As you say, it was always about the money ultimately. It was a civil case, money was the only sanction available to the court, he was never going to gaol, there wasn’t even a guarantee he’d deign to grace the courtroom with his presence.
Not sure how enforceable an award in an American civil case is over here either. So a guaranteed settlement is a good result for her, possibly the only positive one that could have been obtained in reality.
Apparently she’s got a book coming out after the Jubilee celebrations are over and done with, wonder if the settlement agreement requires her to edit out any mention of his involvement?
Anyhow, never mind the minor harm Andrew and now Charles (cash for honours) have done to the royal family. Shouldn’t we be talking about how Meghan dragged the royal family’s reputation into the gutter by er, guest editing Vogue?
Interesting that on Newsnight they were saying that the agreement says she can’t disclose the amount but as the money is being given to her charity, the charity can declare their donations.
Not all of it though. So the amount the charity receives will be no indicator of the total.
From the BBC website-
Whatever the total amount, it will need to be big enough to cover an acceptably large payment to Ms Giuffre; a “substantial donation” to Ms Giuffre’s charity supporting victims’ rights; plus what are likely to be some eye-watering legal bills.
Of course, “The usurer hangs the cozener…” ‘n’ all that…
The implied point being that if - hypothetically - we were to accept that aspects of this case are egregious, then the prime greed motive usually originates with the muck-rakers and ambulance-chasers; some of the big companies have whole teams of researchers permanently employed looking for stuff like this…
Justice, as ever, is what you can afford, not what you deserve
Well, rich or not, no one’s going to touch him with a shitty stick, and I imagine his reputation matters massively to him, probably more so than the money as I’m not sure he really appreciates what money means. His (largely self inflicted because he’s an over-egoed moron who can’t keep his gob shut) fall from grace along with the payout to her is about as good as it could be really, and all without having the uncertainty of a court case.
I for one would be pleased to lamp him round the chops with a heavy stick that I had previously smeared in dog shit. And I reckon I could make a fortune selling tickets both for viewing and for additional participators.
Like “It’s a Knockout”, but much more painful, and with copious quantities of shit.
Intelligent debate is about being objective. You are all bright enough here to know the issue of guilt and value in this being publicised is not my point.
I just expressed disappointment that the honourable intention to make sure the accused faced a jury and cross examination, to get the “truth” out there seems to have gone by the wayside after a pay off.
Direct quote from her lawyer:
“A purely financial settlement is not anything I think she is interested in,” he said.
Ok. Benefit of the doubt, she was advised that a court case could saddle her with crippling bills.
Or this was just about money?
None of that helps any of us get to the truth and that’s the shame.
This opinion doesn’t negate the fact he may be guilty. I tend to prefer guilt established by a proper process than the media.
I am pleased the publicity has helped other survivors of abuse come forward (insinuating I am sticking up for Andy is not grasping a pretty simple observation I’m drawing attention to about the lack of a real resolution, backed up by the article).
I wanted this to go trial so the facts could be tested. That way, there is a real outcome. This pay off doesn’t answer any real questions or hold anyone to proper account. It’s all without prejudice.
Calling me a victim blamer is just cheap. And wrong.
It usually makes a better job of it than the press.
It is the correct vehicle for finding guilt.
There has been some good investigative journalism there, BUT are any of us better placed to know the truth from this outcome?
The legal teams comments gave me some hope this was about the establishment of facts rather than the burying of them by cash.
None of that supports either party or indicates I support either party.
But it’s an American civil case, so it’s about balance of probability and reparations, not establishing guilt, and the American system is very strongly in favour of settling.
