You mean, his mum is paying. And all she required in order for him to get that money was that he gave up every title that linked them. Which is obviously perfectly normal behaviour for the mother of an innocent son.
Huge queue forms at Palace on news that Prince Andrew is giving away money to people he’s never met (newsthump.com)
Well how would he know for sure she was a victim if he wasn't there to witness any crime? It's a weird one isn't it. (but only if you've spent the afternoon reading the incel end of the internet)
Very nice of Prince Andrew to pay a huge amount of money to someone he has never met to stop them accusing him of something he definitely didn’t do. He’s just too honorable.
Every single action he has taken through the entire saga has just made him look more guilty. Obviously with it being a civil case a out of court settlement was the most likely outcome. At this stage it seems they have settled for everyone thinking he is guilty but not having any kind of verdict actually go against him. It's disappointing to see people questioning the potential motives of the victim here when the actions of the accused at every stage have been so morally bankrupt.
I don't know the particulars of the case and I don't want to. I'm just curious about something: What benefit is there to the woman who was bringing about the case to settle out of court and give the money away? I'm not criticising, I just don't understand. I'd understand if she kept the money. It's financial compensation for being wronged and in this world that is how people are compensated. But if the money has been given to charity she doesn't have any compensation and she hasn't been able to tell of her experience or expose the guilt of the person who wronged her. Genuinely confused how this benefits her. It's not even as if she's bankrupted the person she believes has wronged her. I suppose there is some satisfaction from giving to charity but that doesn't seem like enough to me.
The ‘charity’ is victim support, so there is a positive outcome from her perspective. And she also does have some compensation to keep.
He was 40-odd years old, she was 17. That’s all we need to know - he’s a dirty old perv, if some 40 year old was hanging about with my daughters when they were 17 he’d be eating food through a straw.
Fair enough. From my 10+ years of professional experience I can tell you you're way off. But if you're happy to be wrong then so be it.
Some people on this thread having an absolute nightmare with a subtle mix of misogyny and victim blaming. In other news rich man randomly pays woman he has never met a fortune nope nothing to see there.
The tone of the media ‘political commentators’ this morning is pretty twisted. Peddling the line that ‘the Queen will be relieved it’s settled as she doesn’t want it to tarnish her jubilee year’.
That’s the arrogance that comes from always getting your own way. See also; Johnson insisting there were no parties to the best of his knowledge.