BEARKING: Andrew SETTLES

Prince Andrew, the disgraced second son of Queen Elizabeth II, has settled a lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre, a woman who had accused him of raping her when she was a teenage victim of Andrew’s friend, the notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a new court filing in Manhattan on Tuesday.

The amount that Andrew, 61, will pay Ms. Giuffre is confidential, the parties said in a joint statement attached to the filing.

Andrew also “intends to make a substantial donation” to a charity “in support of victims’ rights,” the statement says.

The deal comes just weeks before Andrew was scheduled to sit for a deposition, in which he would have been questioned under oath by Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers. Andrew did not admit to any of Ms. Giuffre’s accusations against him in the statement announcing the settlement.

Who is Andrew Settles, and why is he the Bear King?

Link please... nothing in the quality broadsheets or the Mail, come to that.

In their own way, aren’t the Windsor-Mountbattens disgraceful in their own way, not just the second son?

Fact: This might neutralize the story, but he wouldn’t have paid up if he weren’t guilty. I wonder if the MI5 team that handled Diana can be coaxed out of retirement? They say an accident can be a beloved Queen’s best friend.

R2 is the entire story from the New York Times

I am the Bear King

I've been here since the days of cak and graxy, and I welcome BEARKING and BEARKING NEWS to the DL lexicon.

It is all about the British Royal Defendant Protection Program.

Haven't seen this on our paper of record (the DM), so it mustn't be true. Also, the retired procuress suffered a setback yesterday when she had to admit that she no longer has the original of the photo of her, Andrew and Jizz.

It is true. I'm glad for the Queen.

Ah, I see, R7. I assumed that Mail would be on this like flies on shit.

I am the Bear King, R8.

So this is what is interesting to me.

Read that statement, he admits nothing - make of that what you will.

But also interestingly, in the last couple days his lawyers have made a big deal out of asking for the original of the famous photo of the two of them and Perverlla in the background.

Today the answer from her side was: we've lost the original.

Some say there are no coincidences.

[quote] BEARKING

GRR!

I guess it took all this time for QEII to decide just how much she was willing to pay out for that fool boy.

So it's really, really interesting to me that he did not admit any liability beyond acknowledging her general suffering.

If they had his balls in a vice after all this they would have made it a condition of that statement, surely.

I am NOT saying this exonerates him but it sure says to me their case wasn't rock solid - which in itself is perhaps telling because the standard of proof is lower in a civil action, which this was.

I am so, so, so happy for the Queen.

Next: Mama pays him off and he's out of royal lodge and into respectable obscurity in a private home, which Mama also buys. She's worth an estimated 350 million pounds. Ten or twenty million wouldn't go amiss to get rid of him. Though Fergie is incapable of going away entirely.

R13, I'd bet money her lawyers got first dibs on the leak to media and thought they'd buy some future goodwill at the NYT.

[quote] he wouldn’t have paid up if he weren’t guilty.

Or the queen is much too old to worry about stuff like this and paid up for some peace of mind.

Well, Her Majesty is certainly putting her House in order.

She’s the BEAR QUEEN.

Interesting re; How the Royal Family makes it's Money... Leave it to Oprah to be so crass.

Seriously, though, how does anybody lose a piece of evidence like that photo? It should have been in a safe in bank.

^ That's assuming that it was genuine.

Did she just get to walk into the Crown Jewels and pick out a few as payment?

[quote]BEARKING

First real laugh I've had on DL in a week.

BREAKING: Andrew SETTLES His Fat Ass Into Life of Disgrace and Ridicule

I don't want to say I told you, but I told you! In a previous Andrew thread, I said the moment Virgina Roberts lawyers said they'd be open to a settlement (and were very vague about Andrew having to publicly accept responsibility) that this was never going to go to court, that Roberts would take/wanted the money. I was flamed, but I was right bitches! That being said, he's never going to be allowed back into public life again.

Yes. Everything has been resolved neatly just in time for the jubilee. The legal case was resolved without admission of guilt AND Andrew is permanently removed from his public role. At the same time, the Sussexes have shamed themselves into irrelevance with the royal family barely lifting a finger.

Should have known that he’d worm his way out of it. But his name is still mud.

And the vaults of her homes are loaded with uninventoried lucre descendant through centuries of primogeniture. It's not the income, idiots, it's the capital.

Liquidation value in the trillions.

But when you have it, you keep it.

All hail the BEARKING

R26 - agreed. It's a hell of a wrinkle.

R33, the stuff she owns as Elizabeth Windsor, if you like, does not run to the trillions. If Britain became a republic tomorrow, most of the big-ticket items would be claimed by the state, who are the rightful owners.

Settlement...if that doesn't reek of guilt then I don't know what does.

A story like this might be bearking news today, but during the height of my career being raped by a prince was part of the job.

Andrew couldn't have stood up to a whole trial, he couldn't even manage to make it through a single interview without exponentially compounding his problems. A settlement was the only way to stop all this before the Jubilee and before his mum dies.

Sometimes settlements also reek of collapsing certainty. And in the end, the decision to settle isn't made by the defendant, but the plaintiff.

R37 He actually doesn't claim any guilt in the settlement which is odd, but not unexpected because Roberts wanted the money. That being said, he's never going to recover from this and his public life is over. Once the Queen dies, he'll be shipped off by Charles and William.

I hope the underage girls that Virginia groomed for Ghiselle Sue her gold dogging ass

You just know that Andrew will in due course press for all his baubles to be returned, because in his pea-brain his 'honour' has been restored.

However, Charles and William seized their moment, and made sure Andrew headed the list for streamlining. No way back for the black sheep.

QEII personally owns 2 homes, Sandringham & Balmoral, and I would assume everything in them. I seriously doubt she owns anything of any value inside Buckingham Palace other than her personal jewels she keeps there when she's in residence. She does not own Windsor Castle, but probably has personal belongings housed there.

R43 the British Public will never stand for Andrew performing any royal duties again. He's done. After the Queen dies, Charles and William are going to ship the whole York clan out to pasture.

Well well well. Settling sure does look like an admission of guilt. I see all the "Andrew is innocent" trolls are hiding under their rocks.

Did anyone really think Andrew was "innocent?"

Anyone with a functioning brain cortex, eyes and ears?

I mean, really. The only possible question was to his degree of guilt and intent.

Another example of the rich buying their innocence.

So Charles gets to be king with his whore at his side in exchange for letting them give away royal assets to pay off Andrew’s indiscretion.

I’m beginning to think Charles and Camilla and the Queen are all just pretending to have covid to avoid the press for another week or so.

They're pretty much out of pasture already. Andrew is not allowed to have military honors or use HRH or appear on the balcony for anything having to do with the BRF (except royal weddings, where the rules are always unclear), and Fergie has been disavowed for a long time.

The girls have charities, but they are married to wealthy men now and have nominal jobs and small children.

Hence Eugenie trolling her princess act in LA to try and help her poor hubbie move up in the world. It's over for all though for all the Yorkies.

R46, you're ignoring that there is no admission of liability in the statement, which if they had him cornered seems a hard one to give up. You're ignoring that suddenly the original photo of the two of them cannot be find and a day later, there's a settlement. I don't know who did what, I don't think he's innocent, but I also don't think the facts are social media black and white. It's ended ambiguously.

According to court documents, Andrew will donate funds to Giuffre's charity in support of victims of sexual assault. The amount not disclosed

Apparently the only proof Giuffre had of ever meeting Andrew was a copy of a photograph of them together. She said she had lost the original and the copy she had obviously could have been photoshopped. So her proof fell apart. She wanted to go to court thinking she'd get a massive settlement.

What I always thought was odd was that only Giuffre claimed she'd had sex with Andrew. If Andrew was a frequent companion of Epstein's, why were no other girls involved and had sued Andrew?

Giuffre is a lying WHORE

Guilt on whose part, r37? Andrew's or Giuffre's?

I'm R 53 Here's my link. The language is tricky but he is admitting she was harmed.

It is not at all odd that there’s no admission of guilt in the settlement, 99% of civil settlements are structured this way. This is the main thing the defendant buys himself by settling, in trade for the money he’s willing to pay - the ability to continue claiming no responsibility.

R49 Hi Meghan!

I LOVE bearking news.

He's admitting she was harmed by others, r57, not by him.

[quote] A settlement was the only way to stop all this before the Jubilee

Isn’t the jubilee already past?

This, plus all the leaks about Charles’s coronation and where he plans to live while ruling, make me think he’s finally fully taken over the reins of the family’s strategy behind the scenes. Maybe QEII was too demoralized after conceding to kick Andrew into the doghouse.

Andrew is a John, paying women for sex. Shocking.

Gurl, stay out of Paris in August!!! Lizzie Bit has a way of getting revenge and her money back when you least expect it! Bam!!!!!

R62 The main celebrations are in June when the weather is better.

So apparently Buckingham Palace is stating that Andrew is paying for this out of his own pocket, that the Queen will not pay a cent of personal or public money towards the settlement.

R63 Charles has been quietly taking over since Philip retired in 2017. The Queen still has the final say on everything, but Charles (and a lesser extent William) are now at the wheel of major decisions being taken about the monarchy.

HOW MUCH, and did HRH Mummy pay it?

He doesn't say he didn't harm her. He just says she was harmed. Tricky. But smart lawyers. The issue is diluted. But there is no conclusion as to guilt or innocence. I hope he has to pay BIG.

R67 read R66....the Palace is telling reporters the Queen is not paying a single cent. This is why Andrew sold his cabin in Switzerland. I'm guessing the settlement is big, but not as big as people would expect.

For him, this is the best possible outcome.

Once the Queen dies, Charles will kick Andrew out of Windsor.

If the Yorks are out, what about the Kents and Gloucesters?

It’s all semantics. What money did he ever make, other than his military salary? Certainly not enough to pay millions or buy a Swiss chalet.

They kept it zipped.

[quote] I wonder if the MI5 team that handled Diana can be coaxed out of retirement? They say an accident can be a beloved Queen’s best friend.

MI5 nothing. Queen Elizabeth worked as a mechanic during WW2. She knows her way around a cut brake line.

It’s interesting that the settlement was reached today, at the same time as the stories about the original incriminating photo being “lost” also broke. I wonder if it became clear that this was the best possibility he would have to make this go away. No photo = smaller settlement?

In any case, win or lose, this case in open court would have been an utter disaster for him. He now stands a chance at some sort of minor rehabilitation, or at least a quiet retired life, possibly with a remarriage to Fergie.

His public life was coming to an end anyway. His “public engagements” for the past 20 years have largely involved golf and dodgy foreign businessmen, and not much else, He has always been known as an entitled, pompous bore, and Charles has wanted him off the stage for years.

R18: "So it's really, really interesting to me that he did not admit any liability beyond acknowledging her general suffering."

That's why they SETTLE. So they don't have to go to court and admit anything.

R73. Sex offender Andrew laundered money for sleazy despots in the "stan" countries and made some money there. Remember the house he sold to family of a stan despot? In which millions more were paid for A's house that was worth a lot less.

But the assumption all along was that would have to settle AND admit guilt to avoid a trial. Clearly the resolve on the plaintiff’s side has diminished. I say this not as any commentary on his guilt or innocence.

R77, in your arrogance you missed my point: conceding taking responsibility for what he did to her was a major theme in their press tactics and it is nowhere to be seen now. That was a major concession and given all the noise they made it seems conspicuous in its absence. But feel free to harrumph further if you need to.

I guess his lawyers told him how awful and unreal the deposition was going to be. And answering the same or similar questions in open trail? No way.

And just to push it one step further: final say on a settlement belongs to the plaintfiff, so if there are concessions in the terms, the plaintiff agrees to them.

Now all we need is BEARKING Lens, reported by Vivian Vance and we'd be in DL Heaven!

Add Fabulous Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin and Throw in Liza for Shits and Giggles

^unregal not "unreal" at r81

Happy for the Queen, that this is settled before all the Jubilee celebrations kick into high gear this year. Make no mistake, Andrew is still a goner from the BRF. Charles and William will have no part of him going forward.

Most of the Queen's stuff are loaners from the UK taxpayers. She only owns 2 estates, some run down furniture and space heaters, a few jewels (most of what she wears she does not own) and some big ponies and a few remaining dogs.

She is NOT on the Forbes list of women billionaires. Because she is not. Her worth is estimated at about 500 million pound sterling. Hardly that rich.

But he cannot say the court found that he never touched her. Or even he never met her. That was not established. And that's what he told the British public. So it does cook his goose in terms of he looked at the camera and lied. And smirked.

The only question is: how many millions?

But this won't be the end of it. There's rumours afoot that Andrew's criminal associations with oligarchs and other scumbags are going to be finally fully aired, and it's going to get very very UGLY. i.e. This is only the start. We'll see.

Good. This scandal is boring and Virginia Giuffre is too overweight and frumpy to pique my interest.

Check her out in the Daily Maul today... definite stress eating.

Bollocks r86. She owns more than a 'few jewels', she has a large personal collection courtesy of her Grandmother Mary worth many millions of pounds. She outright owns Balmoral and Sandringham, and everything in them, plus all the surrounding acreage (Sandringham is a very large, working estate with many structures and tenants).

She owns priceless artworks and antiques as well, in her own name. She is worth hundreds of millions on all that alone. There are also probably investments made over the years that we the public don't know about, which swell her net worth even more.

"I guess it took all this time for QEII to decide just how much she was willing to pay out for that fool boy."

So it's the taxpayers who will pay, since Queenie is basically on public assistance.

As soon as Charles has the crown on his head (and his missus as well), Andrew and Fergie will be kicked out of Royal Lodge. That plan is already underway. They will leave as private citizens somewhere far away from Charles and Wills. Charles does not want him seen at Windsor as it is. The useless daughters will also be given the heave ho from any royal residences. The big one with the poor husband is really in trouble. The one with the bug eyes, her husband is a hustler so maybe he can con people out of money to help them survive.

[quote]Her worth is estimated at about 500 million pound sterling. Hardly that rich.

I sure would love to be hardly that rich.

Yes, she's basically on public assistance. What a leading thinker you are.

I bet the original of that photo is now locked up in the royal archives at Windsor. For a rainy day.

They will watch for awhile, see whether public reaction turns to public indifference and then he can stay put. Otherwise in a year or two they will probably settle him out and move him on. He did what they wanted, which was to settle it and make it go away to the extent that is possible. There's no realistic better outcome than this. Even if he won the case he'd have to go through the scandal-stoking discovery.

I wonder if she can tell all or speak to Oprah about it. How about you can say nothing.

You are the BEAR QUEENS

"I'd still fuck Andrew and take his royal load.....that is, if the guillotine my sweetie Josh Hawley's running doesn't drop its razor on me first! Tee hee!"

I can assure you R98 after MS. G gets her $10 million, she will never be heard from again.

Not if the Daily Mail has anything to say about it.

$10 million. No way.

Where is the money coming from?

The mattress, Rose.

Of course he is guilty. Please. Do you know why he settled? Because he was supposed to be deposed UNDER OATH. Once you get into the under oath bit, things get way more complicated. People who lie under oath, and it can be proven that they lied...well, the financial consequences are enormous as are the criminal penalties. Andrew's bluff has been called. This is the best of all possible outcomes for him.

"A source close to Andrew told MailOnline that there would be no statement issued further to what was in the court document."

Fergie for a tenner?

That little whore was turning tricks before she met Andrew,and was still turning tricks long after she fucked him. Notice how she never leaked not one hint of the act itself(unlike Stormy Daniels) . This was a money grab pure and simple. I dont buy that "I was corrupted as a mere child " bullshit ,never have. At 15 I was willingly sleeping with older men. In fact I often lied and told them I was older. She knew what she was doing then,and she did it willingly.

Michael Jackson settled his abuse case for $28 MILLION. And that was almost 30 years ago!

She's a fool if she took him for anything less.

Will the other Epstein lil' gals now launch legal action against their bad daddies? They surely must be calling their lawyers.

A pundit in BBC News just estimated he will have paid 10 million, which is what he just made on the sale of his ski chalet.

Oh, sure. Money for that white bitch, but nothing for me. I deserve compensation ($500 million minimum) from the royal family more than anyone.

Please, someone ask me if I'm okay.

The photo interpreted: Virginia and Ghislaine grinning "Gotcha". Randy Andy looking giddy and surprised, just before his elation turns to fear and anger.

I do believe he had sex with her. What I don't know how to decide on is the extent to which the whole thing makes her a victim. Anyway, it's done now.

It’s possible to see a very thin, tarnished silver lining for Andrew: he has managed to settle this case before the ten names Ghislaine Maxwell was trying to keep confidential are disclosed. Those names and the settlement could overshadow his involvement pretty significantly.

^ Maybe they chipped in to pay the settlement.

For those who think the settlement’s lack of admission of responsibility was a concession by the plaintiff, let me explain what usually happens:

If you’re in a civil case against a high-profile/famous defendant (Prince, large corporation, etc), you start from the premise that they will NEVER admit guilt in a settlement. Only the government really has the heavy pressure to get that. It is extraordinarily unusual for there to be any admission of guilt in a civil settlement between private parties.

After Andrew lost his motion to dismiss the case, this is when the settlement talks began. Both sides used the media to posture toward each other. Andrew leaked that he would consider settling because he wanted to put this behind him, and that he was selling his chalet (“I have cash on hand”). Giuffre’s lawyer stated to the press that money is not enough. What that means in lawyer speak is “you better come with your fucking wallet open, don’t bother with a small offer.” The court then scheduled Andrew’s deposition, which put a lot more pressure on him to settle ASAP. I don’t think the $10 million offer is too high, Giuffre had him by the balls. And they would have been negotiating this settlement all along, so whatever happened this week with the picture maybe closed the final gap, but wouldn’t have figured so heavily in structuring it.

As for whether QEII paid, she likely didn’t cut the check, but who gave Andrew the money for the chalet? Who settled the debts on the chalet so Andrew could get the money back out of it by selling? Of course she paid, it was just effectively laundered the chalet.

Here's a heads up on the more serious stuff that's going to be fully aired in the next year.

R117, I was among those reading in to the lack of wording. Your explanation makes sense. I certainly didn't think it was exoneration. Hard to imagine he didn't sleep with her. I'm still interested to see how she fares over time in terms of her actions during her association with Epstein. Even Patty Hearst went to jail.

10M L is just above 13.5 M USD or just shy of 19 M AUD.

Not a bad haul.

In five to seven years Andrew will be on the scene in British and Eurotrash circles, cavorting and rubbing elbows. Indeed, this scandal will have given him a certain cachet that other royals lack. Did Kardashian's and Jemima Khan's sex tapes make them persona non grata/au gratin? No. Our world, not to mention the US or Britain and certainly Russia, is beyond redemption. There no longer exist any qualities of taste, morality, class and dignity.

Andrew will be back baby. Perhaps hawking used cars, liquor, or his own lines of hair products -- what eva.

This scandal will fade as does everything, Andrew will be back, fully present, fully accepted and fully engaged, He is NOT a broken man, by no means. In all probability, US commercial circles will figure prominently in his "resurrection", similar to how Fergie said something to the effect of "the US would give a girl a chance" [to turn a few bux]. Time for Andy Windsor to fully immerse himself into his inner grifter. In three, two, one...

R121 I think he’ll be ostracized and sent to live elsewhere for 10 years. When he’s an almost unrecognizable old guy he’ll be back.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

It holds him to account by making him fork over his money. Who knows what other terms are in there, for example, he may not concede guilt in the settlement but he may have agreed not to publicly question Giuffre’s version of events.

He is a disgusting fool, and the only "commercial circles" that have been interested in him are central Asian despots, like the one who used to boil people alive (one of the "stan" countries)

His boorishness and idiocy became public when those diplomatic cables were leaked.

He has no money and no viable connections to US or Western European businesses. He now has zero influence in the BRF. LOL, you think he will become a brand ambassador for Apple??

[quote]A pundit in BBC News just estimated he will have paid 10 million, which is what he just made on the sale of his ski chalet.

The pundit is a media lawyer who spoke with confidence and fluency about this settlement. He called the chalet sale 'a fire sale', and openly inferred Andrew took less than market value soon as he could to deal with legal fees and his big settlement to VG.

R124, all settlements out of court involve the defendant forking over money.

Does anyone recall reporting of Fergie returning recently from Switzerland where she said glumly to reporters something like : onwards and upwards. Maybe they'd concluded the sale cheap?

[quote]This was a money grab pure and simple.

And his was an underage pussy grab pure and simple.

Well Andy, that was some expensive trim, now wasn't it?

R117, one question though. Well, three.

1) in this case, the plaintff, surely had the upper hand in the final say of the content of the statement

2) Doesn't the language seem exceptionally generous to Andrew, given the posturing prior?

3) If it is, is that the result of the lawyers saying to a plaintiff: forget your feelings, look at the money?

From Twitter:

It’s a credit to Ms Guiffre that she has insisted all the money goes to her charities in support of victims rights

I was wondering about that. Did it? You could interpret the statement in two parts, I thought. One the settlement of the matter, two the donation.

R132 Bitch PLEASE ! Show me the receipts when that happens !

R131, yes, the counsel will tell the client, content yourself with the money, along with the shame that most people will see Andrew settling as an admission of guilt, even if the settlement itself doesn’t contain one.

As for the wording, that’s something both the plaintiff and defendant counsel would have had to agree upon together. I do think Giuffre had the upper hand here, very much so, but my guess is that for Andrew, the admission of guilt was the one thing he said he’d blow up the negotiations for. Think about it: he is afraid of being under oath and of going through a trial, because he’s afraid of being found guilty or forced to admit guilt, so why would he pay $10 million if he was going to also have to admit guilt? He might as well just take the trial then, or at least put off the settlement until after the deposition. So, for that particular issue, it didn’t matter how much upper hand Giuffre had. Andrew would have just kept adding money to the settlement.

[quote]So apparently Buckingham Palace is stating that Andrew is paying for this out of his own pocket, that the Queen will not pay a cent of personal or public money towards the settlement.

So what's the source for this claim?

IMO, this is an expected outcome. Quick settlement, no admissions. That's the benefit of settling (for the defendant) rather than going to trial, putting the evidence on display, and maybe being found legally responsible.

He's a scumbag, still blaming it all on Epstein. That photo of him, Giuffre, and Maxwell is authentic. Andrew's response (in the BBC interview) to the photo was weak: "I don't remember." If you know you never took the photo, you're unequivocal and angry about it.

Anybody questioning a money settlement: that's the system (civil) in the US. In the old days, there was "specific performance," but that was abolished. This is simply how it is now, legally. Everything boils down to money.

Why is that a credit to her? Apparently, it's going to HER charity. The auditors should take a good look at that charity.

R136, tbf, I wouldn't be surprised if that really were the case. Perhaps Andy has to drain his (future) inheritance, asking Mum to give him a portion of his inheritance right now. I can't see the BRF -- Charles and William, that is -- to help out with millions out from the family's coffers. They'd probably tell him to go fuck himself if he came up with such a plea.

[quote]That photo of him, Giuffre, and Maxwell is authentic. Andrew's response (in the BBC interview) to the photo was weak: "I don't remember." If you know you never took the photo, you're unequivocal and angry about it.

How do you know that? What's known is the original is now missing.

Funny that all the news outlets are using that photo, the "original" of which she so conveniently lost...

There's also a tax law in the UK that gifts given seven years prior to the death of the giver are exempt from estate tax, so she may have moved things to all her heirs at this point, knowing the bulk of the fortune, going to Charles, is exempt on the sovereign to sovereign basis.

He should lose his dukedom now. Does the Queen have the power to remove the title of prince? She should do that as well.

That's not gonna happen.

The people of York want the title stripped.

[quote] York Central MP Rachael Maskell said it was "untenable" for him "to cling on" to his duke title and his association with the city.

[quote] Hence Eugenie trolling her princess act in LA to try and help her poor hubbie move up in the world.

Eugenie isn't very Machiavellian. Other members of the BRF are schemers, but she's pretty simple.

[quote] The people of York want the title stripped.

And I want a golden goose.

But that doesn't mean I'm getting one.

There's no way they're going to set the precedent of allowing public opinion to determine titles. They will ride out the storm, such as it is, which is probably fading already and on the basis of something as comparatively flimsy as a settlement where no liability was admitted. At the very most under huge pressure, which seems unlikely to manifest now, the could get him to agree and then announce he will not use the title. He's a prince - the son of a monarch - that can't be changed. Ditching the title would take an act of Parliament, which would only prolong the agony.

Everyone seems to have forgotten this article from the UK Telegraph: "On the game for a year."

Jesus, this was a case with two awful people at its center. I have no doubt Andrew had sex with Virginia (though he may not have known her status as a trafficking victim, he really is THAT stupid) and Virginia herself recruited very young girls for Ghislaine - 17 has been over the legal age in the UK for a while, and it's even the age of consent in some parts of the United States, but she recruited girls as young as 14.

I agree his "guilt" is largely technical but he's also a dirty dawg for fucking someone young enough to be his daughter.

R150 Almost like Virginia was an easy target for figures like Epstein and Maxwell to manipulate into doing what they want.

And a reminder that even after Epstein was convinced, Andrew still flew to meet him in New York, so let's not pretend he would've been horrified to discover trafficking or underage sex.

I saw an interview w/Giuffre's BF from teen years. BF said that his friends knew / thought there was more than massaging going on between Giuffre & Epstein.

Also, Epstein didn't just have one teenaged girl, every so often, at his house. He had many teens and it wasn't something he hid from others. He used the teens as bait for his wealthy / famous friends.

News sources confirming it was $10 million (7.5 million pound)

I wouldn't be surprised if it is $10 million. It wasn't going to be cheap.

Daily Mail is saying the settlement in somewhere in the $5 million US mark. It's going to her "charity." Her Charity is allegedly registered in Delaware so only a small percentage of it actually has to go to charitable causes. The rest can be used for "administrative costs" with a much lower tax bracket.

Andrew is done and his reputation is beyond repair in the UK. He will never undertake royal duties and after the Queen dies, Charles will help him pack his bags and send him off to Europe.

The Queen cannot remove the title Duke of York (only Parliament can remove ducal titles). She could remove his HRH but she will not do this.

R150 Yup! Andrew is a piece of shit, but Virigina is scum too not a victim despite what people try to make it.

Agreed- the wanted this settled to lay it to rest not to prolong it. People will stop caring so long as he keeps his head down, which his buy out may be structured to assure.

Americans are so bizarre with their obsession with whether Andrew is ever going to perform public duties again or what his daughters supposedly want. No one gives a shit what he does and his daughters are doing just fine and the last thing they would probably want is to have to perform royal duties.

R150 and to all you other cretins, SEX TRAFFICKING HAS NO AGE BOUNDARIES EXCEPT IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 THEN FRAUD OR COERCION NEED NOT BE A FACTOR. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YOU CAN'T CONSENT. Now shut the fuck up.

The term "sex trafficking" refers to criminal activity whereby one or more persons are subjected to engaging in commercial sexual activity through the use of force, fraud, or coercion, except that if the trafficked person is younger than age 18, the commercial sexual activity need not involve force, fraud, or coercion. In fact, according to the Federal Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, any child younger than age 18 who is induced to engage in commercial sexual activity is a victim of sex trafficking.

I don't know why she "has to" say that she's donating the settlement money to charity. She's still relatively young and could use that money to live on. I'm sure her charity will be paying her an income, but still. Just accept the damn money as compensatory damages and STFU about charity.

And it's very common for young victims to appear to consent and invite other similarly disadvantaged underaged girls/boys to join them. This is from Homeland Security.

R160 How the hell do you KNOW if someone is a trafficking victim if they or their pimp tell you otherwise? I think Andrew is dumb / naive enough to truly believe she was just a hooker his buddy Ghislaine knew.

R163 Ignorance of the law is no excuse, even when you're a moron like Andy. He knew what kind of company he was keeping.

Now run along and find another defense for your pal.

I'm not defending him, but it's incredibly hard to prove that someone knew an of-age prostitute was a victim of trafficking. This is probably why a trial would never have seen court.

Look like he won’t be doing jail time. If he had, that would have been worse for the BRF’s rep than anything else that has happened to them in recent years.

Don’t try to make “Bearking” a DL meme, OP.

I will not have it!

This was a civil case. Under no circumstances would the judgment have extended to criminal penalties.

No R163, epstein had a history of only wanting to be around young girls that he flew all over the world

And witnesses have come forward in recent months saying they remember seeing andrew at the club with Virginia. They remember because 1. it was the one time they ever saw a member of the royal family in person. 2. He was dancing with a very young looking girl. They found it odd that a girl was in an adult member's only club. They remember this because it was gross. She was younger than his niece Zara was

[quote]I'm not defending him, but it's incredibly hard to prove that someone knew an of-age prostitute was a victim of trafficking. This is probably why a trial would never have seen court.

you do know, this was set to "see court"? Andy paid millions so we wouldn't hear all the details

And here's what you refuse to understand about the law, ignorance of the law doesn't allow a person to break the law.

It doesn't matter if he did or didn't know she was a trafficking victim. It doesn't matter how old she looked (even though she looked young). All that matters is did he have sex with her or not?

[quote]but Virigina is scum too not a victim despite what people try to make it.

She was molested from the age of 7, bounced in and out of foster homes at 13, homeless at 14, trafficked and abused by a convicted trafficker and pimp until she was 16, all this before Epstein and Maxwell entered her life, and you say she isn't a victim?

You're the one who's scum.

Trial lawyer here: whether and when to settle (and for what) is not just about your likelihood of winning. In fact, that may be the least important factor. I've settled plenty of cases I was damn confident I'd win, I've settled just as many I was sure I would lose, but most were in the mushy middle and settling was just about my best guess at what we'd get if we won balanced by the risks of losing.

Also, the reality of the court process is there is an intense push towards settlement. The Federal Rules (and this case was filed in federal court) say that if a Defendant offers a settlement and the Plaintiff either ignores or refuses it and wins a judgment "not more favorable" than the offer, the Plaintiff can then be charged with the legal fees of the Defendant from the offer of settlement onward. That rule exists to give the Defendant a damn good incentive to make a reasonable offer of settlement and for the Plaintiff to take it.

So while Giuffre's case was maybe weakened when she couldn't produce the original photo, but Andrew was still afraid of whatever harm would come from what might come out on the stand when he testified. And maybe Giuffre was confident Andrew would come off so badly she still couldn't lose even without the photo, but his offer of settlement was high enough that she'd risk paying for his attorney fees if she refused it. You simply cannot assume the settlement was just because one of them was sure they couldn't win.

This by the way is why so many of us laugh at the Depp-stans who go on about how poor Johnny needs to be "vindicated" in court. Whatever "vindication" he and his nutters think he might get from a trial is diminished by how much worse he makes himself look every time he opens his mouth. Even if Andrew never met Giuffre he's got too many fucking skeletons to go anywhere near a witness stand for any reason, ever.

Thereby proving R171 that as tragic as her life had been ,she knew exactly what the deal was going in. If the bitch wouldve kept her looks,Id venture to guess she'd have continued to sell sex. Wheres her accountability for luring in other young girls who may not have had her life experiences and were coerced or extorted into selling sex? What,because of her sad background she shouldnt be held accountable for all the young girls lives SHE ruined ? Giuve me a fucking break. Besides,we only have her word that her life was that tragic,wheres the proof? Wheres the records,social workers accounts,police reports,etc?

Exactly r173, if, as she claims, she'd led a tragic life of sexual abuse before even meeting Epstein and Maxwell, that only suggests that, when she did meet them, she knew very well what she was getting involved in and what they wanted.

There's no way back to public life for Andrew. Within the family power structure, his only ally is his mother and she isn't (relatively) long for this earth. His siblings and nephew will be glad to see him exiled. Being an asshole his entire life hasn't exactly paid off.

She didn't testify at Epstein or Maxwell's trial. My feeling is it wouldn't have been ugly for both parties and she wouldn't have come away looking good either. She smart for going for the money.

Awaiting the Lebanese fellow's take on this, the one who calls himself "Lady".

[quote] Ten or twenty million wouldn't go amiss to get rid of him. Though Fergie is incapable of going away entirely.

Twenty million quid wouldn't last me a fortnight.

She didn't testify at the Maxwell trial because the prosecutors found her unreliable and they had other witnesses whose stories were just as bad but more believable..

Sarah & Andrew should have both been banished after Sarah was caught trying to sell access to him for 500,000 pounds (when he was in some kind of economic task force position). They were BOTH in on that.

R173/R174 You're both sad, pathetic twisted individuals and totally lacking in empathy. Except of course for wealth men, I'm sure you're full of sympathy for them and their pains.

R181 I think they're the same poster and mommy told him all women are whores while administering enemas.

Telegraph reporting it's over £12 million ($16.25 million) and mommy is helping him pay it:

[quote]The Duke of York will pay his accuser more than £12 million using money from the Queen, The Telegraph can disclose.

[quote]The Queen has already privately funded the Duke's legal fight to the tune of millions of pounds and will now partly fund the settlement in order to allow her son – and the entire Royal family – to draw a line under the case that had threatened to overshadow her Platinum Jubilee year.

[quote]Negotiations over the settlement are understood to have lasted for at least 10 days, with the Duke's team changing tack when the date for his deposition – which would have seen him questioned under oath by Ms Guiffre's legal team – was set for March 10.

[quote]Any comeback would have to be many years down the line and would only be possible if there was a significant change in public opinion, the Duke's advisers accept.

[quote]The Queen's contribution to the settlement will come from her private Duchy of Lancaster estate, which recently increased by £1.5 million to more than £23 million.

In case this link it paywalled I'll post an Archive link later

OOF that is worse than I thought.

Virginia is now wealthier than Andrew.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The Telegraph says the Queen will pitch in and has some other detail, which has reliable royal sources because it's very friendly to them:

"Although a line has now been drawn under the legal process, he is not expected to regain any of his royal privileges or titles. He will keep his dukedom and the Windsor home, Royal Lodge, that he shares with his former wife the Duchess of York.

On March 29, he will appear in public alongside his mother and the rest of the Royal family for a service of thanksgiving for the Duke of Edinburgh at Westminster Abbey.

However, he is not expected to take part in any further public events or celebrations linked to the Jubilee for the rest of the year after being advised to keep his head down.

A source close to his team said: "It has been made clear that the public have heard enough about him and enough from him. They need to hear no more." .. Any comeback would have to be many years down the line and would only be possible if there was a significant change in public opinion, the Duke's advisers accept."

This is pay walled by great analysis by DL favourite Camilla Tominey.

"Yes, the monarchy will survive this – and arguably be all the better for the Grand Old Duke of York's removal from the royal scene – but it has left a stench that will take months if not years to clear.

"The Duke, despite his propensity for self-delusion, will never be allowed back in public life again. As his mother's reign nears its natural end, in his brother and other siblings he will find no sympathy."

"In Charles' monarchy, Andrew will find no role, no perks, and very little contact."

Use the site 12ft.io for bypassing the paywall.

Archive link for Telegraph article

No R181 ,Im not twisted nor lacking empathy. But I know a grifter when I see one . Also,in your diatribe you never addressed the question concerning the OTHER underage girls she ,by her own admission,lured into a life of prostitution ? What,no empathy for them ? Having a shitty background doesnt give anyone an excuse for their own bad behavior. She knew better,yet she was willing to subject other young ladies to the same "rape" she endured. News flash,it aint rape when theres a pile of bills exchanged and both parties were willing. Specious arguments like yours cheapen the suffering of countless children who are truly exploited and sex trafficked.

The British papers are loving every moment of this:

R191 Don't pretend for a second you actually care about victims, it's obvious you don't, you're just using them as a cudgel with which to beat her. Obvious by the fact you attack her for her role in their trafficking, but don't mention Epstein or Maxwell. Not an ounce of criticism aimed at them from you.

If you had even an iota of compassion, you would've stopped and considered - as every rational person already has - that with such an upbringing, it's hardly surprising her mental state was warped, and was then further warped when she was manipulated, as a highly vulnerable teen who'd already have a childhood of abuse, by two predators.

You want to talk about harm - its arguments like yours, suggesting victims should be thinking clearly and rationally at all times, and if not then blaming them for the actions of their abusers - which prevents more from coming forward.

There's an incel running loose. Spray some virtual Raid and forget about it.

R193 Yet you still havent answered me about HER victims and the effect HER trafficking had on them . Do they not count ? Wheres your vaunted compassion for THEM? How many other girls did she destroy ? 3? 5? 20? Yes I am cynical enough to say that I dont doubt she had a rough childhood or whatever ,but this is nothing but a money grab because she already went thru the money she got the 1st time around. Period. At first you may be a victim,but eventually everyone has to realize what they are doing is wrong,and what direction they take from that point on defines who they really are to me. She kept right on hooking,and for all we know right on dragging other girls into the life. Bitch PLEASE.

R195 Of course I have compassion for them, unlike you. And Epstein trafficked them, not her. See, once again, you try to put blame on her rather than Epstein. You truly are a pathetic and vile creature.

The "lost photo" = zero proof she ever even met him. I bet the settlement was modest. How ironic that Andrew met Epstein in the first place to get him to pay off Fergie's debts.

.....he has managed to settle this case before the ten names Ghislaine Maxwell was trying to keep confidential are disclosed.

If this is true, then there would certainly have been pressure from those ten "names" to settle.

Those are the ones who benefit the most from this outcome.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

R177, "she" also claims to be a Russian countess through her father; her adopted sons, who are actually Russian by birth, were calling themselves counts on some reality TV catastrophe a few years ago.

Haha. She claimed once she desperately tried to get rid of her British title in the 70s but couldn’t and is no resigned to it.