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.

Exactly, the last thing we want is any kind of ‘justice’ interfering with our national debt!

There is no magic money tree!!

I mean, we’re already approx £2.5 trillion in debt…

Imagine how many drones the Royal Air Force could buy to target brown people in other countries with high precision for the amount of cash this young lady is likely to extort from Her Majesty’s treasury!

The government is investing £94m to upgrade the RAF station so it can house the drones, which are set to enter into service in 2024.

When asked if the UK government would consider launching drone strikes in Afghanistan, Mr Wallace said: “I’ll do whatever I have to do to protect citizens’ lives and our interests and our allies, when we’re called upon to do so, wherever that may be.”

Far better that such monies go to those with shared values:

Anyhoo, best not stray too far off topic…

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal

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:

4/. “Let me know when we can talk. Got some specific questions to ask you about Virginia Roberts”

The summons shows that #PrinceAndrew emailed #GhislaineMaxwell in 2015 after @VRSVirginia’s allegations became public

In 2019, he said: “I've no recollection of ever meeting her”. pic.twitter.com/PeOPibUWpT

— Stefan Simanowitz (@StefSimanowitz) September 14, 2021

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?

@dannyh

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.

@poly yes, exactly that.

OK.

He doesn’t have to prove his innocence. He could choose to, though.

🤷‍♂️

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?

I’m sure your mother can provide you with properties to stay in with extensive grounds, walls, and a gatehouse, maybe a moat, to make it hard to serve the papers (or at least easier to claim they haven’t been served).

If it’s ok to determine Andrew’s guilt in the public eyes based on one side of the story

We’ve only really heard his side of the story. Not everyone has the privilege of getting a prime time interview on BBC that they’ve negotiated over for 6 months and probably get final approval over it going out. If he didn’t want to be tried in the court of public opinion…

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”

Depends. Here’s a question for you, do you think OJ Simpson was guilty?

OK.

He doesn’t have to prove his innocence. He could choose to, though.

🤷‍♂️

But that’s not how the law works in any civilised country, because proving innocence is incredibly hard even for someone with all his resources.

How would you prove:

A) You didn’t have sex with someone at a party 20 years ago. OR

B) You did have sex with someone at a party 20 years ago, but she told you she was 19, she seemed really excited to be in your company and was the one instigating things. There was no sign that she was doing anything against her will, and because of your wealth/fame lots of younger women seem attracted to you. She appeared at more than one party in different countries – so it seemed unlikely she had not wanted to be there. OR

C) You went to a lot of crazy parties 20 yrs ago, took drugs and had a great time. Because you were taking drugs you made sure your close protection officer was kept out the way – and you can’t really recall who else was there. The guy who organised the parties is now dead, but he seemed to be good at making sure there were lots of fun people around who would help make it a good party rather than a bunch of middle-aged business men. You don’t really remember all the details of the individual parties, but you are sure you didn’t have non-consentual sex with anyone. OR

D) You had sex with a younger woman you believed was over 18 at a party. The person who organised the party encouraged younger women to be there and for it to be the sort of party where people have sex. You participated willingly and she did too. There was no sign anyone was being coerced. When it didn’t become a relationship she became annoyed and started being difficult. Because of your public profile it was difficult for you to sort this out, but your friend, the party host, said he’d sort it out with her, you never heard any more from her until these allegations emerged. This was all a very long time ago and discussed on the phone not in writing. OR

E) You’ve actually been having a secret affair with the party host’s wife for decades. He gets suspicious and because he’s a bit crazy invites a load of what you assumed were escorts along to the party, to see if you can be tempted. You weren’t interested but your mistress was keen to keep the affair under wraps so encouraged you to go to a room with one of them. You didn’t have sex with her, but asked her to say that you did if they asked. You’ve never admitted the affair before because you believe you probably shared too much information with her and were effectively leaking internal family info to the press.

I’m not suggesting any of those things are actually true – but they are the sort of scenarios where someone MIGHT find themselves accused of criminal activity where they’ve perhaps been stupid rather than criminal. How would you prove that you were innocent in any of those cases. Whilst I’ve contrived them around Andy’s predicament actually its not inconceivable that ordinary people could find themselves in similar weird circumstances. That is why it is not his job to establish his innocence – it would be really hard to do even if he is.

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?

It was a police officer who took the documents, which the other side said meant they were served. The judge hasn’t decided if they were served but did make a remark about it pointlessly wasting a lot of time and money arguing about it and required the lawyers to appear in person at the next hearing, and allowed the claimant to serve again if they wished to.

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?

As has been pointed out a few times, you don’t need Poluce assistance to avoid having others served, it just makes it easier.

NOBODY should ever have to prove their innocence.

A key point of justice in this country that so many people seem to forget.

PLEASE read Fake Law by the Secret Barrister, and see how governments in the last 25 years have eroded everyone’s right to access justice and get a fair hearing, and then stop being so cavalier about a case which any one of us could face if circumstances were different.

Isn’t the main issue that they’ve made it so hard to get legal aid? Not a problem for Prince Andrew is it? He literally has the best lawyers available.

because proving innocence is incredibly hard even for someone with all his resources.

Really impossible – you cannot prove a negative

Depends. Here’s a question for you, do you think OJ Simpson was guilty?

My initial response was – that’s a stupid diversionary tactic from answering the question I put to you. However I’ve thought about it for a moment longer:

– I actually have no idea.
– I understand he was accused of stabbing his wife and her friend.
– I know a court found him not guilty of murder. I didn’t hear the evidence, I don’t even recall following the case at the time, so I have no idea what the basis for the prosecution was nor what defence was used.
– I know that public opinion is he did do it; I guess very few of them sat through all the evidence and the judge’s charge and then weighed up the case carefully.

Its possibly a fair comparison – what’s the point on going to court if the public get to make up their own mind anyway in a media storm.

If your question was, do I think Jury’s ever get it wrong? Of course I do. Do I think they are more likely to get it wrong after hearing all the evidence than social media after hearing part of the story? Certainly not.

Isn’t the main issue that they’ve made it so hard to get legal aid? Not a problem for Prince Andrew is it? He literally has the best lawyers available.

Its one of the issues with access to justice in the UK – but certainly not the only one.
The innocence tax – that means even if the case against you was nonsense you probably end up out of pocket.
Attacks on Judges by ministers – for applying the law set by parliament.
Trial by media.
MPs being smart arses with parliamentary privilege and undermining on going cases.
Complaining about human rights laws which 99% of the time do good not bad.
Misrepresenting the legal process in the media and by politicians.

etc…

Secret Barrister presumes this is all intentional. I suspect that in the case of politicians its mostly incompetence rather than conspiracy!

Mostly irrelevant to an international civil case. However even if we gave everyone free access to lawyers for all cases – it would still be wrong to expect the accused to prove their innocence. Most of us went to a party 10-20 years ago. How would you prove you didn’t have non-consensual sex at that party?

Most of us went to a party 10-20 years ago. How would you prove you didn’t have non-consensual sex at that party?

I couldn’t. But I’d be able to prove that I wasn’t close friends with a prolific convicted child sex trafficker.

The trouble with all this is that it’s very easy to say it was consensual, make out the accuser is a gold-digger/slut etc, hence why so many cases never even get reported, let alone investigated/brought before a court. We as a society are strangely comfortable with that, and I find it odd when someone is more concerned about an ‘innocent’ man being slandered than the fact that rape is essentially almost de-criminalised.

I’m not sure what the answer is but currently the balance is waaaaaaaaaay in favour of the creepy sex-offender who wants to avoid justice.

I know a court found him not guilty of murder. I didn’t hear the evidence

The evidence of his guilt was overwhelming. He even wrote a book later detailing how he did it. Given the history of the LAPD in the years leading to the OJ Simpson case, and as it turned out, the subsequent years of continued violence against black people, it was obvious from the get-go that OJ wasn’t going to be found guilty by a jury of his peers. It was in essence a massive “**** you” to the authorities.

I couldn’t. But I’d be able to prove that I wasn’t close friends with a prolific convicted child sex trafficker.

But that’s not what he’s being alleged to have done. Being friends with a sex trafficker is not actually a criminal offence. But then even Prince Andrew could probably defend the charge of friends with a “convicted child sex trafficker” – because Epstein hasn’t actually been convicted when he died – he was on remand. He had previously been convicted of other sex offences but not trafficking.

The trouble with all this is that it’s very easy to say it was consensual, make out the accuser is a gold-digger/slut etc,

it is, just as its very easy to say it wasn’t consentual! Its for the courts to decide with the first-hand witness testimony of the accuser, and other witnesses and (if they wish to) the defendant. Not a written list of claims, not a TV interview that was about the circumstances not the detail of the alleged offences etc.

hence why so many cases never even get reported, let alone investigated/brought before a court.

It is a contributing factor, but there are many factors – the length of time from reporting to conclusion of a trial is so long you are “inviting” this being top of your mind for 2-3 yrs. You will have to stand in the witness box and answer questions, which whilst in the UK have some standards on what can be asked, are often pointing out things you might not want reminded of. You will potentially have to undergo invasive medical examination. The case may not make it to court, if it does the crown may still screw it up through no fault of your own. If it makes it to conviction, they may appeal adding another year of uncertainty etc… The system is broken, but its not broken because people are allowed to deny accusations against them and ask the state to prove their case.

We as a society are strangely comfortable with that, and I find it odd when someone is more concerned about an ‘innocent’ man being slandered than the fact that rape is essentially almost de-criminalised.

I don’t think society is that comfortable with it – but unfortunately the knee jerk response of society and politicians isn’t about how can we make the police better equipped to deal with accusations, or prosecutors better resourced, or capacity in our courts – its how do we convict the accused – missing out the entire process in the middle, because there’s no smoke without fire.

I’m not sure what the answer is but currently the balance is waaaaaaaaaay in favour of the creepy sex-offender who wants to avoid justice.

How many totally innocent people are you willing to send to prison to maybe catch more actual rapists in the process? And since, by and large, the law treats all offences with the same principles – are you willing to risk going to jail for murder, or theft, because we need to shift the burden of proof so its easier to convict the guilty?

Or in this case, we could just wait some more months and the courts might actually hear some evidence and make up their mind.

the courts might actually hear some evidence

That’s a good idea. What’s causing the hold up?