Do you know why the sun never set on the British Empire?Britain last. Not like the good old days when Britain ruled the waves. Bit of **** didn't get such a fuss then. I think you've got a bad attitude.
God didn’t trust them in the dark.
Prince Andrew to face civil *** assault case after US ruling
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
God didn’t trust them in the dark.
I agree he is innocent until proven guilty in the eye's of the law, but the royal family and others in the know, now know he is guilty so they have now started to distance them selves from the problem which is what they always do in these matters, the royal family will always do what needs to be done to protect the name as they did when they landed here and changed from sax coburg to windsor which is taken from windsor castle,
I'm a bit behind on this thread so apologies for bringing up stuff from many posts ago
"Why did she accept 'hush money' rather than take it to court" (my paraphrasing)
If you were legitimately the victim of serious *** offences, to "get justice" you would need to commit to a protracted and very personal legal process where everything you say will be broadcast to the court and cross-examined, with the overt aim of the defence to prove your version of events are not what you claim.
There's absolutely no guarantee you'll win, what costs (financial and otherwise) you may bear. On top of that here there's a power imbalance with what appears to be a very well connected individual.
That versus accepting a substantial payment and moving on with your life as best you can? I can see the attraction.
"If he's not guilty why is he trying to hide behind this old agreement? Have your day in court"
Would you really do that? Whether you were guilty or not, if you could point at some other piece of paper and say "you can't prosecute me because of this" would you not take it? I think you'd be mad not to and any legal counsel you had would be expected to advise you as such. There is no guarantee that the other party would win a court case (as above), but by the same token there's no guarantee that you'd win.
This thread probably sums it up neatly:
"Why did she accept 'hush money' rather than take it to court" (my paraphrasing)
If you were legitimately the victim of serious *** offences, to "get justice" you would need to commit to a protracted and very personal legal process where everything you say will be broadcast to the court and cross-examined, with the overt aim of the defence to prove your version of events are not what you claim.
There's absolutely no guarantee you'll win, what costs (financial and otherwise) you may bear. On top of that here there's a power imbalance with what appears to be a very well connected individual.
That versus accepting a substantial payment and moving on with your life as best you can? I can see the attraction.
"If he's not guilty why is he trying to hide behind this old agreement? Have your day in court"
Would you really do that? Whether you were guilty or not, if you could point at some other piece of paper and say "you can't prosecute me because of this" would you not take it? I think you'd be mad not to and any legal counsel you had would be expected to advise you as such. There is no guarantee that the other party would win a court case (as above), but by the same token there's no guarantee that you'd win.
This thread probably sums it up neatly:
The woman who has accused the Duke of York of sexually abusing her has welcomed a US judge's decision to allow her legal case to continue.
Prince Andrew faces a civil case in the US after Virginia Giuffre sued him, claiming he abused her in 2001. He has consistently denied the claims.
Ms Giuffre said she was "pleased" with the ruling the case can continue, after the prince tried to have it dismissed.
She said she is glad to have a "chance to continue to expose the truth".
As part of her case, Ms Giuffre claims she was the victim of *** trafficking and abuse by convicted *** offender Jeffrey Epstein, alleging she was trafficked to have *** with Prince Andrew when she was 17.
Writing on Twitter, Ms Giuffre thanked her "extraordinary" legal team and said: "Their determination helps me seek justice from those who hurt me and so many others.
"My goal has always been to show that the rich and powerful are not above the law & must be held accountable. I do not walk this path alone, but alongside countless other survivors of sexual abuse & trafficking."
On Thursday it was revealed the prince's military titles and royal patronages had been returned to the Queen and he will stop using the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity, a royal source said.
Like Harry and Meghan, Prince Andrew retains his title HRH but will not use it in any official capacity.
A source close to the prince has said he will "continue to defend himself" against the case brought in New York by Ms Giuffre.
Full article - Prince Andrew accuser welcomes decision to let legal case continue
Prince Andrew faces a civil case in the US after Virginia Giuffre sued him, claiming he abused her in 2001. He has consistently denied the claims.
Ms Giuffre said she was "pleased" with the ruling the case can continue, after the prince tried to have it dismissed.
She said she is glad to have a "chance to continue to expose the truth".
As part of her case, Ms Giuffre claims she was the victim of *** trafficking and abuse by convicted *** offender Jeffrey Epstein, alleging she was trafficked to have *** with Prince Andrew when she was 17.
Writing on Twitter, Ms Giuffre thanked her "extraordinary" legal team and said: "Their determination helps me seek justice from those who hurt me and so many others.
"My goal has always been to show that the rich and powerful are not above the law & must be held accountable. I do not walk this path alone, but alongside countless other survivors of sexual abuse & trafficking."
On Thursday it was revealed the prince's military titles and royal patronages had been returned to the Queen and he will stop using the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity, a royal source said.
Like Harry and Meghan, Prince Andrew retains his title HRH but will not use it in any official capacity.
A source close to the prince has said he will "continue to defend himself" against the case brought in New York by Ms Giuffre.
Full article - Prince Andrew accuser welcomes decision to let legal case continue
So...there lies the case.
Your opinion peoples of the beer.
Is he going to jail?
My thoughts....NO.
Your opinion peoples of the beer.
Is he going to jail?
My thoughts....NO.
![BREWING THERMOMETER STICKERS ACCURATELY MONITOR FERMENTING BEER & WINE LIQUID TEMPERATURES 5PCS HOME BREW SPIRITS WINE LCD ADHESIVE [US]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/311DDjo2X3L._SL500_.jpg)
Wouldn't it be nice if, when a person committed a crime or offense of any nature and for whatever reason at the time, that person willingly came clean on their own once they came to their senses?
It would save people and taxpayers a lot of cabbage.
Edit: the law is supposed to protect the innocent from being wrongly (wrongfully?) punished, not give an out to the guilty, play the system to their advantage.
It would save people and taxpayers a lot of cabbage.
Edit: the law is supposed to protect the innocent from being wrongly (wrongfully?) punished, not give an out to the guilty, play the system to their advantage.
I have a feeling you are right Clint but its going to be interesting to see how he avoids it.
After seeing what happens over here with those with money, I'd say no. If I read the post earlier correctly, the guy's been stripped of some of his titles? Probably all one can expect.
It's a civil case so a guilty party wouldn't be imprisoned in any case. Although the civil case could prompt a criminal investigation.
What....like Rolf Harris?
Prince Andrew faces calls to give up Duke of York title
Prince Andrew faces growing calls for him to lose or relinquish his Duke of York title from those in the city.
The royal, who faces a US civil action over sexual assault allegations, returned his patronages and military titles on Thursday.
York Central MP Rachael Maskell said it was "untenable" for him "to cling on" to his duke title and his association with the city.
Prince Andrew has consistently denied the claims against him.
He stepped down from royal duties in 2019 over his friendship with convicted *** offender Jeffrey Epstein.
On Wednesday, a US court ruled that Virginia Giuffre, who claims the prince abused her in 2001, could proceed with legal action against him.
He relinquished his military titles the next day and a source told the BBC he would no longer use the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity.
Buckingham Palace made no announcement about his ducal title, prompting Labour MP Ms Maskell to air her concerns.
She tweeted: "It's untenable for the Duke of York to cling onto his title another day longer.
"This association with York must end. There's a very serious allegation made against this man of privilege and entitlement."
Prince Andrew became Duke of York, a title traditionally granted to the monarch's second son, on his marriage in 1986.
It was previously held by both the Queen's father, George VI, and her grandfather, George V.
Liberal Democrat councillor Darryl Smalley, who is the executive member for culture, leisure and communities in York, said the city's connection to the crown and the monarch was part of its history.
However, he said the prince should relinquish the title.
While the prince had the right to a presumption of innocence, the palace and the government must consider the implications of the allegations against him, Mr Smalley said.
He said he worried that "his name by association" could become a source of embarrassment for the city.
"I think many people think he has lost all his titles," he said. "In York we are acutely aware that is not the case."
However, the city's Conservative group leader Paul Doughty said he believed the tradition of innocent until proven guilty was the "cornerstone of a civilised society".
"Likewise, I also believe that someone's position, whether a royal or otherwise should have equity in law," he said.
"I therefore think it is right that the Duke is not afforded special treatment and faces the law as anyone else would."
The prince gave up a number of his patronages in both the city and the county after stepping down from royal duties in 2019.
These included his role with the York Minster Fund and the Yorkshire Air Ambulance.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-59987648
Prince Andrew faces growing calls for him to lose or relinquish his Duke of York title from those in the city.
The royal, who faces a US civil action over sexual assault allegations, returned his patronages and military titles on Thursday.
York Central MP Rachael Maskell said it was "untenable" for him "to cling on" to his duke title and his association with the city.
Prince Andrew has consistently denied the claims against him.
He stepped down from royal duties in 2019 over his friendship with convicted *** offender Jeffrey Epstein.
On Wednesday, a US court ruled that Virginia Giuffre, who claims the prince abused her in 2001, could proceed with legal action against him.
He relinquished his military titles the next day and a source told the BBC he would no longer use the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity.
Buckingham Palace made no announcement about his ducal title, prompting Labour MP Ms Maskell to air her concerns.
She tweeted: "It's untenable for the Duke of York to cling onto his title another day longer.
"This association with York must end. There's a very serious allegation made against this man of privilege and entitlement."
Prince Andrew became Duke of York, a title traditionally granted to the monarch's second son, on his marriage in 1986.
It was previously held by both the Queen's father, George VI, and her grandfather, George V.
Liberal Democrat councillor Darryl Smalley, who is the executive member for culture, leisure and communities in York, said the city's connection to the crown and the monarch was part of its history.
However, he said the prince should relinquish the title.
While the prince had the right to a presumption of innocence, the palace and the government must consider the implications of the allegations against him, Mr Smalley said.
He said he worried that "his name by association" could become a source of embarrassment for the city.
"I think many people think he has lost all his titles," he said. "In York we are acutely aware that is not the case."
However, the city's Conservative group leader Paul Doughty said he believed the tradition of innocent until proven guilty was the "cornerstone of a civilised society".
"Likewise, I also believe that someone's position, whether a royal or otherwise should have equity in law," he said.
"I therefore think it is right that the Duke is not afforded special treatment and faces the law as anyone else would."
The prince gave up a number of his patronages in both the city and the county after stepping down from royal duties in 2019.
These included his role with the York Minster Fund and the Yorkshire Air Ambulance.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-59987648
devexwarrior
Regular.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 423
- Reaction score
- 302
I'm no legal expert, but is the burden of proof in a US civil court 'balance of probabilities' as oppose to 'beyond reasonable doubt'?
Yes, the level of proof required is somewhat less than a criminal court. In essence it requires sufficient evidence that it's more probable x happened than it didn't, as opposed to a level of proof beyond reasonable doubt being required, as in a criminal case. A judge adjudicates on the cases presented, rather than there being a jury of peers ascertaining guilt.
Festival Man
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 3
She knew what she was doing and got paid for it, Now they are attempting to steal his money. Where is the proof?
I am not in favor of a monarchy, but that doesnt stop me from being fair.
I am not in favor of a monarchy, but that doesnt stop me from being fair.
MickDundee
Landlord.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2016
- Messages
- 5,471
- Reaction score
- 4,033
Now, that was a good one.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 7,983
- Reaction score
- 10,752
Are you serious
Hmm. Are you joking?
I've been informed more than once that I don't get English/Irish/Scottish humor. No offense if I've left out a major group.
Similar threads
