Make no mistake–Harvey Weinstein is a vile, filthy, disgusting pig whose actions were simply indefensible. Bill Cosby could also be described the same way, IF the accusations against him are true.
But it is undeniable that in both cases, these men were hard done by the legal system (even if guilty), in that because of their high profile, they were treated far worse by the legal system than they should have been. The protections for criminal defendants, which come largely from Britain, apply equally to the innocent and the guilty. They are there for a reason. To see them completely and utterly disregarded in these and other cases, as the defendants were already convicted in the court of public opinion; all else was noise.
MeToo said “Believe the Women.” In all cases? Duke Rape Case. The fake rape story that Rolling Stone put on the cover. Mattress Girl @ Columbia Uni.
Prominent political figures in the US drank the Kool-ade, some even saying, in substance, it doesn’t matter if what this particular “victim” said is actually true, it feels true, and it likely happened to others. So there! Kristen Gillebrand.
What HW and BC did, in many cases, seems to fall into a grey area, where women, to a point, willing made compromises to a point in order to advance their careers. The author’s failure to mention this weakens her arguments.
This concept of “believe the victim” can, and has led to gross miscarriages of justice (Operation Midland, anyone?). What the police should do is “take the victim seriously”, investigate as you would any other alleged crime; ok. sexually based crimes are often delicate, but they can still be investigated without media hype. The problem is that many times accusations are of the “he said, she said” variety, which can make it very difficult for genuine victims; however, I don’t see a way around it unless we want to ditch one of the pillars of our criminal justice system that a person is innocent until proved guilty. I know that there is the argument that a woman wouldn’t put herself through this if it were untrue, and certainly I believe that is so for the vast majority, but, although I would like the believe that my own sex is flawless, there will always be some who, for a variety of reasons, would make false allegations. This is why, and I fear that I shall be jumped on by some feminists here, the woman must take precautions herself, there is a raft of simple precautions that can be taken, certainly my mother imparted these to me in my teens. It’s not an easy world, but navigation is possible without destroying the lives of others who may be innocent, however,, I’m afraid that under our present system I can’t see how we can prevent some guilty people walking free.
You’ve put yourself out there by suggesting women use common sense to protect themselves, but I completely agree. No woman–or man–should be attacked, afraid to walk the streets, but alcohol doesn’t help. It’s not a judgment, it’s a fact.
Alcohol does make a person more vulnerable, but if a man were robbed while drunk we wouldn’t endorse public service announcements telling men to stay sober if they don’t want to get robbed. Sex offenders are horrific cowards and if they can’t find a drunk woman they will find a way to drug a woman.
Actually, I think there was something like this for Asian men in NYC subways. They had a tendency to get drunk, lose situational awareness, AND carry large sums of cash.
To your point, I’m on side. I hate hate hate when people say….but if I were a man, it wouldn’t be that way…..I don’t want any women attacked in any way. I don’t do this. I (like to think I) would intervene if I saw something. But I mostly accept the real world and women–and some others–should be situationally aware and use common sense. The easiest thing is to be wise with alcohol in public, but sadly, that is sometimes not enough, as that girl who was killed by the copper showed. Sarah Everard.
I know that there is the argument that a woman wouldn’t put herself through this if it were untrue
This sort of reminds me of the Lord Beaverbrook anecdote:
In a game of hypothetical questions, Beaverbrook asked the lady: ‘Would you sleep with a stranger if he paid you one million pounds?’ She said she would. ‘And if he paid you five pounds?’ The irate lady fumed: ‘Five pounds? What sort of woman do you think I am?’ Beaverbrook replied: ‘We’ve already established that. We’re just haggling about the price.’
You can do a similar thought experiment here, can you not?
Would you put yourself through this for
nothing?
$20 million?
$100 million?
If you answered no to the first I’d obviously believe you. If you would do so for $20 million or for $100 million, then this tells us is that it’s worth haggling with you over price.
Ms. Giuffre’s price seems to be about $12 million.
Agree with that. Sex education in the 60s was very different and more realistic. I remember our 4th form teacher saying: “Men and women approach the business of sex very differently because they have different needs. Under certain circumstances and past a certain point the man may not be able to stop what he is doing. So it falls to women to take some responsibility for the situations they put themselves into.” I never forgot that. It doesn’t lessen the man’s guilt one bit in cases of rape and sexual assault. He must retain sole responsibility for his actions. It’s never the woman’s fault. And there are of course many cases where the woman has taken every possible precaution and terrible things still happen. And yet surely any sensible woman has some notion of the effect that her dress and her alcohol or drug consumption might have. Surely she takes care about being alone with a man she does not want to be intimate with, especially if she knows he’s hoping for sex. No doubt now the more modern feminist will come down on me like a ton of bricks.
Don’t women sometimes get drunk precisely because they want to disinhibit themselves ?
And sometimes are they not shocked by what happened while they were drunk when they wake up sober ?
And is it not possible that they convince themselves they were forced into doing things that they actually seemed to consent to ?
Does it not also work the other way?
For example the shooting dead of Ms Ashli Babbitt by an unhinged Black Police Lieutenant on Capitol Hill in January 2021 has yet to see him prosecuted. Why? Is that US Justice?
Conversely the unfortunate Policeman who inadvertently killed the career criminal and habitual drug abuser, one George Floyd Esq* was condemned well before his trial. Even the wretched Biden saw fit to try an influence the Jury. How scandalous is that?
( A colossus of a man, 6 foot 6 inches and a fraction under 16 stone or 223 pounds, as some would have it.)
You are completely correct, though I have a minor quibble. The officer who murdered Ashli Babbitt, Lt. Michael Byrd, was not prosecuted because he was “investigated” by the DC police and cleared. Lt. Byrd declared himself a “hero,” who save the Capitol and perhaps saved democracy. If you think that this “investigation” was anything but a cover-up, a fix, you are wildly wrong, as this is the standard in the US. My European friends have no real understanding how little training the American police, in general, have and how stupid they are to begin with. They become police not because they are called to serve, but because they couldn’t do anything else, and the DC police are among the worst. Some years ago, the DC police had a recruiting drive reflecting abysmally low standards–even lower than what they were–and ended up recruiting many, many criminals into their ranks.
For the record and as I have shared in other posts, Lt. Byrd, a COW (Citizen of Wakanda) is the filthy, stupid, incompetent piece of garbage who left his police weapon in the bathroom of the Capitol some years before, though this does not seem to have impacted his career in any way. Promotion?
With respect to GF, Derek Chauvin should have used more common sense–he’s pretty stupid and poorly led and supervised–he was the senior “leader” on site, but it should not be lost that 3 incompetent COWs were unable to control and arrest GF. Had the initial 2 COWs been able to do their job, Chauvin would not even have been called to the scene.
Thank you for that most detailed response.
I had no idea that Lt Byrds’s anonymity had been lifted. If that is a hero, G*d help,us.
Frankly the whole thing is a stunning disgrace and no doubt Ms Ashli Babbitt will not be receiving a $27million pay out.
As to GF, they should shot him immediately for resisting arrest. At least it would have saved the Minneapolis taxpayers $27 million and the human race would have been better off for the loss of one career criminal and habitual drug abuser.
Exactly , if they were made an implied offer of an acting job in return for sexual favours why not sue for breach of contract .
Harvey Weinstein raped no one
Hersch Schneider
2 years ago
It was only ever about money and the chance of a huge pay out for Giuffre, and the settlement proves that “this is about justice for all women victims”
Utter tosh.
Women: Sex: Money … In all of Life’s multifarious eventualities, these three always seem to combine.
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
This outline is different to that of Guiffre’s. It has been extremely well publicised over some years already and Guiffre as recently as last month said she wanted her day in court. What happened to that? Given the publicity (which then generated a huge payout), we will never know the circumstances behind this.
Was there sexual assault? Was there consensual sex? Did he know her age? Did he know what Epstein was up to?
It is wrong to judge her in these circumstances. Some people–brutalized by the American court system–plead guilty to get out of jail, despite being obviously innocent. Google Damien Echols. Obviously complete innocent–the actual guilty person was obvious–but after years or decades on death row–yeah, a real thing in the US–he pled guilty to something to get out of prison, where he had essentially been tortured.
In theory, should he have done this? Absolutely not! In reality–he succumbed under torture, which was the best choice for him.
I don’t judge him. Or Guiffre.
Excellent questions Lesley, I’ve got alot of sympathy with the women who settle, ive been involved in a civil case for breach of contract against an employer, it was all heading to its day in court when i was advised the law was a bit iffy on the point at hand and however morally reprehensible they were legally it was not clear they were at fault and that it was 50 / 50 as to which way the judge would choose to interpret the issue. So i settled, mortgage and bills need to be paid and the righteous fury of giving them a bloody nose in court lost out to putting food on the table.
the problem i have with these women settling though is it leaves the questions you pose unanswered. Is Prince Andrew an innocent man, or is he a child rapist with the means to buy a get out of jail free card? Do the accusers have a moral obligation to see through the allegation to court as otherwise they are knowingly letting a rapist escape jail to be free to strike again? or were they just looking for a payday? I’d say as a society the question of the alleged accusers innocence or guilt needs to be answered, but in the real world i entirely understand why they settle.
In Scotland we have the bizarre case of David Goodwillie, a footballer, who was found guilty of rape in a civil case but the crown prosecution dropped the criminal case for lack of evidence , so he hes a civil rapist but not a criminal one, its bizarre, not guilty enough to go to jail for rape but guilty enough to award damages for rape.
I think the public (me included sometimes) get caught up in wanting to see a public figure humiliated. Andrew is a public figure with little appeal for ‘playboy’ and financial reasons (not to mention that he is just unlikable), so he was easy meat in a sense.
I obviously can’t be sure, but I am wary of her. I have been 16/17 and whilst I was in some senses a bit of a rebel, in others I was very chaste for my age. One thing is for sure, I knew what ‘yes’ was and that there were repercussions. Another factor is that girls as young as 14 would/will throw themselves at celebs. This is not OK per se and it is open to abuse, but this is the age (and younger) that young girls these days lose their virginity – willingly.
The entire episode/s is murky and we shouldn’t hasten to blame simply because someone is a sleazy, unappealing royal.
Guiffre stated she wanted her day in court, she was super keen to tell the truth. Suddenly-The price is right! Says it all. I don’t blame the Queen, of all the years for this to come out, at the end of her reign. Her heartbreak must be palpable. A life of loyal service and ruined by an idiot son. Guiffre introduced young girls to this cohort of felons, she’s guilty of plenty and now has gained riches via that past. It’s just too unjust and horrible. I wish she’d go and live somewhere else. Oz is too ice for her.
Paddy Taylor
2 years ago
The grand old Duke of York, Just gave 12 million quid to someone he claimed he’d never met For things he never did.
.
Surely no-one can think justice was served in this tawdry proceeding?
Iris C
2 years ago
Prince Andrew was accused of sexual assault for ONE REASON – he was alleged to have had sex with an under-age hostess who had been sexually active for several years – 17 being under-age in the USA. This case had nothing to do with sexual activity but all to do with acquiring money.
Prince Andrew may have been unwise in his choice of friends but so were prominent Americans who enjoyed the same hospitality but have not been hounded by their media and feminist man-haters.
subs0
2 years ago
Because large settlements inevitably create a conflict between the desire for justice for women and an individual profit motive. In other words, there appears to be a degree of cynicism to such claims that doesn’t necessarily advance the just causes they are made in the name of. There is something pure about the martyrdom of previous generations of activists – there is no question that they acted for the good of all women, and not just themselves.
I am not an American, I might add, and probably this argument will make no sense to Americans.
Spot on. Makes no sense to me. There is no “profit motive” in civil cases, merely a desire to be made whole, which money damages serve as a proxy for.
Civil cases and criminal are supposed to be about individual justice in individual cases, not theater on some huge societal issue. Know when that happens? When it’s a show trial, like HW and BC.
William Shaw
2 years ago
This reads like a very long winded apology for Giuffre’s decision to take the money. Long winded because the author had to dig deep to find the justification she wanted. It also reads like she was trying very hard to convince herself of the message. A rather pitiful piece.
Allison Barrows
2 years ago
“. . . most accused rapists still never see the inside of a courtroom”. Bill Clinton leaps to mind, and the vast number of women who still defend him, including his wife.
R Wright
2 years ago
There is a reason they are called complainants and not victims.
Terence Fitch
2 years ago
Hard to imagine being in court at any time but for private matters? Hell for the victims too. If you win your case are you ‘happy’? I imagine not. Obviously one feels loathing for proven evildoers and sympathy for the wronged. Unless you’re a vulture journalist. I remember discussing journalism with my students. Very nice young people. I described ‘doorstepping’, visiting grieving relatives to get ‘the cry’ on screen, going through wastebins for evidence. Gave them pause for thought.
SIMON WOLF
2 years ago
How much more punishment does Kat Rosenfeld wish to dish out to Prince Andrew?Castration.His name is ruined.
Rape is not the same as murder.Read the autobios of rockchicks Debbie Harry and Chrisse Hynde both of whom wrote they had been raped in their 20’s and whilst very nasty it was not the big deal that academic feminists claim .Bet Kat Rosenfeld hates females like Debbie and Chrisse and would like to get them cancelled.
At 17 as a male i was sexually abused by a stranger but what i felt was a weird detachment from the event.I was a very alienated teenager and identified with Existentalist characters in film and lots of songs in pop.
I have to agree. There are varying degrees of rape and associated trauma. I am not traumatised by a pinched bum, just pissed off. I’m not traumatised by a bad sexual episode that I regret, that’s not rape. It just gave me pause for thought and opportunity to learn. Men who are drunk are apparently always in control of their actions but women are not? Double standards. Rape is a very bad thing but surely it depends on the situation as to how it is graded as traumatic and the term definitely appears to have suffered from definition creep as much as sexism, racism and every other ism out there.
You make a very pertinent point on definition creep, which I think is another deliberate language distortion by the woke.
I once had a debate with an American woman on Medium. She made the bizarre claim that some huge percentage (I forget the exact number certainly >25%) of American service women had been raped. I did a bit of Googling and found that percentage had complained of some harassment, at the pinched bum level, but only some fraction of a percent had brought a charge of rape and only half of those succeeded.
On pointing that out, the debate ended quickly with the usual insults the woke hide behind when their nonsense is pointed out to them.
Martin Bollis
2 years ago
The article and the comments seem to start from the premise there is some general moral lesson to be learned from this.
I see two shallow and unpleasant individuals, one of whom used his wealth and position to indulge in debauchery, and the other of whom had the nouse to piggly back on a change in the cultural zeitgeist to extract an enormous amount of money from him.
Conclusion, on this case only, both men and women can be amoral, debauched money grubbers using the tools at their disposal to satisfy their urges.
Penny Adrian
2 years ago
Women are not fragile little flowers who cannot possibly bear the “trauma” of seeking justice.
I started getting raped by my father when I was 4, and spoke up about it as a young adult. For this, I ended up losing my entire family and support system as a young disabled woman. Still, I survived homelessness (while a single mom) and went through hell for years, but I do not regret telling the truth about what was done to me.
I have infinitely more self-respect and strength than I would have had if I’d been a good girl (or a fearful girl) and kept quiet. I have beaten many odds, and am proud of the woman I have become.
Survivors are not weak. We can stand up and demand justice not only for ourselves but for other women and kids who could be harmed. Giuffre PUBLICLY exposed Prince Andrew, which means it would be virtually impossible for him to get away with committing another sex crime. That is both punishment and justice.
Of course I want to see sex offenders punished, but it’s not out of some gleeful sadism: it’s because lack of punishment allows sex offenders to continue harming other people (sometimes even escalating to serial murder).
Merely exposing a sex offender publicly by bringing charges or speaking out can protect other women and kids.
The goal is to make it too costly – socially, financially, and criminally- for a predator to make the choice to commit rape. We can and must stop normalizing this vicious and banal form of terrorism.
Giuffre refused to be silenced, and she is a hero in my eyes. I hope she enjoys her millions, because she deserves them – and she earned them.
I’m not sure how you can justify the public shaming of someone who has *not been found guilty in a court of law* but due to their lack of anonymity has been ruined regardless, just for a big payout? Have you ever considered that Andrew might be stupid, might be crass, might be lots of things, but he might not actually be guilty? But by picking on men like him Guiffre has been able to game the system (at least twice now) knowing full well that 97% of cases like this settle out of court?! As you rightly said women are not always these cowering little victims – they’re also capable of being quite grotesquely mendacious, manipulative and money grubbing. Just because you’ve been abused (I have too btw) doesn’t mean someone like Guiffre deserves your admiration.
You take your case to trial and – if you win – be vindicated or you can compromise by taking the money. You can’t do both. A compromise is not a victory.
Julie Kemp
2 years ago
To me, accepting money no matter the context, does seem weak and is disappointing and will always reduce valour.
Prince Andrew has been an almost thoroughgoing disappointment to this monarchist. I don’t think the punishment of his offices removal is sufficient. All his titles should be scrapped. He was spared his rampant narcissistic utterly spoilt or entitled ego from being frankly and overtly displayed in a court of law – this his loving mother could not bear. ‘That’ earlier interview was a sanguine hint for the queen. So all his titles need to go – he is a prince but what a black one, and no prince of the realm except in the most despicable way.
Robert Pay
2 years ago
It is such a relief to know that Prince Andrew was the only guilty party in Epstein case, apart from Epstein himself of course. Congratulations to all the journalists who have delved tirelessly into the details and have prevented the smearing of so many prominent Americans. Case closed!
Make no mistake–Harvey Weinstein is a vile, filthy, disgusting pig whose actions were simply indefensible. Bill Cosby could also be described the same way, IF the accusations against him are true.
But it is undeniable that in both cases, these men were hard done by the legal system (even if guilty), in that because of their high profile, they were treated far worse by the legal system than they should have been. The protections for criminal defendants, which come largely from Britain, apply equally to the innocent and the guilty. They are there for a reason. To see them completely and utterly disregarded in these and other cases, as the defendants were already convicted in the court of public opinion; all else was noise.
MeToo said “Believe the Women.” In all cases? Duke Rape Case. The fake rape story that Rolling Stone put on the cover. Mattress Girl @ Columbia Uni.
Prominent political figures in the US drank the Kool-ade, some even saying, in substance, it doesn’t matter if what this particular “victim” said is actually true, it feels true, and it likely happened to others. So there! Kristen Gillebrand.
What HW and BC did, in many cases, seems to fall into a grey area, where women, to a point, willing made compromises to a point in order to advance their careers. The author’s failure to mention this weakens her arguments.
This concept of “believe the victim” can, and has led to gross miscarriages of justice (Operation Midland, anyone?). What the police should do is “take the victim seriously”, investigate as you would any other alleged crime; ok. sexually based crimes are often delicate, but they can still be investigated without media hype. The problem is that many times accusations are of the “he said, she said” variety, which can make it very difficult for genuine victims; however, I don’t see a way around it unless we want to ditch one of the pillars of our criminal justice system that a person is innocent until proved guilty. I know that there is the argument that a woman wouldn’t put herself through this if it were untrue, and certainly I believe that is so for the vast majority, but, although I would like the believe that my own sex is flawless, there will always be some who, for a variety of reasons, would make false allegations. This is why, and I fear that I shall be jumped on by some feminists here, the woman must take precautions herself, there is a raft of simple precautions that can be taken, certainly my mother imparted these to me in my teens. It’s not an easy world, but navigation is possible without destroying the lives of others who may be innocent, however,, I’m afraid that under our present system I can’t see how we can prevent some guilty people walking free.
You’ve put yourself out there by suggesting women use common sense to protect themselves, but I completely agree. No woman–or man–should be attacked, afraid to walk the streets, but alcohol doesn’t help. It’s not a judgment, it’s a fact.
Alcohol does make a person more vulnerable, but if a man were robbed while drunk we wouldn’t endorse public service announcements telling men to stay sober if they don’t want to get robbed. Sex offenders are horrific cowards and if they can’t find a drunk woman they will find a way to drug a woman.
Actually, I think there was something like this for Asian men in NYC subways. They had a tendency to get drunk, lose situational awareness, AND carry large sums of cash.
To your point, I’m on side. I hate hate hate when people say….but if I were a man, it wouldn’t be that way…..I don’t want any women attacked in any way. I don’t do this. I (like to think I) would intervene if I saw something. But I mostly accept the real world and women–and some others–should be situationally aware and use common sense. The easiest thing is to be wise with alcohol in public, but sadly, that is sometimes not enough, as that girl who was killed by the copper showed. Sarah Everard.
I know that there is the argument that a woman wouldn’t put herself through this if it were untrue
This sort of reminds me of the Lord Beaverbrook anecdote:
You can do a similar thought experiment here, can you not?
Would you put yourself through this for
If you answered no to the first I’d obviously believe you. If you would do so for $20 million or for $100 million, then this tells us is that it’s worth haggling with you over price.
Ms. Giuffre’s price seems to be about $12 million.
Agree with that. Sex education in the 60s was very different and more realistic. I remember our 4th form teacher saying: “Men and women approach the business of sex very differently because they have different needs. Under certain circumstances and past a certain point the man may not be able to stop what he is doing. So it falls to women to take some responsibility for the situations they put themselves into.” I never forgot that. It doesn’t lessen the man’s guilt one bit in cases of rape and sexual assault. He must retain sole responsibility for his actions. It’s never the woman’s fault. And there are of course many cases where the woman has taken every possible precaution and terrible things still happen. And yet surely any sensible woman has some notion of the effect that her dress and her alcohol or drug consumption might have. Surely she takes care about being alone with a man she does not want to be intimate with, especially if she knows he’s hoping for sex. No doubt now the more modern feminist will come down on me like a ton of bricks.
Don’t women sometimes get drunk precisely because they want to disinhibit themselves ?
And sometimes are they not shocked by what happened while they were drunk when they wake up sober ?
And is it not possible that they convince themselves they were forced into doing things that they actually seemed to consent to ?
Well said, I entirely agree.
Does it not also work the other way?
For example the shooting dead of Ms Ashli Babbitt by an unhinged Black Police Lieutenant on Capitol Hill in January 2021 has yet to see him prosecuted. Why? Is that US Justice?
Conversely the unfortunate Policeman who inadvertently killed the career criminal and habitual drug abuser, one George Floyd Esq* was condemned well before his trial. Even the wretched Biden saw fit to try an influence the Jury. How scandalous is that?
( A colossus of a man, 6 foot 6 inches and a fraction under 16 stone or 223 pounds, as some would have it.)
You are completely correct, though I have a minor quibble. The officer who murdered Ashli Babbitt, Lt. Michael Byrd, was not prosecuted because he was “investigated” by the DC police and cleared. Lt. Byrd declared himself a “hero,” who save the Capitol and perhaps saved democracy. If you think that this “investigation” was anything but a cover-up, a fix, you are wildly wrong, as this is the standard in the US.
My European friends have no real understanding how little training the American police, in general, have and how stupid they are to begin with. They become police not because they are called to serve, but because they couldn’t do anything else, and the DC police are among the worst. Some years ago, the DC police had a recruiting drive reflecting abysmally low standards–even lower than what they were–and ended up recruiting many, many criminals into their ranks.
For the record and as I have shared in other posts, Lt. Byrd, a COW (Citizen of Wakanda) is the filthy, stupid, incompetent piece of garbage who left his police weapon in the bathroom of the Capitol some years before, though this does not seem to have impacted his career in any way. Promotion?
With respect to GF, Derek Chauvin should have used more common sense–he’s pretty stupid and poorly led and supervised–he was the senior “leader” on site, but it should not be lost that 3 incompetent COWs were unable to control and arrest GF. Had the initial 2 COWs been able to do their job, Chauvin would not even have been called to the scene.
Thank you for that most detailed response.
I had no idea that Lt Byrds’s anonymity had been lifted. If that is a hero, G*d help,us.
Frankly the whole thing is a stunning disgrace and no doubt Ms Ashli Babbitt will not be receiving a $27million pay out.
As to GF, they should shot him immediately for resisting arrest. At least it would have saved the Minneapolis taxpayers $27 million and the human race would have been better off for the loss of one career criminal and habitual drug abuser.
6 foot 6 and under 16 stone! Had he been on a diet ?
Exactly , if they were made an implied offer of an acting job in return for sexual favours why not sue for breach of contract .
Harvey Weinstein raped no one
It was only ever about money and the chance of a huge pay out for Giuffre, and the settlement proves that
“this is about justice for all women victims”
Utter tosh.
Women: Sex: Money … In all of Life’s multifarious eventualities, these three always seem to combine.
This outline is different to that of Guiffre’s. It has been extremely well publicised over some years already and Guiffre as recently as last month said she wanted her day in court. What happened to that? Given the publicity (which then generated a huge payout), we will never know the circumstances behind this.
Was there sexual assault? Was there consensual sex? Did he know her age? Did he know what Epstein was up to?
It is wrong to judge her in these circumstances. Some people–brutalized by the American court system–plead guilty to get out of jail, despite being obviously innocent. Google Damien Echols. Obviously complete innocent–the actual guilty person was obvious–but after years or decades on death row–yeah, a real thing in the US–he pled guilty to something to get out of prison, where he had essentially been tortured.
In theory, should he have done this? Absolutely not! In reality–he succumbed under torture, which was the best choice for him.
I don’t judge him. Or Guiffre.
Excellent questions Lesley, I’ve got alot of sympathy with the women who settle, ive been involved in a civil case for breach of contract against an employer, it was all heading to its day in court when i was advised the law was a bit iffy on the point at hand and however morally reprehensible they were legally it was not clear they were at fault and that it was 50 / 50 as to which way the judge would choose to interpret the issue. So i settled, mortgage and bills need to be paid and the righteous fury of giving them a bloody nose in court lost out to putting food on the table.
the problem i have with these women settling though is it leaves the questions you pose unanswered. Is Prince Andrew an innocent man, or is he a child rapist with the means to buy a get out of jail free card? Do the accusers have a moral obligation to see through the allegation to court as otherwise they are knowingly letting a rapist escape jail to be free to strike again? or were they just looking for a payday? I’d say as a society the question of the alleged accusers innocence or guilt needs to be answered, but in the real world i entirely understand why they settle.
In Scotland we have the bizarre case of David Goodwillie, a footballer, who was found guilty of rape in a civil case but the crown prosecution dropped the criminal case for lack of evidence , so he hes a civil rapist but not a criminal one, its bizarre, not guilty enough to go to jail for rape but guilty enough to award damages for rape.
Final para: a case of nominative determinism?
Lol , brilliant Andrew , perhaps but i think his accuser may object to that
Yes I don’t get that either. Makes no sense.
I think the public (me included sometimes) get caught up in wanting to see a public figure humiliated. Andrew is a public figure with little appeal for ‘playboy’ and financial reasons (not to mention that he is just unlikable), so he was easy meat in a sense.
I obviously can’t be sure, but I am wary of her. I have been 16/17 and whilst I was in some senses a bit of a rebel, in others I was very chaste for my age. One thing is for sure, I knew what ‘yes’ was and that there were repercussions. Another factor is that girls as young as 14 would/will throw themselves at celebs. This is not OK per se and it is open to abuse, but this is the age (and younger) that young girls these days lose their virginity – willingly.
The entire episode/s is murky and we shouldn’t hasten to blame simply because someone is a sleazy, unappealing royal.
…
Guiffre stated she wanted her day in court, she was super keen to tell the truth. Suddenly-The price is right! Says it all. I don’t blame the Queen, of all the years for this to come out, at the end of her reign. Her heartbreak must be palpable. A life of loyal service and ruined by an idiot son. Guiffre introduced young girls to this cohort of felons, she’s guilty of plenty and now has gained riches via that past. It’s just too unjust and horrible. I wish she’d go and live somewhere else. Oz is too ice for her.
The grand old Duke of York,
Just gave 12 million quid
to someone he claimed he’d never met
For things he never did.
.
Surely no-one can think justice was served in this tawdry proceeding?
Prince Andrew was accused of sexual assault for ONE REASON – he was alleged to have had sex with an under-age hostess who had been sexually active for several years – 17 being under-age in the USA. This case had nothing to do with sexual activity but all to do with acquiring money.
Prince Andrew may have been unwise in his choice of friends but so were prominent Americans who enjoyed the same hospitality but have not been hounded by their media and feminist man-haters.
Because large settlements inevitably create a conflict between the desire for justice for women and an individual profit motive. In other words, there appears to be a degree of cynicism to such claims that doesn’t necessarily advance the just causes they are made in the name of. There is something pure about the martyrdom of previous generations of activists – there is no question that they acted for the good of all women, and not just themselves.
I am not an American, I might add, and probably this argument will make no sense to Americans.
Spot on. Makes no sense to me. There is no “profit motive” in civil cases, merely a desire to be made whole, which money damages serve as a proxy for.
Civil cases and criminal are supposed to be about individual justice in individual cases, not theater on some huge societal issue. Know when that happens? When it’s a show trial, like HW and BC.
This reads like a very long winded apology for Giuffre’s decision to take the money. Long winded because the author had to dig deep to find the justification she wanted. It also reads like she was trying very hard to convince herself of the message. A rather pitiful piece.
“. . . most accused rapists still never see the inside of a courtroom”. Bill Clinton leaps to mind, and the vast number of women who still defend him, including his wife.
There is a reason they are called complainants and not victims.
Hard to imagine being in court at any time but for private matters? Hell for the victims too. If you win your case are you ‘happy’? I imagine not. Obviously one feels loathing for proven evildoers and sympathy for the wronged. Unless you’re a vulture journalist. I remember discussing journalism with my students. Very nice young people. I described ‘doorstepping’, visiting grieving relatives to get ‘the cry’ on screen, going through wastebins for evidence. Gave them pause for thought.
How much more punishment does Kat Rosenfeld wish to dish out to Prince Andrew?Castration.His name is ruined.
Rape is not the same as murder.Read the autobios of rockchicks Debbie Harry and Chrisse Hynde both of whom wrote they had been raped in their 20’s and whilst very nasty it was not the big deal that academic feminists claim .Bet Kat Rosenfeld hates females like Debbie and Chrisse and would like to get them cancelled.
At 17 as a male i was sexually abused by a stranger but what i felt was a weird detachment from the event.I was a very alienated teenager and identified with Existentalist characters in film and lots of songs in pop.
I have to agree. There are varying degrees of rape and associated trauma. I am not traumatised by a pinched bum, just pissed off. I’m not traumatised by a bad sexual episode that I regret, that’s not rape. It just gave me pause for thought and opportunity to learn. Men who are drunk are apparently always in control of their actions but women are not? Double standards. Rape is a very bad thing but surely it depends on the situation as to how it is graded as traumatic and the term definitely appears to have suffered from definition creep as much as sexism, racism and every other ism out there.
You make a very pertinent point on definition creep, which I think is another deliberate language distortion by the woke.
I once had a debate with an American woman on Medium. She made the bizarre claim that some huge percentage (I forget the exact number certainly >25%) of American service women had been raped. I did a bit of Googling and found that percentage had complained of some harassment, at the pinched bum level, but only some fraction of a percent had brought a charge of rape and only half of those succeeded.
On pointing that out, the debate ended quickly with the usual insults the woke hide behind when their nonsense is pointed out to them.
The article and the comments seem to start from the premise there is some general moral lesson to be learned from this.
I see two shallow and unpleasant individuals, one of whom used his wealth and position to indulge in debauchery, and the other of whom had the nouse to piggly back on a change in the cultural zeitgeist to extract an enormous amount of money from him.
Conclusion, on this case only, both men and women can be amoral, debauched money grubbers using the tools at their disposal to satisfy their urges.
Women are not fragile little flowers who cannot possibly bear the “trauma” of seeking justice.
I started getting raped by my father when I was 4, and spoke up about it as a young adult. For this, I ended up losing my entire family and support system as a young disabled woman. Still, I survived homelessness (while a single mom) and went through hell for years, but I do not regret telling the truth about what was done to me.
I have infinitely more self-respect and strength than I would have had if I’d been a good girl (or a fearful girl) and kept quiet. I have beaten many odds, and am proud of the woman I have become.
Survivors are not weak. We can stand up and demand justice not only for ourselves but for other women and kids who could be harmed. Giuffre PUBLICLY exposed Prince Andrew, which means it would be virtually impossible for him to get away with committing another sex crime. That is both punishment and justice.
Of course I want to see sex offenders punished, but it’s not out of some gleeful sadism: it’s because lack of punishment allows sex offenders to continue harming other people (sometimes even escalating to serial murder).
Merely exposing a sex offender publicly by bringing charges or speaking out can protect other women and kids.
The goal is to make it too costly – socially, financially, and criminally- for a predator to make the choice to commit rape. We can and must stop normalizing this vicious and banal form of terrorism.
Giuffre refused to be silenced, and she is a hero in my eyes. I hope she enjoys her millions, because she deserves them – and she earned them.
I’m not sure how you can justify the public shaming of someone who has *not been found guilty in a court of law* but due to their lack of anonymity has been ruined regardless, just for a big payout? Have you ever considered that Andrew might be stupid, might be crass, might be lots of things, but he might not actually be guilty? But by picking on men like him Guiffre has been able to game the system (at least twice now) knowing full well that 97% of cases like this settle out of court?! As you rightly said women are not always these cowering little victims – they’re also capable of being quite grotesquely mendacious, manipulative and money grubbing. Just because you’ve been abused (I have too btw) doesn’t mean someone like Guiffre deserves your admiration.
I agree with you Cheryl.
You take your case to trial and – if you win – be vindicated or you can compromise by taking the money. You can’t do both. A compromise is not a victory.
To me, accepting money no matter the context, does seem weak and is disappointing and will always reduce valour.
Prince Andrew has been an almost thoroughgoing disappointment to this monarchist. I don’t think the punishment of his offices removal is sufficient. All his titles should be scrapped. He was spared his rampant narcissistic utterly spoilt or entitled ego from being frankly and overtly displayed in a court of law – this his loving mother could not bear. ‘That’ earlier interview was a sanguine hint for the queen. So all his titles need to go – he is a prince but what a black one, and no prince of the realm except in the most despicable way.
It is such a relief to know that Prince Andrew was the only guilty party in Epstein case, apart from Epstein himself of course. Congratulations to all the journalists who have delved tirelessly into the details and have prevented the smearing of so many prominent Americans. Case closed!