Prince Andrew, what a cowardly little ****.

Sorry, not too up on getting sued – but does the UK system also rely on a shady bloke hanging around waiting to pass over a few bits of paper in a provable way before the show can start? Seems a bit of a crap system where being a bit rich and ellusive with big gates and walls can make stuff get kicked down the road that easily. As ‘we’ pay for his security that are making serving this tricky does that make ‘us’ culpable for shielding a suspected nonce?

The silence of queenie and the crew is one of the worst aspects to me. Back him publically or hang him out to dry. Having a suspected nonce lurking in the family shadowy corners and pretending he’s not there is not a good look. He was always a shart, but they are a bit smellier by association acting as they are.

You do know he is alleged to have had sex with her in London and not Little Saint James.

Both.

Virginia Giuffre – formerly Roberts – claims the third time she was forced into sex with the duke happened during an orgy on the island, at a time when she was allegedly being trafficked by Epstein and then-girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell.

Flight records seen by the paper, reportedly reveal Epstein, Maxwell, Mrs Giuffre, and another young female – who claims to have met the duke just days before in New York – had flown to the island ahead of the royal guest.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/15/prince-andrew-delayed-family-trip-to-party-on-epsteins-island-when-accuser-was-there-13753498/

You’re really jumping through some interesting hoops to try and defend the guy.

Wait, was she trafficked or not? If she consented then there is no case to answer, even in Sweden.

I don’t think you can consent to being trafficked.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

Sex trafficking, borderline statutory rape, abuse of power, likely perjury, the availability of a ‘better’ law if you are in the right family.

Other than that, I agree entirely.

Viz must have a crystal ball.

You’re really jumping through some interesting hoops to try and defend the guy.

I’m not defending anybody, I will however admit I missed the bit about his island and Manhattan. That obviously changes everything and the London point is moot.

I don’t think you can consent to being trafficked.

You’re completely correct, if you’re trafficked then it stands to reason you are not in a position of consent. So why would you say it was likely she consented?

I assume it’s a civil case because they are decided on the balance of probability, while a criminal case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence may only be her word against his. In a civil court, it’s not a question of guilty or innocent, it’s liable to pay damages or not. It would be a major blow to his reputation (if he had one) if he was found liable, and it might pave the way for a criminal case. Since he’s already trashed his reputation he might think it can’t be any worse, but by hiding from the summons he’s allowing people to think he has no defence.

Some people are quite well protected from legal processes though. Did you actually watch the interview he did? He’s the guiltiest man I’ve ever seen.

Luckily we don’t have trial by TV in the UK yet.

He may or may not be guilty, but that’s for a court of law to decide (as opposed to a cycling forum).

He’s not been charged with anything yet.

It would be a major blow to his reputation (if he had one) if he was found liable, and it might pave the way for a criminal case.

A civil case would compromise any criminal case, try getting 12 unbiased jurors, who knew nothing of the case!

but by hiding from the summons he’s allowing people to think he has no defence.

His reputation is toast already and as this thread shows, lots of people have made up their minds already.

It’s not just prince andrew thats the cowardly one, that label can be plastered all over the police, the crown prosecution service and especially the newspapers. All have conspired together to keep him safe and secure from prosecution for these sex offences.

Julian Assange, sought to uncover war crimes and hounded by the same law and same papers.

that’s for a court of law to decide

Well, there’s an idea…

MoreCashThanDash
Full Member

I don’t approve or support his actions on that second possibility at all, I think Prince Andrew is a stain on the nation, but I’m impressed that so many people are happy to leap to judgement without waiting for the outcome of a legal process.

Point is, people are drawing conclusions based on his avoidance of the legal process.

Whatever has happened, or not, if you take step back it’s a mildly terrifying insight into the power of the media that it’s swayed the vast majority of the population into a verdict without knowing more than few titbits of photos and hearsay.

We don’t know anything, about anything. It’s all just instinct, influenced by what you’re told in the media – or what you’re not.

I’ll just pluck one out of the air.

RIP Jimmy Saville

TL;DR, we don’t know.

I’ll just pluck one out of the air.

The sycophancy over celebrity deaths on STW is just plain **** weird at the best of times, there is an almost athletic rush to gush over anyone even slightly famous. I wouldn’t use an RIP thread on here as evidence of anything other than the contributors being emotional cripples desperate to put on a show of how caring they wish they were.

influenced by what you’re told in the media

Also influenced by what he has said in the media (it was his interview that made me consider this much more than tittle tattle), and his efforts to avoid the legal process.

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 ever 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.

You’re completely correct, if you’re trafficked then it stands to reason you are not in a position of consent. So why would you say it was likely she consented?

Semantics. I think she ‘consented’ but wasn’t in a position to consent.

He may or may not be guilty, but that’s for a court of law to decide (as opposed to a cycling forum).

That’s all well and good, except you may have noticed the unbelievably low rates of criminal prosecution for sexual crimes generally, yet alone those conducted by the rich and powerful. I don’t think it’s 100% that he’s guilty, of course, but I think it’s very likely – based on the evidence that has come to light, his behaviour and attitude as displayed in the interview.

If we just accept that virtually no-one accused of sexual crimes is ever guilty, because that’s what the prosecution rate suggests… well that’s very convenient for people who commit sexual crimes isn’t it.

I’m quite happy he is tried and if found guilty jailed. Absolutely.

But…..

I’ll pay his ticket across when they send Anne Sacoolas over.

The sycophancy over celebrity deaths on STW is just plain **** weird at the best of times, there is an almost athletic rush to gush over anyone even slightly famous. I wouldn’t use an RIP thread on here as evidence of anything other than the contributors being emotional cripples desperate to put on a show of how caring they wish they were.

Don’t disagree (but not fair to single out just this place for that!). But look at how people who went against the popular belief in that thread were treated/spoken to. 10 years on, with such an easy topic now to ‘get on the right side of’ (like, who would support sex trafficking?) the chances of anyone speaking out with some insight or just seeking balance, are zero.

So IF there is any defence, explanation, clarity – we ain’t going to hear it.

I feel like I’m trying to defend a potential wrong-un, which i’m not, but guess that’s my point.

Thank God I’m not sweating as I write this.

But look at how people who went against the popular belief in that thread were treated/spoken to. 10 years on, with such an easy topic now to ‘get on the right side of’ (like, who would support sex trafficking?) the chances of anyone speaking out with some insight or just seeking balance, are zero.

I’m confused – because some people didn’t believe the rumours about Jimmy Saville then (and angrily defended him), which turned out to be true, that means we should ignore the more-than-rumours about Prince Andrew now?

That’s all well and good, except you may have noticed the unbelievably low rates of criminal prosecution for sexual crimes generally,

Yep, extremely difficult to prosecute at the best of times. Good* chapter in The Secret Barrister where the author and his senior barrister get someone off they are pretty much convinced is guilty by destroying the defendant. * Good is in very honest and informative.

However, some of the posts on here remind me of the southern states in the US not that long ago where someone alleges a crime and before they even ask who or what they’ve rounded up the nearest black guy and lynched him as ‘he looked guilty as sin’.

You can’t have it both ways, if no one is above the law then you have to wait for due legal process to take it’s place as well.

Probably 20 years ago it would all be hushed up with press served with suppression notices etc, but I’m pretty sure it will all play out now in the public realm. Probably not as quickly as people would like and probably without the outcome people would like either…..

you have to wait for due legal process to take it’s place

That’s a great idea. When does he accept that’s going to happen and stop avoiding it?

However, some of the posts on here remind me of the southern states in the US not that long ago where someone alleges a crime and before they even ask who or what they’ve rounded up the nearest black guy and lynched him as ‘he looked guilty as sin’.

Comparing a creepy super-rich royal who remained friends with a convicted billionaire child sex trafficker, who’s hiding from the law, and made a series of outlandish claims in his defence, to an innocent victim of racism is some really weird logic.

that’s for a court of law to decide

And that’s why he’s trying to stay out of one at all costs.

What is he going to say when someone does actually get the summons in front of him with a witness present?

“In addition to not being able to sweat I have forgotten how to read”.

“It’s OK Mr Windsor, I only have to read it to you verbally”.

“Sorry I can’t hear you”.

Comparing a creepy super-rich royal who remained friends with a convicted billionaire child sex trafficker, who’s hiding from the law, and made a series of outlandish claims in his defence, to an innocent victim of racism is some really weird logic.

Really weird logic is all the rage these days. Repeat it lots on the Internet and you may even create a ‘movement’.

And that’s why he’s trying to stay out of one at all costs.

Yep, dumb move as it only makes him look worse and I doubt he’ll be able to avoid it for ever. Still, this is part of due legal process.

Comparing a creepy super-rich royal who remained friends with a convicted billionaire child sex trafficker, who’s hiding from the law, and made a series of outlandish claims in his defence, to an innocent victim of racism is some really weird logic.

If that’s the case for the prosecution then the case will be thrown out straight away!

It would be pulled apart in seconds.

Creepy – subjective irrelevant
‘Super rich royal’ will probably be his main defence if it gets to court, she’s a gold digger and prosecuting him will make her set for life on the TV chat show circuit.
Friends will Epstein, poor judgement but not proof of guilt. Epstein was friends with a *lot* of the rich and famous.
Hiding from the law, poor judgement, doubt it will last for ever, he’ll just say it was legal or security advice at the time.

Denying ever having met her then being filmed furtively looking out of a door she recently left a residence by does tend to look a bit dodge….

Whatever has happened, or not, if you take step back it’s a mildly terrifying insight into the power of the media that it’s swayed the vast majority of the population into a verdict without knowing more than few titbits of photos and hearsay.

I would urge everyone to read Fake Law by the Secret Barrister. A properly scary dissection of how the press and governments (of both colours) have twisted facts and public opinion to encourage us to want to have our legal rights removed.

Can’t good old Brilliant British Bulldog Boris lend him one of his spare superinjunctions anyway?

Luckily superinjunctions are available to every citizen, so they are absolutely not an enhanced form of law for the protection of the spectacularly rich. No, my’lud, absolutely not.

💰🍾🥂

If that’s the case for the prosecution then the case will be thrown out straight away!

It would be pulled apart in seconds.

I’m not a prosecutor and this isn’t a court.

Can’t good old Brilliant British Bulldog Boris lend him one of his spare superinjunctions anyway?

Pretty irrelevant now in the days on the internet as they would only apply to British press and not FB, Twitter, Youtube etc.

Whatever has happened, or not, if you take step back it’s a mildly terrifying insight into the power of the media that it’s swayed the vast majority of the population into a verdict without knowing more than few titbits of photos and hearsay.

Yep, this thread is pretty scary IMO. STW is normally quite ‘measured’ by tabloid standards.

Pretty irrelevant now in the days on the internet as they would only apply to British press and not FB, Twitter, Youtube etc.

Yeah, because twitter and the rest never take down ‘inconvenient’ posts or posters because of threats from those with the resources to do them over…🙄

Yep, this thread is pretty scary IMO.

Scary that so many people are fine with the rich and powerful being above the law?

I would urge everyone to read Fake Law by the Secret Barrister. A properly scary dissection of how the press and governments (of both colours) have twisted facts and public opinion to encourage us to want to have our legal rights removed.

+1

And his previous book is equally enlightening.

Scary that so many people are fine with the rich and powerful being above the law?

Stop twisting what isn’t being said. No one is saying he’s above the law. No one is saying he shouldn’t face legal challenge. We’re pointing out that it hasn’t happened yet and trying not to jump to easy conclusions.

Apologies for offering up an alternative perspective that doesn’t agree with your preconceptions.

Clearly IF he’s as innocent as he claims there is no reason to not
co-operate fully.
I *don’t* see what his problem is.
No innocent person should be afraid of the law – Secret Barrister
accounts notwithstanding.

Balmoral Chicken for tea anyone?

Ok, so let’s not “cast judgment” on him… anyone care to defend this stance of avoiding due process by hiding behind a wall of protection? A legal “defence” not even remotely available to most others?

Anyone?

It’s possible to hide from legal papers being served on you, it’s just easier for him.

That doesn’t make it right.

In Scotland, for a solemn case, you can serve an indictment by nailing it to the accused’s front door. How far can a really good nail gun shoot a nail?

Using his assigned security to protect him from being served is just fundamentally wrong on every level. It’s not why they are there and they should not be subverted in this way.

It’s a flagrant misuse of the privileges his position affords him and ironically might end up doing him more harm than standing up and fighting his corner.

I hope it does to be honest.

By doing so he is very publicly and actively inviting the public and press to speculate on what he has to hide. If he doesn’t know that he really is an utter fool.