corruption*. He shouldn't be treated better or worse than anyone else.
My main point was the majority doesn't necessarily come from bank of mum.

*Saying that is how business is done, simply greasing the wheels, should not be acceptable.

rick_chasey

Sure, I agree, but he is treated differently because he’s a royal.

If he wasn’t a royal he wouldn’t be getting backhanders from dictators.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

Complaining about royals spending a lot of tax money doesn’t make sense to me.

They’re royals, that’s literally the point. They are the state. It’s their money.

Real issue is he’s a nonce and he’s getting away with it.

It's all good "what a stupid system" stuff.

ballysmate

orraloon said:

That pic is now an NFT. Worth shitloadsamoney.

If original and undoctored.

rick_chasey said:

Also, why are people getting so animated about not having the physical picture?

You know it’s about what the picture is showing, not the actual picture, right?

After all, it itself is just a representation of what the light was doing at the moment the shutter was opened.

rick_chasey said:

Complaining about royals spending a lot of tax money doesn’t make sense to me.

They’re royals, that’s literally the point. They are the state. It’s their money.

Real issue is he’s a nonce and he’s getting away with it.

You realise this is a civil matter and the worst outcome would have been an award for damages against him don't you?
AFAIK there are no criminal charges pending.

rick_chasey

Lol ok mate. Would suggest this not being a hill to die on.

*he's not in prison so he's not a nonce* is not the great argument you think it is.

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

Also, why are people getting so animated about not having the physical picture?

You know it’s about what the picture is showing, not the actual picture, right?

After all, it itself is just a representation of what the light was doing at the moment the shutter was opened.

You really can't grasp why it is important to produce the original picture so that it can be shown to be undoctored or that it has been manipulated?

If someone mocked up a pic of a short chap in cycle gear having sex with a shetland pony in Cambridge and then took a photo of it, you'd want the original faked image entered as evidence so that you could show it to be mocked up wouldn't you?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Lol ok mate. Would suggest this not being a hill to die on.

*he's not in prison so he's not a nonce* is not the great argument you think it is.

How does it compare with Rick says he is, so he is?

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Also, why are people getting so animated about not having the physical picture?

You know it’s about what the picture is showing, not the actual picture, right?

After all, it itself is just a representation of what the light was doing at the moment the shutter was opened.

You really can't grasp why it is important to produce the original picture so that it can be shown to be undoctored or that it has been manipulated?

If someone mocked up a pic of a short chap in cycle gear having sex with a shetland pony in Cambridge and then took a photo of it, you'd want the original faked image entered as evidence so that you could show it to be mocked up wouldn't you?

Sorry, on what basis are you saying it's doctored?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Lol ok mate. Would suggest this not being a hill to die on.

*he's not in prison so he's not a nonce* is not the great argument you think it is.

How does it compare with Rick says he is, so he is?

He's not a nonce because I say he is. I'm saying he's a nonce because he most likely is. Comprende?

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Also, why are people getting so animated about not having the physical picture?

You know it’s about what the picture is showing, not the actual picture, right?

After all, it itself is just a representation of what the light was doing at the moment the shutter was opened.

You really can't grasp why it is important to produce the original picture so that it can be shown to be undoctored or that it has been manipulated?

If someone mocked up a pic of a short chap in cycle gear having sex with a shetland pony in Cambridge and then took a photo of it, you'd want the original faked image entered as evidence so that you could show it to be mocked up wouldn't you?

Sorry, on what basis are you saying it's doctored?

I am not saying it is doctored. At present the only people who know are the people depicted and the person who allegedly took the original photograph.
That is the point. For it to carry any evidential value it has to be shown to be undoctored.

A photo of a photo doesn't carry evidential weight.

Dorset_Boy

So you have been repeatedly saying he absolutely is one, but now say that it is only 'most likely' he is.
For someone supposedly liberal you have some pretty right wing views in all sorts of areas . You're often quite happy to convict without actual evidence that holds up in court.
And no, I'm not saying that I think he is innocent.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Lol ok mate. Would suggest this not being a hill to die on.

*he's not in prison so he's not a nonce* is not the great argument you think it is.

It was a civil case. There is no guilty or innocent verdict and as a settlement was reached, nothing was proved or disproved. BM is right: the worst outcome would have been for the court to find against him and award damages. As was suggested up thread, many had already made their mind up anyway, but I'm not sure the size of the settlement tells us anything more that we didn't assume already.

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

Lol ok mate. Would suggest this not being a hill to die on.

*he's not in prison so he's not a nonce* is not the great argument you think it is.

I'm not saying he is or isn't anything.
I just pointed out what seemed pretty obvious. ie that he hasn't gotten away with anything. The whole point of a civil trial is to arrive at a settlement, usually cash. This is exactly what has happened.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

So you have been repeatedly saying he absolutely is one, but now say that it is only 'most likely' he is.
For someone supposedly liberal you have some pretty right wing views in all sorts of areas . You're often quite happy to convict without actual evidence that holds up in court.
And no, I'm not saying that I think he is innocent.

I'm not putting him in jail. Relax. I'm just a nobody with an opinion.

I'm of the view the bar to get him convinced is unfairly high because of his status as a royal, and generally it is tricky to prosecute nonces at the best of times.

Look at the Jackson's and Savilles of this world. Even if it's plainly obvious to everyone they still get off (pun not intended).

I'm liberal enough to think people can say what they want. I'm not saying I don't adhere to the "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to shoving people in prison or prosecuting them, but I'm also not so naïve to suggest that because you do not have a sentence for something doesn't automatically mean you haven't done anything illegal, right?

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

Also, why are people getting so animated about not having the physical picture?

You know it’s about what the picture is showing, not the actual picture, right?

After all, it itself is just a representation of what the light was doing at the moment the shutter was opened.

You really can't grasp why it is important to produce the original picture so that it can be shown to be undoctored or that it has been manipulated?

If someone mocked up a pic of a short chap in cycle gear having sex with a shetland pony in Cambridge and then took a photo of it, you'd want the original faked image entered as evidence so that you could show it to be mocked up wouldn't you?

Sorry, on what basis are you saying it's doctored?

I am not saying it is doctored. At present the only people who know are the people depicted and the person who allegedly took the original photograph.
That is the point. For it to carry any evidential value it has to be shown to be undoctored.

A photo of a photo doesn't carry evidential weight.

So you don't think it's doctored?

You spend a lot of time hiding your opinions behind technicalities or theoretical arguments.

Do you think, on balance, he's a nonce?

We're not in court. We can't prove or disprove anything. This is just a forum to share opinions.