Prince Andrew - out of court settlement?

It had been mooted early on, but clearly there’s a pile of money big enough so that no longer matters.
And again; that’s not a slight, we’re all human.

 

There are states in the USA where the age of consent is 16. It's 16 here.

It's a lot lower in other countries.

That's not defending Randy Andy. it's a fact.

 

It’s 16, 17 or 18 depending on the state, in Europe it varies from 14 up.

 

Don't get your point. Which most of us, if not all, are aware. Under the legal age in her state is all that counts. Its higher in some countries. The highest being 21.

 

She’s donating the money to sexual abuse charities

 

Apologies yes. I was meaning more the actual result of the case was about the money because that’s the only option she had. I think she’s already achieved a lot more than that by shedding light on the whole thing.

 

She's donating the money to sexual abuse charities - so hopefully this shuts up the wrong uns on here that were quick to victim blame.

 

I was replying to the statement "Under 18 is a child under US law. Can't see how anyone can defend him."

S0.. if Andy has sex with her in London when she's 17, where's the crime? I think I can see how anybody can defend him in court quite easily. Not that he'd get prosecuted.

If he banged her in New York it might be different. But to state "under 18 is a child under US law" is omitting that it is US state dependant .

Plus I happen to believe that it doesn't make someone a different or worse person if they had had sex with a 16 year old in Barnsley one weekend followed by sex with a 17 year old in New York the next weekend.

 

Can't say I'm a big fan of some of the language used in your comment ("banged"... Really?). Aside from that she has stated she was a victim of sex trafficking, so whilst she may have been over the age of consent in some states or countries, it doesn't excuse the fact that women over the legal age are groomed and coerced into sleeping with people. It isn't the same as a 21 year old bloke hooking up with a 17 year old in Barnsley.

 

What a disgusting way to describe an adult illegally having sex with a child victim of sex trafficking

 

All this "well she was 17" is missing the point - he didn't pull her in a club, she was trafficked by his mate, the convicted nonce.

 

Well it wouldn't be making love would it?

How would you describe it?

 

Well she should have taken him the whole way to prove all that, rather than settling.

Cos it's now left it all open to doubt.

 

I wouldn't describe it as you did but then I wouldn't have tried to defend his actions like you did either and I certainly wouldn't have tried to defend him AND describe it in the way you did all in one thread

 

Not like that

 

Easy for you to say what she should have done. Bear in mind this is a civil trial and she's facing a member of one of the world's most powerful families with all the money, power and influence that carries.

And if she loses it's not just a case of "oh ****, never mind" - she still has to pay her legal bill, and likely his legal bill as well. Given the evidential difficulty in proving historic sex crimes even if he is guilty there is a real risk that she loses the lawsuit and ends up bankrupt and disgraced as an apparent liar.

 

Go and read it all back - whilst I appreciate that you like to dramatise things, you will find no instance of my trying to defend said royal. Having said that, I have no idea as to what actually happened between these two individuals, and neither do you.

That's the trouble with making a point on here - if you don't agree with someone it is taken to mean you believe something that is the absolute opposite.

 

How much money does she have to pursue the case? I would imagine both sets of lawyers will be satisfied though.

 

Well she would have known all that right from the start. Was probably on a freebie from her lawyers. She instigated the claim. It's not a matter of proving "guilt" from a legal point of view is it? Is this not a civil case?

I don't blame her for settling, but it's probably because she was told that she was going to have trouble winning. And her lawyers weren't prepared to end up out of pocket.

 

I see you defending him by saying that she was of legal age in some states. You can say that's not defending him but it's what I, and others, see when we read your posts in this thread.