News0 min ago
Prince Andrew
According to this story, Prince Andrew is denying that Ghislaine Maxwell was his 'close friend' – but watching some TV program (very recently), there was a ex-palace official stating that she visited him regularly at Buck House, on one occasion coming and going four times in a day. And stating that he believed at one time they were ‘an item’.
Are Andrew & his lawyers not monitoring the media for relevant stories – that might contradict his claims?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10445007/Prince-Andrew-files-legal-papers-DENYING-Virginia-Robertss-sex-abuse-allegations.html
Are Andrew & his lawyers not monitoring the media for relevant stories – that might contradict his claims?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I think Andrew is a fool. He hasn't learnt from his disastrous TV interview. He still thinks he can turn up, tell his version of events (whether he believes it himself or not) and it will all be believed, sorted out, and blow over because he's a royal.
There's no way any jury will find in his favour, let alone an American one.
There's no way any jury will find in his favour, let alone an American one.
tomus - // I think Andrew is a fool. He hasn't learnt from his disastrous TV interview. He still thinks he can turn up, tell his version of events (whether he believes it himself or not) and it will all be believed, sorted out, and blow over because he's a royal.
There's no way any jury will find in his favour, let alone an American one. //
I agree.
I think he genuinely believes that he has done nothing wrong, either in his choice of friends, or his choice of social activities.
I would reiterate my point, that because he wants to see events in a certain way, that is the way they are, and therefore everyone else will see them the same as he does.
I think he may be seriously dispossessed of that perception if his case goes to a jury trial.
There's no way any jury will find in his favour, let alone an American one. //
I agree.
I think he genuinely believes that he has done nothing wrong, either in his choice of friends, or his choice of social activities.
I would reiterate my point, that because he wants to see events in a certain way, that is the way they are, and therefore everyone else will see them the same as he does.
I think he may be seriously dispossessed of that perception if his case goes to a jury trial.
// the judge had made up his mind//
wiv gazza and his privacy case ( before TTT's beloved human rights act) the judge ( aka judgie-baby) walked in and said - - "dont we know the law on this case?"
injunction not granted ( no right to privacy in those good olde days)
and secondly - NJ is expecting this - with one of the many unsuccessful appeals of the irish non bombes
judgie baby ( Lane I think ) said - the longer this case goes on the more convinced....
another wise wise soul regretted that hanging was not available to the old dear - to hang THEM not realising he was hanging himself
wiv gazza and his privacy case ( before TTT's beloved human rights act) the judge ( aka judgie-baby) walked in and said - - "dont we know the law on this case?"
injunction not granted ( no right to privacy in those good olde days)
and secondly - NJ is expecting this - with one of the many unsuccessful appeals of the irish non bombes
judgie baby ( Lane I think ) said - the longer this case goes on the more convinced....
another wise wise soul regretted that hanging was not available to the old dear - to hang THEM not realising he was hanging himself
Even though it appears that both sides want their day in court, there is a chance of a settlement right up to the day the case commences.
Ninety per cent of civil cases like this are settled before reaching court, and I am sure both sets of lawyers are ready to negotiate if the two parties agree to that as a solution.
My point remains - I think that regardless of what outcome this situation has, Andrew's reputation, and potential future as a working royal, are both destroyed already.
Ninety per cent of civil cases like this are settled before reaching court, and I am sure both sets of lawyers are ready to negotiate if the two parties agree to that as a solution.
My point remains - I think that regardless of what outcome this situation has, Andrew's reputation, and potential future as a working royal, are both destroyed already.
// He only needs to be 'alleged' in a court of law, where a burden of proof is required.// wiffle but never mind
is any one struck by the irony ( yes ! irony) of NOT discussing Boris and partygate on spurious grounds. OO it may be a police investigation and so we are not allowed to discuss....
we are: it is only after charges we cant.
the wise people who rule us are trading on our ignorance and the mods and the spare ed's
civil cases here are decided by a judge and so discussion on the internet is VERY unlikely to sway a judge - they so wise you see, like NJ -
and we hear whilst we are at it - that the Gray report is gonna be redacted big time on account of interfering with police investigatons
Prince Andrew's case ( the rand's) is being heard in New York and so it is extremely unlikely that discussion here can sway anything
(including statement that the judge hearing the case is clearly biassed)
Finally.... Judge Judy - a case cannot beget a case - and since Andy' s comment was about a case, it is unlikely the lover-Prince or lovely Prince would have a case for libel. British rule is - "interest rei publicae finis ad litem" - but Judge judy's is better.
so basically le it all hang out !
you have nothing to fear xc fear ( oh and the crazy mods on AB, random dleeters all of them)
is any one struck by the irony ( yes ! irony) of NOT discussing Boris and partygate on spurious grounds. OO it may be a police investigation and so we are not allowed to discuss....
we are: it is only after charges we cant.
the wise people who rule us are trading on our ignorance and the mods and the spare ed's
civil cases here are decided by a judge and so discussion on the internet is VERY unlikely to sway a judge - they so wise you see, like NJ -
and we hear whilst we are at it - that the Gray report is gonna be redacted big time on account of interfering with police investigatons
Prince Andrew's case ( the rand's) is being heard in New York and so it is extremely unlikely that discussion here can sway anything
(including statement that the judge hearing the case is clearly biassed)
Finally.... Judge Judy - a case cannot beget a case - and since Andy' s comment was about a case, it is unlikely the lover-Prince or lovely Prince would have a case for libel. British rule is - "interest rei publicae finis ad litem" - but Judge judy's is better.
so basically le it all hang out !
you have nothing to fear xc fear ( oh and the crazy mods on AB, random dleeters all of them)