Forum menu
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.
The arrogant, out of touch, over-fed and under-mannered man probably thought he could 'Do a Diana'.
It is precisely correct that he tried to conduct his defence in the court of public opinion, appealing (via the good old Beeb) to as narrow a segment of popular opinion as possible. His monumental arrogance also probably led him to believe it would be a whitewash job.
Out of touch, anachronistic and past his sell by date. As good a frontman for the monarchy as anyone realistic could wish for.
I know a few are questioning the picture, but i remember this picture being used several times in Private Eye as an inside joke on Prince Andrew, same with Andrew Neill and the picture of him with a young asian lady.
I doubt it's fake if it's been doing the rounds in the press for the last decade or two, only now that it's being used as evidence is it being argued about!
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.
Me too 😉 Not sure (as I think was the intent of your comment) those trying to swerve justice agree...
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.
Does that include those tooled-up with the best legal defence money can buy? Sure I get you're on your own on the witness stand but I suspect your comment is better applied to those who simply don't have access to coaching to present the best defence, which wouldn't be the case here.
I'm sure he would have suggested it was fake if that was the case, instead of hiding behind the classic 'I do not recollect meeting' non-denial.
No wanting to derail the thread but what do you propose replacing them with?
They've already been replaced. The process started with Magna Carta. Moving from a prehistoric way of running things to....well at least you don't have to actually be born at Eton to go there.
I suppose I could be persuaded about a few statues and an exhibit at Madame Tussauds at a stretch.
I’m sure he would have suggested it was fake if that was the case, instead of hiding behind the classic ‘I do not recollect meeting’ non-denial.
"I categorically deny ever having met her" is a million miles from "I don't recall ever having met her".
Especially in the 'law as tool of the cynic' section of society.
I don't recall ever riding my bike on a public footpath either, then.
I’m sure he would have suggested it was fake if that was the case, instead of hiding behind the classic ‘I do not recollect meeting’ non-denial.
He has suggested it can't be proven whether it's fake or not, but pointed out that he doesn't think it can be genuine because those are his 'travel clothes' and he would never go out without a suit and tie in London. I'm convinced.
Does that include those tooled-up with the best legal defence money can buy? Sure I get you’re on your own on the witness stand but I suspect your comment is better applied to those who simply don’t have access to coaching to present the best defence, which wouldn’t be the case here.
1. you'd have to recognise you have an issue / fault first (he obviously didn't before the Maitliss interview).
2. I'm not sure he can be coached not to just talk nonsense (that doesn't mean he's guilty - just because he lies / exaggerates about what/why etc doesn't mean he's a rapist - but it undermines his evidence)
3. you can have the best legal defence, but you get no control of what the otherside might ask or spring on him - and we can be pretty sure they will be faster thinking than he is; so if he has a habit of bullshitting under pressure he will, and they'll show it.
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
Just keep the monarchy but on a scale of 1% of what it currently is. Do they need all the land, all the buildings, all the money etc,.? Just have a King/Queen by name with everything else much reduced. Then plan for complete removal by covering all the stuff that actually needs to be done via other processes.
you can have the best legal defence, but you get no control of what the otherside might ask or spring on him
So you think in the 6 months of negotiating with the BBC that reportedly happened before the interview, the nature of the questions that would be asked never came up?
So queenie gets to send a hand delivered letter to a tennis player in New York without any problems, but when a letter for her lad comes from New York it all seems so difficult.
It doesn’t just protect the guilty – it protects people who aren’t particularly good at explaining themselves* but weren’t guilty;
A very key point. I may have mentioned the writings of the Secret Barrister before.
They’ve already been replaced. The process started with Magna Carta.
King John rescinded most of the Magna Carta within months, the process was restarted several times.
The idea that Prince Andrew needs to be even more protected from a potential miscarriage of justice than he already is, is bizarre to say the least.
And yes there’s a right to silence in the US, something very useful to guilty people who don’t want to incriminate themselves.
I watched a vid a bit back on this subject. The comment and this case brought that to mind so i've went and found it.
The idea that Prince Andrew needs to be even more protected from a potential miscarriage of justice than he already is, is bizarre to say the least.
I know! Good job nobody's actually suggested this should happen.
They are. They're suggesting that some people on a mountain bike forum thinking he appears guilty are somehow going to kill his chances of a fair trial. Despite the fact that he went on TV through his own choice to tell his far-fetched tales and be grumpy and self righteous.
Interesting video dyna-ti but that guy has cherry picked examples. Are you really telling me there's never been a case where someone talking to police has helped identify/convict other people? He's chosen not to help identify child sex traffickers and make them face justice with the hope of saving his own skin.
Also, why has he repeatedly claimed he will co operate with police if he's not going to?
Are you really telling me there’s never been a case where someone talking to police has helped identify/convict other people?
I've no idea and im not telling you anything.
But there are a great number of cases of miscarriage of justice both here and in the US. Plus we know the police are prone to withholding evidence from the defence.
So its a case of you decide, should such a scenario suddenly arise where youre involved.
King John rescinded most of the Magna Carta within months, the process was restarted several times.
Yes, I'm aware of that, thanks. I just picked the first well-known example of the monarchy being brought to heel that I could think of. I couldn't remember if the other deal with the barons thing was before or after or, indeed, if it had a catchy title like 'Magna Carta'.
Do you reckon King John ran around furtively trying not to be found when he rescinded most of Magna Carta?
He should just pull a Michael Jackson special. Settle out of court, which will make everyone believe he’s guilty, then die and all will be forgiven!
Settle out of court, which will make everyone believe he’s guilty, then die and all will be forgiven!
Well, two out of three ain't bad.
How can you lowly oiks be so insolent to His Royal Highness!!
This brave man has been doing sterling service for our country throughout his life; lest we forget, back when he may or may not have met Miss Guiffre, he was UK's special representative for international trade and investment, a role he took over from his mother's cousin (and head of the Freemasons), the Duke of Kent.
The sheer money he would've been dealing in that role is inconceivable to tiny proles such as yourselves; it's no wonder the poor man needed to let his hair down every now and then with all the stress of those constant arms deals, not to mention all the juggling of offshore finances, so crucial to such activities
So wind you necks in and be thankful that our head of state and her progeny have done their utmost to preserve the profitability of your tax investment!
My advice to Andy would have been (subject to input from a NY lawyer) that he cannot do much about being served with the proceedings, but he must not take any active step himself. The reason for this is to avoid doing something that the UK courts would deem "submitting to the jurisdiction*" of the NY court. (Agreeing to accept service would amount to accepting the NY court's jurisdiction, unless done solely for the purpose of challenging its jurisdiction**.) The reason for that is to ensure that if there is an eventual (in his absence) money judgment against him in the NY court, it will not be enforceable in the UK.
This is also be the case for most countries as the UK appears at least temporarily outside the Brussels and Lugano Conventions as a result of Brexit.
NB - this advice only works if all your assets are outside US jurisdiction or (probably) that of a NAFTA state and other places which have mutual enforcement arrangements. You also need to think carefully about travelling to such countries... But given the alternative (defending himself in NY) this is probably his best option.
NB2 This is about civil cases, there might also be the possibility of being arrested for a criminal matter if he set foot in the US, though he could try to defend the civil claim without doing so.
* That is, jurisdiction as determined by English/Welsh common law for the purposes of the enforcement of overseas judgments.
** That is, mounting a challenge before the NY court, which it would determine according to its rules of private international which undoubtedly give it jurisdiction, so this would be a bad idea.
All good fun. If you are into private international law.
why, if the royal family have no power, would they be entitled to a briefing from the sfo or any other government body
Because he was a UK trade ambassador. Do we think Beefy Botham now does the same? Or Kate Hoey?
Up to his neck in it, anyone with ears, eyesight and half a brain cell can see he's guilty and this will be just the tip of the iceberg. He was a regular on Epstein’s Jets and was his mate, ask yourself why - anyone who was on those planes needs their laptops checking without a shadow of doubt. Anyone who believes he's innocent probably also believes that Epstein killed himself.
why, if the royal family have no power
It's actually not true they have no power, the queen gets to preview legislation and has asked for and received changes.
The real excuse Andy would like to use is that in the shady world of arms dealers, oligarchs and Saudi princes that he moves in, it's totally normal for there to be a constant supply of pretty young girls, and it's best not to think too much about why they all seem so friendly.
Hence why he still doesn't really seem to think it's that big a deal - Epstein's actions were just 'unbecoming'.
Well now, perhaps there is something to this after all:
https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/1437681188655837184
Crown security to MI7 op that silenced Epstein...'got a nice easy one for you'
Up to his neck in it, anyone with ears, eyesight and half a brain cell can see he’s guilty
Whereas some of us believe in the rule of law and due process rather than just assuming guilt.
Don't care who it is, same rules apply.
Whereas some of us believe in the rule of law and due process rather than just assuming guilt.
Why is it you think the two are mutually exclusive? We aren't the jurors and if I was I would take the evidence on its merits.
Squirrelking
Of course he is entitled to his day in court but also we can speculate based on what we know and the fact he is doing everything he can to avoid that court, has clearly lied publicly and is an obvious sleazebag.
None of which make him guilty. Last I checked being a sleazebag wasn't an offence either.
correct - it takes a court of law to find him guilty
In many ways i see this as somewhat similar to Salmond. all the evidence points to both men being utter sleazebags ( in Salmonds case his own admitted behaviour and in Andrews we have the photo evidence and witness testimony plus his obvious lies)
However finding proof of criminal conduct is ( rightly) much more difficult
We can however say with certainty that both men are are morally reprehensible and sleazy. that much is true. Criminal? Hard to prove
Whereas some of us believe in the rule of law and due process rather than just assuming guilt.
Don’t care who it is, same rules apply.
It's called an opinion based on what we have seen and know. You really think he's innocent then? You are allowed to voice an opinion you know, its called free speech. You seem confused that this forum will somehow convict him.
And the same rules do not apply to the Royals, thats clearly not the case, if this was you or me we'd have faced a criminal trial but the Royal family are clearly above the law and know that.
They're a vile, hideous stinking wretch of a family, a drain and an embarrassment to this country. The biggest bunch of scroungers the country has ever witnessed.
You are allowed to voice an opinion you know, its called free speech.
And with rights come responsibilities, one of which is not to risk prejudicing a legal case - I really don't want people to escape justice because a clever lawyer has argued they can't get a fair hearing.
They’re a vile, hideous stinking wretch of a family,
As ever, blanket abuse of a range of individuals suits a narrative, but might be harsh on some of them who have tried to do some good by using the position they got lumbered with by accident of birth, and as Harry has shown, can't just walk away from that easily.
And with rights come responsibilities, one of which is not to risk prejudicing a legal case – I really don’t want people to escape justice because a clever lawyer has argued they can’t get a fair hearing.
Didn’t realise this was all sub judice in the UK.
Just think, though. He could end the damage he is doing to the royal family, his family, by tackling this head-on an proving his innocence once and for all. Right?
We can however say with certainty that both men are are morally reprehensible and sleazy. that much is true. Criminal? Hard to prove
It really shouldn't be "hard to prove" though should it? I mean the processes in courts that deal with sexual assault are woeful, women don't bring these cases to court and when they do, they often loose because it's "hard to prove"
It’s called an opinion based on what we have seen and know. You really think he’s innocent then?
This is why people get annoyed when people like you do this. You turn the “let due process do it’s thing” into “so you think he’s innocent then”. No we think it’s the job of the court to decide the case based on ALL the evidence including any the defendant / respondant provides. Trial by social media is the wrong way to do it - undermines the judicial system, and the protections we all have as members of a civilised society are there for all of us. If it’s ok to determine Andrew’s guilt in the public eyes based on one side of the story and his public excuses then why not yours when the other half of your consensual fumble at the office party wakes up the next morning regretting it and says you took advantage but your immediate response to protect your marraige is “I never touched them”.
Out of interest, if a jury hears all the evidence and then concludes that the case isn’t strong enough would you then say “oh, I was wrong and prejudged it” or do you fall into either the “the jury got it wrong, it’s obvious he’s a wrong un” or “the law is an ass, the jury should be allowed to consider a wider range of facts”?
You are allowed to voice an opinion you know, its called free speech.
Free speech isn’t carte Blanche to say anything you want; otherwise we wouldn’t have contempt of court, slander, liable, or hate crimes. It’s unlikely that anything you say here impacts the cases in the US; but feeling it’s ok to make tabloid media style presumptions of guilt is bad for justice in all the cases where ordinary people are wrongly accused of crimes.
However I’ve broken my own internal rule: once JHJ arrives in a thread stop posting.
says you took advantage but your immediate response to protect your marraige is “I never touched them”
Is that what a member of the Royal family was doing on a BBC channel in a TV programme dedicated to him? A knee jerk reaction to protect his marriage? Or a well planned (but poorly performed) attempt to rubbish his accuser’s claims and form public opinion to help him avoid any legal due process and get people to “move on”?
get people to “move on”?
Ah, the 'gloomsters'. Always looking backwards when what they need to do is look forwards with positivity, eh? Why rake up the past?
Said every person with something to hide throughout history....
@kelvin - no it’s an analogy; the point being just because someone isn’t 100% truthful doesn’t automatically mean the original allegations are 100% true. Any one of us could find ourself in court on a criminal or civil matter and it serves us all better if we leave the judging to the court room. And if any one of us were to be expecting civil charges to arrive from the US and spoke to a lawyer we’d almost certainly be told - do nothing until they serve the papers formally, and you are under no obligation to make that easy for them to do.
If I ever face civil charges in the US, I'll do my best to ensure I have police officers making it hard for papers to be served. They'll be up for that, yes?
Just think, though. He could end the damage he is doing to the royal family, his family, by tackling this head-on an proving his innocence once and for all. Right?
No. NOBODY should ever have to prove their innocence.
There are several possible scenarios where he isn’t guilty of any crime (I’ve no idea about what a us court would conclude on the civil aspect of damages) but would find it very difficult to prove.