Forum menu
This isn't going to end up in front of a jury though is it. Most sex crimes don't and even those that do often end up with an aquital. That doesn't make Viginia Giuffre's claims any less plausible. I believe her when she says she had sex with him but if I were on a jury I doubt I could be convinced the level of proof required has been met at this point.
But, the level of proof required for a civil case may well be met which is why the case is being brought.
As for the photo, the FBi has it according to Giuffre, an credible New Zealand journalist reckons it's genuine. It'll all come out in the wash in a bigger case that's building - Maxwell.
Andrew is a small part of a bigger puzzle and it's only if they put the whole jigsaw together that he has anything to fear.
This case has perhaps been brought too soon, a verdict against Maxwell would make it a whole lot easier to make stick.
God help anyone who’s the victim of some of you lot that are called up for jury duty.
Yes you're right many people on here are strangely relaxed about sex trafficking of children and happy to see offenders avoid justice.
she'll be falling down the stairs into a flaming poison tipped woodchipper before too long, by accident
God help anyone who’s the victim of some of you lot that are called up for jury duty.
But that’s the point. Dury = due process which HRH Slimeball seems to be doing his best to avoid. I’m withholding my guilty verdict but in the absence of both sides presenting and challenging evidence, his evasiveness is difficult to ignore (not to mention galling) for many people.
^^^
Struck by a falling gargoyle whilst swimming off of Beachy Head?
Or tragically slipping and falling backwards on the spire of Norwich cathedral?
Credit to the writers of The Blackadder.
Looks like a *
Acts like a *
Sounds like a *
Lies like a * (proven)
Abuses his position like a *
The whole Royal Family "thing" is like an old family dog, no one wants to have it put down... but at some point a decision has to be made to relieve its suffering. Do we really have to suffer a *ing coronation of a random old fella?
They are part of a list of things that suppress ordinary folk including the House of Lords, religion, Tories and a raft of titled ****s
Need to order a few guillotines... oh bollocks they are made in France and no HGVs available... maybe Amazon have a cheap Chinese copy...
God help anyone who’s the victim of some of you lot that are called up for jury duty.
Man gives one of the worst ever interviews on record whilst clearing up confusion about his part in the affair and allegations against him.
Man says he is willing help police with enquiries into his dead friend and Ms Maxwell then reneged on commitments to the point police make statement about his non compliance.
Man then becomes extremely elusive and difficult to serve papers on. All the while living at UK tax payers' expense.
But........the real story is some people on the internet not putting all this aside and overtly stating his right to presumed innocence regardless of his behaviour in the intervening years. Is Andy actually acting out a morality play to trip up bigots and we should all be showing him a bit more respect? Maybe throw him a party. Get the daughters of STW to show him a good time.....
The overarching issue is that the whole sordid world of Epstein is not being adequately investigated and prosecuted. I think it's obvious why..... and that is the larger problem.
I have no doubt that he had sex with Ms Giuffre - no doubt that he's guilty of everything she's accusing him of. But if she was trafficked (particularly internationally), then THAT is by far the bigger offence - particularly if it was widespread and going on for years. Ms Giuffre would be in a position to shine a light on the whole operation, how it worked, who was complicit etc. Why aren't charges being brought against numerous individuals/organizations in relation to the fact that she was trafficked - just Maxwell?
Maybe the more serious stuff is being done in the background? I know that Maxwell is in custody - maybe she's working out the biggest immunity deal in the history of the US justice system ever? I'm inclined to think that Epstein and Maxwell had/have dirt on all sorts of people and that's what she's bargaining with. One thing that's clear was that the people that attended these parties were like a who's who of the rich, famous and powerful - even if there are no photo's/tapes, there must be a ton of witnesses. These people are not cleaning up their own hotel rooms after a weekend of debauchery - those private Jets didn't fly themselves.
Why are we having this weird trial-by-media and civil case for what is (at worse) going to be a statutory rape charge. Andrew is just going to say that he thought she was there willingly, had no idea that there was any trafficking involved, and believed she had consented to have sex with him.
I think that the Royal Family are aware that any kind of trial (or another idiotic interview) with Andrew is just going to make matters worse - and so he is being told to shut-the-F-up, and keep out of sight while his lawyers negotiate a cash settlement. Hiding behind his taxpayer provided security boils my piss..... but it's arguably the most sensible course of action in the short-term. My real question is: why Andrew but nobody else?
My opinion until now was: Because D O N A L D T R U M P
Need to order a few guillotines…
We have lamp posts and piano strings are cheap and effective!
Would any 'normal' Tom, Dick, Harry, Andrew, Donald have managed to stay out of a courtroom for this long in this case?
There's your answer to why people are pissed off with this and beginning to draw their own conclusions.
And that is before you consider his frankly appaling 'performance' so far and his track record of being an arrogant, dismissive, thick, entitled and nasty piece of work.
Swap him for the diplomat woman who did a hit and (cross-Atlantic) run and kill two birds with one stone.
We have lamp posts and piano strings are cheap and effective!
Nah, the unearned privilege that protects him needs exposing in court. In detail and at length. Maybe after.
Yes you’re right many people on here are strangely relaxed about sex trafficking of children and happy to see offenders avoid justice.
No one has said that. Please quote where people have said that.
A lot of people have suggested that he's got a right to a hearing in court though, rather than being presumed guilty/liable in the court of public opinion. Which does not have all the evidence and facts at the moment.
And it's clear that a lot of people's opinions here are being swayed by the royal/republican issue. Which is fine, though guillotine and lamp post references, for any human being, are pretty repugnant in my opinion, intended seriously or not.
a hearing in court
That's a great idea.
If you decide to use your privilege and position to avoid appearing in court for a fair trial, even a civil one, then the court of public opinion is definitely in session, and people are entitled to infer whatever they fancy from the available information.
If Andrew thinks he won't get a fair trial in the US, then he should say so, rather than offering mealy-mouthed promises to cooperate and hiding behind his big gates.
Webley .45
.455 or .38/200 would be the norm for a service revolver.
.45 ACP is too high pressure a cartridge - the user might be killed!
Would any ‘normal’ Tom, Dick, Harry, Andrew, Donald have managed to stay out of a courtroom for this long in this case?
Possibly, it’s far easier to evade service if you are inconspicuous, and far easier to quietly disappear if you are not a face recognisable to everyone.
I’m not trying to defend him, but was he the only person who was sleeping with trafficked young women at these parties? Why is he the one at the top of the pile?
I’m not trying to defend him, but was he the only person who was sleeping with trafficked young women at these parties?
Maybe we would know more if he co operated with the criminal investigation like he claimed he would.
The Queen’s implicit in this nonsense
This^^, the sooner we get rid of these royal leeches the better off we'll be as a country.
Other people potentially implicated:
Possibly, it’s far easier to evade service if you are inconspicuous, and far easier to quietly disappear if you are not a face recognisable to everyone.
A fact a few people are overlooking.
This isn’t going to end up in front of a jury though is it.
Im not sure - the US love jury for a high profile civil case.
Most sex crimes don’t and even those that do often end up with an aquital. That doesn’t make Viginia Giuffre’s claims any less plausible. I believe her when she says she had sex with him but if I were on a jury I doubt I could be convinced the level of proof required has been met at this point.
It’s a very weird starting point to assume you won’t reach the standard of proof before the first witness has even taken the oath.
. I’m withholding my guilty verdict but in the absence of both sides presenting and challenging evidence,
A presumption of innocence (until proven guilty) is not the same as “withholding my guilty verdict”. Its no wonder Andrew is scared to go in front of jurors - they mostly seem to be pretty opinionated before the evidence has even been officially presented.
Various people in this thread have said things to the effect of “he should have a fair trial but I hope it brings down the monarchy”. As a fairly strong republican I hope he does get a fair hearing because I think every person deserves to be treated equally and fairly by the law. I don’t care what effect either a good or bad outcome has on the monarchy because my dislike of inherited power has nothing to do with whether he did or didn’t cause her the suffering and damages she is pursuing him for.
Let’s not forget he’s refused to give evidence to a criminal investigation into sex trafficking
Let’s not forget that it’s a fundamental of the US constitution (and our own laws) that he has a right to silence. I doubt there’s many lawyers who would say, “Andrew, you did such a good job explaining things to Emily Maitlis that I think you should give an open and frank interview to the FBI even if they thought his position was not criminal (eg, “ I was at the parties, nobody seemed to be there against there will, everyone was having a good time, there were lots of people having brief encounters, it’s probably not where a British Prince should have gone, but I felt it was good for the country to build links with these senior business people and I joined in the parties. I meet so many people I can’t recall every encounter especially if there was nothing significant for me, but I’ve never coerced anyone into bed. If anyone felt that I did I deeply regret that, but it certainly wasn’t apparent at the time, unfortunately my public profile makes post coital regret something which attracts publicity and the potential for money”).
It’s difficult to blame the man for following legal advice we would all be given if we were in his shoes and 100% innocent.
I assume even if the Judge today rules the papers have not been served the case doesn’t drop - a new date will be set to allow more time for service?
A lot of people have suggested that he’s got a right to a hearing in court though, rather than being presumed guilty/liable in the court of public opinion. Which does not have all the evidence and facts at the moment.
He should ****ing well get into that courtroom, then.
Although a 'media frenzy' plays into his hands too. His (very expensive*) legal team can use the 'a fair trial is not possible in this case now' angle too. Although they will have tried that anyway.
This^^, the sooner we get rid of these royal leeches the better off we’ll be as a country.
I also happen to agree with this, but it doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't be able to hold an objective view of the specific matter in this case.
As a country we would be much better off without a hereditary rallying point for the flag-shaggers. If Prince Andrew does end up being found guilty and that verdict does hasten the demise of an anachronism like the royal family, then I wouldn't be unhappy. In this scenario the 'effect' is easy to identify, but the 'cause' has to be carefully and meticulously demonstrated - the cause being one man's depravity and the use if unearned privilege to evade justice. Not something that the flag shaggers can portray (with any credibility) as 'politically' motivated.
*Who pays? Does queenie have to flog Sandringham at some point to pay his legal bills, do we think?
This^^, the sooner we get rid of these royal leeches the better off we’ll be as a country.
No wanting to derail the thread but what do you propose replacing them with? How certain are you that we don’t end up with Boris, Farage or other leeches replacing them?
Let’s not forget that it’s a fundamental of the US constitution (and our own laws) that he has a right to silence.
No right to silence in the UK. Well, there is but it can be used against you.
And yes there's a right to silence in the US, something very useful to guilty people who don't want to incriminate themselves.
It’s difficult to blame the man for following legal advice we would all be given if we were in his shoes and 100% innocent.
Yes your scenario of 'well I did bang the teenage hookers but I thought they just really liked me' probably wouldn't wash with a court.
A lot of pragmatic sense and realism from poly up there - we may all have overlooked the "acting on legal advice" angle, however wrong it seems.
(And its a good point on the monarchy - I'm not sure I'm pro-monarchy rather than pro-the devil I know. I wasn't pro-Remain but I was definitely anti-the alternative that hadn't been thought through, and I'm not convinced the Republicans have got things any more planned than the Brexiteers or the underpant gnomes)
No wanting to derail the thread but what do you propose replacing them with?
Er.. No one.! Constitutionally they are superfluous to the running of the country.
Looks like a *
Acts like a *
Sounds like a *
Lies like a * (proven)
Abuses his position like a ****
Ah Duck typing……
I don’t think he cared the where’s and why’s of how he got his poonanny, must have been a great life jetting off to sex parties with your best bud on private islands without any of that annoying press intrusion.
A lifestyle few of us get to indulge in other than a week in magaluf when we were young:-)(although not put on a plate for us)
Behaviour stinks, especially for not spilling the beans for the Epstein case but theses people aren’t for the little people and tbh how Epstein even managed to cash out is frightening.
The whole Epstein incident reeks and if your defending people implicated, my brother the Nigerian Prince could do with some help 🙂
we may all have overlooked the “acting on legal advice” angle
I mentioned it earlier, I think.
EDIT:
Of course we don’t know if he is “guilty” (ie what went on in which jurisdictions and which side of the relevant laws those actions put him)… but his recent actions do suggest to me that he might not know for sure himself either, or has had advice that he has crossed a legal line somewhere. He’s not risking court, that’s for sure.
No wanting to derail the thread but what do you propose replacing them with? How certain are you that we don’t end up with Boris, Farage or other leeches replacing them?
Just pick from the best system that the rest of the world without a monarchy uses. Even if we did end up with a system that allowed a terrible president they could have a time limited presidency and no heirs allowed to takeover. Even if we did have Farage/Boris they could have one residence and a limited income. We don't have to give them everything the Windsors currently enjoy.
I hope he does get a fair hearing because I think every person deserves to be treated equally and fairly by the law.
This is about the one thing here I agree with completely and wholeheartedly.
Perhaps the legal advice was to avoid stepping into a US court whatever the cost, and he's decided that the extra reputational damage to him, and his mother, is worth it.
The indisputable core of the matter for me is that, after Epstein was convicted of sexual offences, he continued to fraternise with him. That is the measure of the creature, and he deserves all the opprobrium he's getting.
Sooner or later the Queen is going to have to realise that her favourite son is endangering the entire monarchy and treat him appropriately. She happily cast out her grandson for simply wanting a semi-private life with his family.
Er.. No one.! Constitutionally they are superfluous to the running of the country.
Well we've certainly seen that at least outwardly the monarch does nothing other than rubber-stamp government instructions. However, I'm not sure that the head of state should be entirely superfluous. Just the fact that things need to go to someone "independent" to be rubber-stamped is in itself a little bit of a controlling influence on governments who have a desire to rush through some policy change, or break with hundreds of years of convention.
Many countries have both a President and a Prime Minister (or equivalent). The former should provide some safeguard against a rogue PM attempting to prorogue parliament to force their personal will through. Usually, pro-republicans are keen also on Lords reform, but again people often underestimate the importance of the lords to maintaining some sanity in the legislative process and as a degree of safeguard against a strong govt majority being free rein to do whatever they wish. At the end of the day if you abolish the Monarchy's constitutional role, without carefully defining what replaces it - you'll end up with the usual suspects or their allies filling the gap. I think they are past their sell-by date - but they are so entrenched in many aspects of how our country is run that removing them is not an overnight decision.
Even if we did end up with a system that allowed a terrible president they could have a time limited presidency and no heirs allowed to takeover. Even if we did have Farage/Boris they could have one residence and a limited income
That's worked well in Russia, Zimbabwe etc. Even Hitler came to power through a corrupted democratic system.
Andrew's situation here is from the abuse of money and power - getting rid of the monarchy will only remove one head of that monster. He's a symptom rather than the cause.
It’s a very weird starting point to assume you won’t reach the standard of proof before the first witness has even taken the oath.
It really isnt. You only need to look at similar cases of historical sex crimes. They are notoriously hard to prosecute beyond reasonable doubt.
A presumption of innocence (until proven guilty) is not the same as “withholding my guilty verdict”. Its no wonder Andrew is scared to go in front of jurors – they mostly seem to be pretty opinionated before the evidence has even been officially presented.
He can avoid the courtroom but by doing so he will raise doubts about his innocence. Personally if someone is avoiding the entire "proven" part of the process it does make me doubt their innocence.
I would agree he should be worried though given that, as far as I am aware, most people are basing their opinion of him on his own words in an interview which hasnt has any criticism about false editing etc.
How certain are you that we don’t end up with Boris, Farage or other leeches replacing them?
Yeah thank god we dont have Johnson running the country eh?
The major flaw with this argument is via the soverigns prerogative Johnson has a lot more power than the average president/PM does.
As for Queenie reining him in. That only seems to be the case for laws which might impact her families money making ability. When it comes to protecting the country as a whole the courts have been doing a better job.
No right to silence in the UK. Well, there is but it can be used against you.
That's not quite right, but adverse inferences can be drawn in some circumstances where you have not chosen to explain yourself, or more to the point if when first questioned about something you don't mention it and then introduce it as an excuse later.
And yes there’s a right to silence in the US, something very useful to guilty people who don’t want to incriminate themselves.
But I'm pretty sure the US also have the ability to draw adverse inference when people "take the 5th". Be very careful saying it's only so guilty people don't incriminate themselves. It doesn't just protect the guilty - it protects people who aren't particularly good at explaining themselves* but weren't guilty; it protects people from the state going on a fishing expertise to find something to stick on him; it protects people from having to admit to some personally embarrassing situation (like having an affair, or being at the local tory party cheese n wine - which possibly has no bearing on the alleged crime).
* A huge number of people in our justice system are far less eloquent or logical than a STW "politics" thread and can make themselves seem like they are hiding something just because they aren't used to standing in a witness box being asked questions which may be designed to back them into a response. Even those who are trying to tell the truth are often a bit confused or forgetful and can seem like they are changing their story. Many people who end up in the justice system are to put it bluntly, not that bright, and a Jury can hear that and draw damaging conclusions (sometimes it might be helpful to the defendant, but often it won't be). I dare say in some trials sounding like a smarmy etonian trying to be smart with words would be just as damaging.
Yeah thank god we dont have Johnson running the country eh?
The major flaw with this argument is via the soverigns prerogative Johnson has a lot more power than the average president/PM does.
I'm with you there - but that was my point, you can't just rub out the monarchy and expect a better Britain. You actually need MAJOR constitutional reform. I'm all for it - but I think many "get rid of the monarchy" calls ignore just what you may be leaving open...
As for Queenie reining him in. That only seems to be the case for laws which might impact her families money making ability. When it comes to protecting the country as a whole the courts have been doing a better job.
I agree. I understand for example she was in a difficult position to refuse the request to prorogue, but it undermined the institution in my opinion. And yes the courts have done a better job of protecting democracy/constitution than the queen - but those Judges were appointed by the queen (based on recommendations from an independent committee) - take HM out of the picture and who is appointing judges? the PM? you end up with the US where judges are appointed on political lines - that cannot be good.
The indisputable core of the matter for me is that, after Epstein was convicted of sexual offences, he continued to fraternise with him. That is the measure of the creature, and he deserves all the opprobrium he’s getting.
He covered that. He stayed with the convicted child sex trafficker because Prince Andrew was 'too honourable' and because Epstein offered 'a convenient place to stay'.
He also said he did not regret his friendship with Epstein, saying "the people that I met and the opportunities that I was given to learn either by him or because of him were actually very useful" and "had some seriously beneficial outcomes"
But yes, let's not judge him by the prerecorded interview that he willingly gave to the BBC after 6 months of negotiation. Have they offered the accuser(s) the chance to explain her side of the story?
Going from queenie ceremonially rubber stamping judge appointments to having US style political appointments is quite a jump
I hope he does get a fair hearing
Yes absolutely. But the problem is he is doing everything he can to avoid getting that fair hearing in the first place.
Going from queenie ceremonially rubber stamping judge appointments to having US style political appointments is quite a jump
the point being, I'm a republican, I think the monarchy is an outdated idea that should be replaced in any modern democracy. BUT a bit like saying we should leave the EU, or Scotland should leave the UK or any other major political change - you need to go beyond just the headline and explain the substance otherwise we can't decide if it's out the frying pan and into the fire. Make no mistake, the current government would not think twice about putting in place a structure for appointing the judiciary that let them influence sentences and avoid awkward judicial reviews etc. They'd even dress it up as "giving the people what they want". I asked the question because I've not seen any pro-republic politician actually spell out what they envisage and I wondered if I'm the only one who wonders what it looks like. If there was one common vision for a new world it would be far easier to get the vaguely monarchists to consider it...
Have they offered the accuser(s) the chance to explain her side of the story?
The alleged victim is trying to tell their story in court, it is the prince of slime that decided to go to the court of public opinion and try to avoid the legal courtroom.
Yes absolutely. But the problem is he is doing everything he can to avoid getting that fair hearing in the first place.
and doing that is part of his right to a "fair process". Whether it helps or hinders his case long term is more his worry than ours.
My money would be that the Judge today says the papers are served anyway... I don't see how he can send a lawyer to say the papers were not served, without the papers then being served on the lawyer on his behalf! Of course his strategy might be to just pretend its not happening and let judgement happen by default, and either pay out so it relatively quickly blows over or make them go through the process of trying to extract it internationally! He can potentially do all that without ever admitting fault, and saying "I never even received the formal papers, so had nothing to deny." Afterall 80% of the British public have already decided his guilt, or think its OK cause he's a prince.
The alleged victim is trying to tell their story in court, it is the prince of slime that decided to go to the court of public opinion and try to avoid the legal courtroom.
This is the thing - he clearly thought the interview was going to help get the public on side and make it all go away. He/his supporters can hardly complain because it backfired so spectacularly.
She happily cast out her grandson for simply wanting a semi-private life with his family.
Yes, but he committed a far higher crime (in the screwed up eyes of Brexit Britin) by marrying 'one of them'.
I'd like to see the monarchy removed for two main reasons:
1. It is massively unfair that a person can be born into such unearned privilege. Even more so if that privilege gets you a more advantageous brand of 'the law'.
2. It removes a childish and pointless rallying point for the Plastic Patriots who just wave a Union Jack every time it looks like an inconvenient rendezvous with the reality of the UK's position in the world looks likely. The type of person who instinctively rejects any form of constructive compromise with other nations as 'unpatriotic'. I'd like to see many of their cherished 'certainties' smashed on the floor in front of them until they are forced to concede that their sepia-tinted fantasy land of plucky chaps in cotton vests being Olympic champions, spitfires overhead and a quarter of the globe imperial pink is just what it is. A fantasy.
Then we might be able to reconstruct our international reputation to some extent.