Well, you did have hundreds of imaginary girlfriends before meeting Mrs B. You brought that on yourself.I wouldn’t read anything into ‘Randy Andy’ - I have been called that on and off for as long as I can remember, as I am sure every other Andy has on the planet.
Not followed this closely to be honest but I seem to recall seeing that she was 17 at the time so not really a child. As for keeping bad company, people like Epstien are very good at disguising their true nature.I said pretty much the same thing last night. Mrs P. has said he's had this coming because of the company he's kept and the circles he's mixed in over the years. Doesn't mean anything to me, he's innocent until proven guilty.
Whether he had sex with her not, I don't know and I care even less. What bothers me though, same with a lot of these 'me too' cases, why has she waited 21 years before coming forward?
This woman was paid $500,000 years ago to keep her trap shut and she's now in breach of the agreement. What I think has happened here, and this is only my opinion before anyone starts, is that she's spent all the money and is now skint. With all this 'me too' bollocks going on, she's decided to jump on the bandwagon and see if she can get a few more quid out of it. Either way, she seems to me to be motivated by greed.
I think a 17 year old is considered a minor in most states over the pond.I bet if she was your daughter you’d say she was still a child. I certainly would.
From what I have seen reported a minor is anyone under the age of 18 in America. Regardless of that, there is the question of whether she was vulnerable and abused.Not followed this closely to be honest but I seem to recall seeing that she was 17 at the time so not really a child. As for keeping bad company, people like Epstien are very good at disguising their true nature.
How else other than ‘money’ can the lady be ‘compensated’ (not really the right word as if damage has been done to her mentally that can’t be repaired, maybe ‘restitution is better) if she wins the case?She’s an American, now living in Australia, yet she’s suing in America. Why go to the added expense of flying halfway around the world? I e just read this in The Times:
“The Queen will have Philip’s words ringing in her ears and he would have said, ‘Come on Lilibet, get off the fence and do something’. That’s what she did this week by cutting Andrew loose — she’s shown she’s ruthless in protecting the reputation of the royal family. The Americans go for big money in their settlements so it will potentially be £5 million-plus.”
If she wins, she’ll be awarded a significantly larger pay out in the States. Don’t get me wrong, if he’s taken advantage of that girl against her will then he should be taken to task. However, it’s going to take something spectacular to convince me that this is about nothing more than money. Thing is, I’m not sure if she’s aware but Andrew is described in the same article as ‘cash poor’. She can’t take what he ain’t got.