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

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.

Didn’t answer the question. Convenient.

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

Not so fun fact… that dodgy so and so Alan Dershowitz, who was himself implicated along with Epstein and negotiated the plea deal that meant Epstein could still live the high life after his initial conviction (after which Prince Andrew continued to visit), was also on OJ Simpson’s defence team.

Dershowitz also arranged for private investigators to dig dirt on many of Epstein’s victims so they could be intimidated and discredited…

Of course, there’s much talk about due process and the rule of law, but many seem to be forgetting that much like diplomatic immunity (not forgetting that most of MI6s work will be dealt with via embassies around the world) intelligence services (who have oh so many questions to answer in all of this) are above the law; so much so in fact, that whilst everyone was losing their shit about covid, new laws were introduced to further protect their right to break the law…

Undercover informants working for the police and MI5 are going to be explicitly permitted for the first time under British law to commit crimes.

The unprecedented legislation to authorise and oversee crimes comes after years of unclear rules over when these agents can break the law.

The law will not specify exactly which crimes can be committed.

Which agencies will be able to authorise secret crimes?

MI5 and other intelligence bodies
Police forces and the National Crime agency
Immigration and Border Officers
HM Revenue and Customs, Serious Fraud Office
UK military forces
Ministry of Justice (investigations in prisons)
Competition and Markets Authority, Environment Agency, Financial Conduct Authority, Food Standards Agency, Gambling Commission and Medicines and Healthcare Regulation Authority

It would be foolish to assume that Prince Andrew (or Ghislaine Maxwell, or Jeffrey Epstein) has had no dealings with the intelligence services throughout his life

The High Court will server the papers if necessary

link

where someone MIGHT find themselves accused of criminal activity where they’ve perhaps been stupid rather than criminal.

Stupidity isn’t a defence and doesn’t negate criminality. If it was the vast majority of criminals wouldn’t be convicted.

None of us know if Andrew is innocent or guilty. What I do know is that refusing to give evidence after saying you would help in any investigation and then conducting a televised interview that makes you look like you’re guilty of all the crime isn’t a great start.

Unlike those nasty foreign children who keep getting in the way of drone strikes (whose only redeeming features are dispensing with all the faff of serving legal papers and freeing up valuable court space), our humble prince is clearly innocent:

It would take a heart of steel not to cancel all investigations into his alleged sex crimes pic.twitter.com/4s7oo51xLq

— James Felton (@JimMFelton) September 22, 2021

He has finally had to accept the court papers are served. Now what is his next slimebag move to try to get away from the courts examination of him?

My guess is he will claim immunity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58682356

I think the argument will be as she took a settlement previously the case is not legal. We are a long way from any immunity claim.

I thought that had already been ruled on in the US courts – the deal was so badly written as to not be binding in this case or something

I think his lawyers will argue this in New York. Obviously he could choose to settle with no admission. Or he could go to a full jury hearing but I suspect this case will not get that far.

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

Also remember that OJ was found not guilty of the criminal case, but guilty in the civil case!

Sounds like the Met are a bit busy just now to deal with the fall out of this one!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58866108

Or they’ve checked and still not got enough evidence to reach the threshold for a criminal prosecution, see the OJ comment above.

Sounds like the Met are a bit busy just now to deal with the fall out of this one!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58866108

As most of it didn’t occur in the UK they have a point.
No matter how scum baggy it might seem, but a 40 something Prince Andrew having sex with a 17 year old in the UK isn’t illegal or considered rape. Hence it is an issue for the US courts – and it is a civil case.

Andrew has big issues – reading the ST yesterday , it would appear that nobody in the royal circle likes him, most of the people who work with him feels he is arrogant and unpleasant. Whatever the outcome, he won’t be playing first team Firm football ever again

No matter how scum baggy it might seem, but a 40 something Prince Andrew having sex with a 17 year old in the UK isn’t illegal

It is if she was trafficked or did not consent

Yeah, i doubt there is any evidence of any wrongdoing, or anything inappropriate, it’s just funny that no matter what happens, the Met are always front page just now and getting negative stuff, this side of the atlantic it’s more an Epstein/Maxwell issue

It is if she was trafficked or did not consent

I guess they have looked into that and consider it is difficult to prove? I have no idea of what details the prosecution cases have – but if there is too little evidence and it is going to fail, the what is the point in proceeding.

I am assuming a lot will hang on Ms Maxwell’s conviction or not – she has been left in the “Only Pimp left alive” position

It’s funny to see all the comments about PA.  Whilst I totally agree with all the dislike disgust that he undoubtedly earns it’s interesting to compare it with my personal experience with him.

A few years ago I caddied at a golf charity event (his in fact) in a four-ball with PA.

Tbh, I was expecting it all to be very hard work and a bit unpleasant. The reality was that he was fine. Pleasant and jokey (and sweary) with everyone including us caddies. Mucked it with looking for lost balls, cursing his own bad play. Shook hands with all the caddies, joked with us and just talked normally.  I guess from start to finish I must have spent about 4.5 hours with him.It was actually quite a pleasant day out.

So don’t take this as a vote for the man but just to give a personal insight.

perhaps that could be his epitaph “Quite Nice for a Nonce.”

There is plenty of evidence of Andrew behaving badly and that Guiffres story is true.

I do however doubt that there is anything like enough for a criminal conviction in the UK. firstly Guiffre was over the UK age of consent and also its a he said / she said situation. add to that most of the crimes happened outside of the UK

I have no doubt at all Andrew is guilty. I have huge doubts that there is anything like enough evidence for a UK criminal conviction. Us criminal conviction is a different matter as us the US civil case

Pleasant and jokey (and sweary) with everyone including us caddies.

Just one of the lads?

anyone a regular listener to richard herring’s rhlstp podcast?

Richard has been insinuating the Prince is a sleaze for years – once or twice he’s gone off on rants about him that have been bleeped out!! for comedic affect im sure, but does anyone know what Rich’s opinion is founded on?

Just one of the lads?

I wouldn’t go as far as that and no one was taking the p*ss out of him, other than himself.

None of the other “lads” had their security man discreetly walking around with them either.

Oh and btw, none of the other players were what you might call “lads” …all a bit posh (but very pleasant).

No matter how scum baggy it might seem, but a 40 something Prince Andrew having sex with a 17 year old in the UK isn’t illegal or considered rape.

I see this idea banded about on pro royal newspaper comment sections and call it out as false as the case is she is American and in the US the legal age is 18.
The legal age of consent in Japan is 13, so how does that argument stand if you took a 13yre old English girl to Japan to have sex with ?,do you think the UK courts would accept that as a defence.

I see this idea banded about on pro royal newspaper comment sections and call it out as false as the case is she is American and in the US the legal age is 18.
The legal age of consent in Japan is 13, so how does that argument stand if you took a 13yre old English girl to Japan to have sex with ?,do you think the courts would accept that as a defence.

Depends on the law of the land where to offence took place. I know age of consent in NL is about 12 – but there cannot be a big age gap between the two people involved.
Andrew may well be guilty of whatever he is being accused of in the States , under their laws, but will not be guilty of the same here in the UK.
And then it become about proving consent and trafficking – so we are on to a he said/ she said discussion. Hence why they will not be proceeding.

And remember it is being pursued as a civil, not a criminal, case

Depends on the law of the land where to offence took place.

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Have a read. Changed that for UK citizens’ acting abroad (for these kind of offences and others). Doesn’t apply the other way around though (so it depends on USA/state law).

Personally I think jimmy748 has it, but then I am a raging cynic!

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Which the alleged offences predate. And in any case it only applies if it is an offence in England and Wales or NI.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/72/enacted

The question was a hypothetical one about jurisdiction, not about the particulars of this case.

she is American and in the US the legal age is 18.

The legal age is state-specific. That’s where the ‘trafficking’ allegation comes in, moving someone across the border from a state where she’s underage to one where she isn’t is also illegal. As I understand it, anyway.

@erictwinge that’s the thing. Private Eye have been making very similar suggestions for years. Same with Saville. “Everyone” knew he was a wrong-un, it’s just that those who had the proof chose not to use it. IE there’s a strong smell of excrement but that’s not solid evidence.

@erictwinge that’s the thing. Private Eye have been making very similar suggestions for years. Same with Saville. “Everyone” knew he was a wrong-un, it’s just that those who had the proof chose not to use it. IE there’s a strong smell of excrement but that’s not solid evidence.

My OH is from Aylesbury (Stoke Manderville hospital) and when the truth came out about Saville she said it was well known in the town/hospital. I was quite surprised, although I guess shouldn’t have been with what the ‘great & good’ have proven to get away with, and still do.

Saville was well known to be a peado. the extent of his crimes were not known but the fact he was a sexual predator of children was

John Lydon putting Mr Savile in 1978..
Apologise for the Piers Morgan bit …

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/sep/24/john-lydon-says-he-was-banned-from-bbc-over-jimmy-savile-comments
All that said the Savile issue and how he was protected by the BBC, is a different issue to Prince Andrew and his appalling choice in friends

Just one of the lads?

I suspect the poster of this comment was hinting at behaviour arising from spending time amongst like-minded people ‘the lads’, and nothing relating to the specific social class associated with the term. In this case I’m guessing white, wealthy, influential (I dunno I wasn’t there but it was charity golf), one characteristic maybe being boorish behaviour towards women as a result of inhabiting a world where you typically get what you want. That’s just my interpretation, poster can speak for themselves.

<Patiently awaits the testimony of Ms Maxwell>

My OH is from Aylesbury (Stoke Manderville hospital) and when the truth came out about Saville she said it was well known in the town/hospital. I was quite surprised, although I guess shouldn’t have been with what the ‘great & good’ have proven to get away with, and still do.

My cousin was a nurse at Stoke Mandeville, and my aunt volunteered there. After the Saville story broke they were very much “it was always known” but still no one actually did enough.

The legal age of consent in Japan is 13, so how does that argument stand if you took a 13yre old English girl to Japan to have sex with ?,do you think the UK courts would accept that as a defence.

Surely in that scenario Andrew would be Japanese (and therefore not an issue for British law)?

And asside from that I would assume it would hinge on whether the prosecution could prove that the minor involved was trafficked and not just on holiday.
Otherwise you’ve got to draw a very dodgy looking line between sex trafficking and teenage holiday romances equating to sex trafficking convictions for the parents.

IANAL/Nonce/Royal. Just curious if or where a line is drawn between the two legally.

I understood that the civil case alleged that Andrew knew that she was 17, knew that she was trafficked and that sex with her was non-consensual, that he used power, position and connections to knowingly abuse a child.(the UN says that everyone under 18 is a child) The well known photo of her with Andrew’s arm around her waist was taken in London, and she has alleged that after it was taken they had sex.  While the age of consent in the UK is 16, the other parts of her accusation make that a bit moot.

Saville was well known to be a peado. the extent of his crimes were not known but the fact he was a sexual predator of children was

Well known by whom? In the circles he moved, I don’t doubt that it was an open secret.

But the general public have always loved a bit of gossip and scandal, they’ll cheerfully throw muck at anyone who’s a bit odd and when it suddenly sticks they’ll go “see, we knew all along!” No, you didn’t, you were guessing and got lucky. I certainly didn’t see Savile coming (hush), the Louis Theroux interview was an eye-opener.