Jump to content

Prince Andrew should be panicking


John52

Recommended Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly Prince Andrew will have been advised by his lawyers to resist any temptation to travel to the USA for the foreseeable future because if he did the lawyers acting for the alleged victims would then be able to get the US legal system to make him cooperate with a deposition - i.e. formal questionning under oath. But this is a completely separate legal process for action by prosecutors who want to talk to him (as a witness) and are complaining that he is not cooperating by which they perhaps mean that he is not agreeing to travel to the US to be interviewed. He or his lawyers might also be trying to lay down some limitations on what he will be required to do if the prosecutors are willing to travel to UK to interview him.

 

Prince Andrew is not the sharpest chiselin the box but even he will have worked out by now that he could get completely screwed if he's not careful - especially by the woman who reckons he screwed her and now wants her payoff for being an "innocent" victim.

 

It's all good spectator value and I doubt that all that many people will have much sympathy for him - but I don't think he (or anyone else) deserves to be thrown to the US legal wolves just because they see some mileage (in either reputational benefit or fees) in taking the opportunity to make him a target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2020-07-15 11:29 AM

 

StuartO - 2020-07-15 11:04 AM

the woman who reckons he screwed her and now wants her payoff for being an "innocent" victim.

 

But how could she do that if, as he claims, he never even met her ?

 

Well, she might have all sorts of reasons for lying, not least the money she might make. Of course HRH might be lying too, or maybe he's screwed around with young women so much he genuinely can't remember her. He is said to have an exaggerated sense of his own entitlements (regarding everyone as servants) and if he's been taking lots of opportunities as they were presented, maybe he would keep track. Embarassing for him of course that these days this sort of thing gets out when his ancestor princes would have always got away with shagging anyone they wanted to shag, including their best friend's wives. These American women cannot be relied upon to have any discretion if they sense an opportunity to make a few bucks, that's what he's having to learn the hard way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well of course palace servants can be silenced with the Official Secrets Act.

Our Elected representatives had to exclude palace servants from the Employment Protection Act etc to get the Unelected Queen to pass it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-07-15 12:10 PM..............These American women cannot be relied upon to have any discretion if they sense an opportunity to make a few bucks, that's what he's having to learn the hard way.

Yes but, those American women were for the most part, at least as far as American law is/was concerned, not women (adults) at the time the alleged incidents took place, but girls (children). Had that not been the case, it would merely be a bit of smut about what consenting adults do in private. Embarrassing, perhaps, but not what I believe the Americans class as statutory rape - because the victim is not legally competent at the time to give consent. Under American law that is a criminal, and not a civil, matter, so the allegations are extremely serious. The victims may, or may not, be motivated by the lure of gold, but it seems a little premature for us to assume they all are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2020-07-15 2:54 PM

 

StuartO - 2020-07-15 12:10 PM..............These American women cannot be relied upon to have any discretion if they sense an opportunity to make a few bucks, that's what he's having to learn the hard way.

Yes but, those American women were for the most part, at least as far as American law is/was concerned, not women (adults) at the time the alleged incidents took place, but girls (children). Had that not been the case, it would merely be a bit of smut about what consenting adults do in private. Embarrassing, perhaps, but not what I believe the Americans class as statutory rape - because the victim is not legally competent at the time to give consent. Under American law that is a criminal, and not a civil, matter, so the allegations are extremely serious. The victims may, or may not, be motivated by the lure of gold, but it seems a little premature for us to assume they all are.

 

As someone has pointed out, one of them is saying she had intercourse with Prince Andrew in UK when she was 17 and elsewhere the following year. She was over the age of consent in UK and, on the face of it, the following year outside UK so there is no criminal offence being alleged in Prince Andrew's case, he's a potential witness, that's all. I'm not for a moment defending Prince Andrew's conduct but I suggest that it's a little naive of you to insist on regarding these nubile females as children when they might well have been behaving as (and being rewarded as) hookers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it is not me who regards them as children: it is, as I said, the US legal system. The cases mainly involve Epstein, with Maxwell as his procurer/aide. There are a number of lawsuits in which Epstein is accused of what amounts, under US law, to statutory rape. These lawsuits allege that allege Maxwell knowingly procured under-age girls for Epstein, as well as being involved in the grooming and sexual abuse of some of them.

 

The issue, surely, is not whether they might be judged "nubile" (which could hardly be their fault), whether they indulged willingly, or whether they behaved like "hookers"; just that they are alleged to have been under the legal age of consent at the time, and so, under US law, were raped. If they were under age, how they looked or behaved is not relevant.

 

Maxwell is alleged to have facilitated Epstein's crimes, as well as having carried out several sexual assaults, so is being prosecuted in that capacity. HRH, for want of a better term, except (AFAIK) in one case, merely to have "been in the room". Where that might leave him if it is claimed that as a responsible adult had an obligation to intervene, but did nothing, I neither know nor care.

 

I just think it preferable to await the judgements before assuming that the girls were complicit and are now merely looking to cash in. Some may well have that motivation: but all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that US police think they police the world and expect everyone to meet their demands, whether or not their laws conflict. Their DAs are elected too, so they need to play to the crowd and celebs make good suspects.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt if the girls were complicit because it wouldn't have been explained to them at the start.

With the possible exception of Sir Jimmy Savile OBE KCSG, who had the BBC and the rest of the Establishment to turn him into a star, paedophiles invariably use a woman to procure their victims - in the sense of victims thinking the male must be alright because he is with a female.

Like the victims thought Fred West was alright because he was with Rose West.

The victims weren't complicit because Rose West wouldn't have told them from the start what was expected of them.

They only found that out when they were already in too deep.

This is what victims are saying about Ghislane Maxwell.

Its alleged she engaged them as maids, masseurs, whatever, and then made it impossible for them to say no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-07-15 4:22 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-07-15 2:54 PM

 

StuartO - 2020-07-15 12:10 PM..............These American women cannot be relied upon to have any discretion if they sense an opportunity to make a few bucks, that's what he's having to learn the hard way.

Yes but, those American women were for the most part, at least as far as American law is/was concerned, not women (adults) at the time the alleged incidents took place, but girls (children). Had that not been the case, it would merely be a bit of smut about what consenting adults do in private. Embarrassing, perhaps, but not what I believe the Americans class as statutory rape - because the victim is not legally competent at the time to give consent. Under American law that is a criminal, and not a civil, matter, so the allegations are extremely serious. The victims may, or may not, be motivated by the lure of gold, but it seems a little premature for us to assume they all are.

 

As someone has pointed out, one of them is saying she had intercourse with Prince Andrew in UK when she was 17 and elsewhere the following year. She was over the age of consent in UK and, on the face of it, the following year outside UK so there is no criminal offence being alleged in Prince Andrew's case, he's a potential witness, that's all. I'm not for a moment defending Prince Andrew's conduct but I suggest that it's a little naive of you to insist on regarding these nubile females as children when they might well have been behaving as (and being rewarded as) hookers.

 

Well he wasn't in the UK so it probably wouldn't have been legal.

Also, its alleged the girls were not willing but were effectively being forced - which I think is more concerning than whether they were 17 or 18.

But some were apparently 14.

And what was Prince Andrew giving G. Epstein in return for this service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barryd999 - 2020-07-15 11:46 AM

 

Its hard to see how any of this as far as Prince Andrew is concerned could lead to him being prosecuted unless they can prove he had sex with her on US soil when she was 17. Not illegal here of course.

 

Victims are saying that they weren't complicit because they were being tricked/manuipulated/intimidated/forced into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see the Buckingham Palace spin machine trying to turn this into a technicality of whether she was 17 or 18.

And who wouldn't sympathise then - how can you tell whether she is 17 or 18?

But its not about that.

Its about whether she really consented, or was co-erced.etc

Its said he treats everyone like a servant, and I most fear for the Royal servants because they can't speak.

Thy are silenced by the Official Secrets Act >:-)

And things like the Employment Protection Act that apply to all other workers don't apply to them,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birdbrain - 2020-07-16 6:46 AM

 

Prince Andrew is guilty of nothing yet ... Meanwhile back in the real world thousands of underage girls up and down this land have been raped at the hands of Muslim sex gangs

 

So now you change from plan A - Ad Hominem attack on the person asking the question.

To plan B - change the subject.

Do you know any others *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2020-07-15 10:36 PM And what was Prince Andrew giving G. Epstein in return for this service?

 

Probably nothing but whatever prestige arose for Epstein from having him as a royal guest. And Prince Andrew was probably lapping up what was being offered to him on a plate without giving it much thought other than the lust of the moment. He probably thought these girls/women were fortunate to have his attention. And if he even gave a thought to whether it was disreputable or illegal, he probably decided it was private and would remain private, so he'd never be challenged. Now he knows differently and he's having to hide away and his role as a senior Royal is compromised, probably permanently, which will have caused him a lot of regret. So one way or another he will be paying the price of his foolishness for the rest of his life, whether or not the US litigation lawyers get access to him, which I doubt they will because the Royal Family won't want any more about his embarassing antics getting out. Air Miles Andy (or Randy Andy) has cooked his own goose and will be hiding from public gaze indefinitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2020-07-16 9:10 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-07-16 6:46 AM

 

Prince Andrew is guilty of nothing yet ... Meanwhile back in the real world thousands of underage girls up and down this land have been raped at the hands of Muslim sex gangs

 

So now you change from plan A - Ad Hominem attack on the person asking the question.

To plan B - change the subject.

Do you know any others *-)

 

Why are you trolling me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-07-16 10:15 AM

 

John52 - 2020-07-15 10:36 PM And what was Prince Andrew giving G. Epstein in return for this service?

 

Probably nothing but whatever prestige arose for Epstein from having him as a royal guest. And Prince Andrew was probably lapping up what was being offered to him on a plate without giving it much thought other than the lust of the moment. He probably thought these girls/women were fortunate to have his attention. And if he even gave a thought to whether it was disreputable or illegal, he probably decided it was private and would remain private, so he'd never be challenged. Now he knows differently and he's having to hide away and his role as a senior Royal is compromised, probably permanently, which will have caused him a lot of regret. So one way or another he will be paying the price of his foolishness for the rest of his life, whether or not the US litigation lawyers get access to him, which I doubt they will because the Royal Family won't want any more about his embarassing antics getting out. Air Miles Andy (or Randy Andy) has cooked his own goose and will be hiding from public gaze indefinitely.

 

At last we agree :-D

But the thing that sticks most in my mind is his interview, conducted in a palace whereas ours would be conducted in a police station, where he says 'a normal shooting weekend'

As though killing for pleasure is normal

And he has been representing us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2020-07-16 1:22 PM

 

StuartO - 2020-07-16 10:15 AM

 

John52 - 2020-07-15 10:36 PM And what was Prince Andrew giving G. Epstein in return for this service?

 

Probably nothing but whatever prestige arose for Epstein from having him as a royal guest. And Prince Andrew was probably lapping up what was being offered to him on a plate without giving it much thought other than the lust of the moment. He probably thought these girls/women were fortunate to have his attention. And if he even gave a thought to whether it was disreputable or illegal, he probably decided it was private and would remain private, so he'd never be challenged. Now he knows differently and he's having to hide away and his role as a senior Royal is compromised, probably permanently, which will have caused him a lot of regret. So one way or another he will be paying the price of his foolishness for the rest of his life, whether or not the US litigation lawyers get access to him, which I doubt they will because the Royal Family won't want any more about his embarassing antics getting out. Air Miles Andy (or Randy Andy) has cooked his own goose and will be hiding from public gaze indefinitely.

 

At last we agree :-D

But the thing that sticks most in my mind is his interview, conducted in a palace whereas ours would be conducted in a police station, where he says 'a normal shooting weekend'

As though killing for pleasure is normal

And he has been representing us

 

Remember his BBC interview was his idea, probably against advice, when he still thought he could talk his way out of trouble, which clearly he couldn’t. This was salutary but had nothing to do with the American justice system (if you can call it that) which is trying to pin charges on others and so far has not accused Prince Andrew of anything criminal. In parallel with that there are women who are now seeking compensation for what they think was their exploitation but theirs is a separate civil action, which does not entitle them to drag Prince Andrew across to the US to be interrogated. The public prosecutors stand some chance of getting him into US territory but I would think not much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StuartO - 2020-07-16 1:57 PM

 

John52 - 2020-07-16 1:22 PM

 

StuartO - 2020-07-16 10:15 AM

 

John52 - 2020-07-15 10:36 PM And what was Prince Andrew giving G. Epstein in return for this service?

 

Probably nothing but whatever prestige arose for Epstein from having him as a royal guest. And Prince Andrew was probably lapping up what was being offered to him on a plate without giving it much thought other than the lust of the moment. He probably thought these girls/women were fortunate to have his attention. And if he even gave a thought to whether it was disreputable or illegal, he probably decided it was private and would remain private, so he'd never be challenged. Now he knows differently and he's having to hide away and his role as a senior Royal is compromised, probably permanently, which will have caused him a lot of regret. So one way or another he will be paying the price of his foolishness for the rest of his life, whether or not the US litigation lawyers get access to him, which I doubt they will because the Royal Family won't want any more about his embarassing antics getting out. Air Miles Andy (or Randy Andy) has cooked his own goose and will be hiding from public gaze indefinitely.

 

At last we agree :-D

But the thing that sticks most in my mind is his interview, conducted in a palace whereas ours would be conducted in a police station, where he says 'a normal shooting weekend'

As though killing for pleasure is normal

And he has been representing us

 

Remember his BBC interview was his idea, probably against advice, when he still thought he could talk his way out of trouble, which clearly he couldn’t. This was salutary but had nothing to do with the American justice system (if you can call it that) which is trying to pin charges on others and so far has not accused Prince Andrew of anything criminal. In parallel with that there are women who are now seeking compensation for what they think was their exploitation but theirs is a separate civil action, which does not entitle them to drag Prince Andrew across to the US to be interrogated. The public prosecutors stand some chance of getting him into US territory but I would think not much.

 

Yes I suppose its a bit naive to think he would want to help the investigation.

And it may well be he thought he was doing these girls a favour, but I can't see anyone else getting off a rape charge with that defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birdbrain - 2020-07-16 11:52 AM

 

John52 - 2020-07-16 9:10 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-07-16 6:46 AM

 

Prince Andrew is guilty of nothing yet ... Meanwhile back in the real world thousands of underage girls up and down this land have been raped at the hands of Muslim sex gangs

 

So now you change from plan A - Ad Hominem attack on the person asking the question.

To plan B - change the subject.

Do you know any others *-)

 

Why are you trolling me

 

So thats a 'No' then

You are back to plan A :-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John52 - 2020-07-16 3:37 PM Yes I suppose its a bit naive to think he would want to help the investigation. And it may well be he thought he was doing these girls a favour, but I can't see anyone else getting off a rape charge with that defence.

 

Even the 17yr old girl whom he is accused of shagging (in UK when she was still 17 according to the girl, so not statutory rape) hasn't accused him of rape and nor has anyone else except you it seems.

 

And even in America it's proof beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction compared with the balance of probabilities in a civil case. It will be the prospect of a civil case against him (for exploiting her as a trafficed girl) that HRH will be wanting to avoid getting dragged into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...