You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Basically hiding behind layers of security so he can't be served by the legal team launching the civil action taking place in New York. Just attempting to get off on a technicality. Nice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58527909
He really believes the law is for little people like us I suppose?
Not guilty? Ok, have your say, but don't hide behind the outdated institution of monarchy.
If he's found guilty in his absence he won't be jetting round the world anymore that's for sure.👍
he won’t be jetting round the world anymore that’s for sure
Is that why the Royals need a new yacht? So he can always be surround with his people when travelling? No need to come into contact with anyone with official powers to detain?
Why is this on the front page 3 times?
Not sure why this is a civil case, maybe a jurisdiction thing? If he's going to court I'd rather it was full on criminal, no doubt then.
He's probably guilty as hell but a civil case seems a bit money grabbing.
Having just walked around the perimeter of his house, they won’t be just walking up and knocking on the door nor will he be walking out. Always leaves in a black Range Rover under escort. Multiple routes out of the park too. Fun fact, photographers can’t take pictures in the great park. But they do sit at bishopgate and point some very expensive glass right down his drive whilst perched on stepladders. That’s why the photos always look so compressed and he’s in the back. Needless to say they don’t tend to drive out that way.
Well, he's ****ed whatever he does. If he wants to live the rest of his life avoiding summons, that's a self-imposed life sentence. He can't travel abroad and attending any public events will bring the risk of a summons being served. Nobody will want to be seen with him in public and most public figures won't want to even risk socializing in private, so he has to live the rest of his life in hiding.
Or he can go to court and sit and listen to allegations. His lawyers will probably tell him to refuse to testify, which will be seen as an admission of guilt. If he agrees to testify, it will probably be worse, he'll be destroyed on the stand.
I bet it was a bit of a sweaty moment for him when he saw them being delivered.
I recall an ex forces colleague who used to do guard duty at the palace, reckoned Andrew used to pop in and out of the palace constantly with a stream of young ladies riding pillion.
I'll be honest and say as a daft 19 year old boy it was quite a cool story, er, not so much now.
Am I correct in thinking that in the US trials can be televised?
If so there will be undoubtedly big broadcasters vying for the broadcast rights and any trial is going to be very, very public indeed.
Also when his lying is as overt as;
“ Speaking to the BBC about Ms Giuffre's allegations in 2019, Prince Andrew said they "never happened".
"It didn't happen. I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened. I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever," he told BBC Newsnight.”
When the article leads with a photo of him and the lady he refers too!
What an odious little s***
Sweaty ****ing noncy **** he should hang like the rest of the ****ers
It's all weird, can see either side, should he be doing more for the investigation for/in the US, but counter to that, civil claims are there for money, it's a hard one to fight, or come out looking positive.
Reality is that i haven't seen the US doing any more since Epstein's death, no real new players, or convictions, this one with Prince Andrew just goes on and on, and again is a weird one, you could tell by his interview he isn't even close to being truthful, and is a horrific witness for himself, i doubt any civil trial will have more than hearsay or he said/she said, so can't see him convincing a jury, even with a lack of real evidence!
He certainly won't be going to the US again as there's a case against him in manhatten? I think.
I still think we should do a trade... Extradition for randy Andy in return for that US diplomats wife who killed that kid by driving on the wrong side of the road and claimed diplomatic immunity.
He really believes the law is for little people like us I suppose?
Of course he does, the peasants are not revolting
Apparently he has been saying that he will be back in ‘public service’ next year for the Jubilee as it will all blow over. As has been said in the more serious media, he seems to have been very poorly advised from the very beginning and is not the sharpest tool in quite a blunt boxful.
Oh, and I think he is a slimy reptile
Oh, and I think he is a slimy reptile
They’re not actually slimy - smooth, yes, but not slimy. It’s the light shining off the scales that makes them look wet.
I bet it was a bit of a sweaty moment for him when he saw them being delivered.
😂
Ok I think he is a slimy slug. Happy?
Nah, The Prince of Nonce would definitely be slimy sweating it out in Bal moral.
Surely they just need to stakeout Pizza Express in Woking and wait...
The Queen's implicit in this nonsense. She should be telling him to get out there and face the music and distance herself from him. But she's not and that speaks volumes. She can't make out she's moral and upstanding monarch after hiding him. They're all hoping it'll all blow over and I bet there's been some phone calls made to some very important people.
Which is better.. Hide away eternally and never face charges or face charges in a public court with bugger all chance of jail time?
Makes me incandescent with rage and it absolutely ****ing stinks. Never more soythan the fact that it's all just because of some tawdry sweaty fumble. Who would jeopardise their whole public life and that of your family just for an orgasm?! Just take 5 mins, go and sort yourself out upstairs and then get on with your life. It's so base and vile.
So assuming it is true, and she did have sex with him in London when she was 17, what then?
Ignore everything else and look at this case only. Is there a case?
Not excusing anything but factually it's not illegal so long as it was consensual.
Agree he's not helping himself even if he is trying (badly) to twist the truth by saying "it [sex] didn't happen". FWIW does anyone here remember every single person they've ever been photographed with? Legitimate defence.
I have no doubt he's been doing plenty with young women, whether it was illegal or not in the places it happened is another matter.
I still think we should do a trade… Extradition for randy Andy in return for that US diplomats wife who killed that kid by driving on the wrong side of the road and claimed diplomatic immunity.
Sounds good to me.
He claimed publicly he would co operate with the criminal investigation, but then refused. He's now refusing to co operate with a civil investigation too.
The French had the right idea IMO...
Not excusing anything but factually it’s not illegal so long as it was consensual.
Even if the person was trafficked? Interesting interpretation - guessing you're not a lawyer.
Seems like he can't take the stand not so much because of innocence or guilt but because he'd inevitably perjure himself just because of his basic disconnection from the truth. The Trump Defence. You wouldn't even need to question him, just put him in court and let him freeform jazz his way to prison.
I’m not a royalist by any means and I’m not passing judgement as I/ we the plebs don’t know the full story.
I’m not sure if this correct or not, she was 17 years old when the alleged happened in the UK- legal age of consent in the UK is 16 years old.
The whole story reeks of making money on all sides, her lawyers etc.
We only know what we’re told by the media…which at the best of times is all booolacks.
Even if the person was trafficked? Interesting interpretation – guessing you’re not a lawyer.
That would clearly fall outside of consent. At least you did me the service of quoting everything I said so we can see you ignored my caveat.
Was that what actually happened though? Since no criminal case has been presented all we have is speculation.
Not sure what became of this or what the evidence was but I don't think you can claim it's just speculation.
Disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein continued to sexually abuse and traffic young women and girls to his private island as recently as 2018, with potentially hundreds of previously unknown victims, a new lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit, filed by the attorney general of the US Virgin Islands, cites new evidence that Epstein used a computerized database to track women and girls – some as young as 11 – to Little Saint James island, a private estate Epstein purchased in 2016. According to the lawsuit, one girl attempted an escape by swimming, but was later found and had her passport confiscated.
According to Wednesday’s complaint, Epstein and his alleged accomplices “trafficked, raped, sexually assaulted and held captive underage girls and young women” at his Virgin Islands properties.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/15/jeffrey-epstein-virgin-islands-trafficking
If you're going to claim it's ok for Prince Andrew to be having sex with girls in this situation just because they are over the legal age of consent, then, well.... we have very different sets of morals.
I’m not sure if this correct or not, she was 17 years old when the alleged happened in the UK- legal age of consent in the UK is 16 years old.
41 year old Royal has sex with 17 year old after plying her with vodka, nothing to see here then, move along.
I imagine he is following his lawyers advice
He is also innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty
The French had the right idea IMO…
Advocacy for the mass murder of a group of people, that's a good look.....
I recall an ex forces colleague who used to do guard duty at the palace, reckoned Andrew used to pop in and out of the palace constantly with a stream of young ladies riding pillion.
I’ll be honest and say as a daft 19 year old boy it was quite a cool story, er, not so much now.
Not sure what this has to do with anything. Prince Andrew wasn't the only or first lad to be screwing around. My mates were always screwing around in their late teens and early twenties...and not the only ones. No doubt I would have been too if I were not the ugly munter of the group and crap at chatting up the ladies. But we used to frequent the trendy pubs and clubs back in the day and the guys were off with different women almost every week. Pop down into any club or bar today in towns and cities up and down the country and the kids are still at it - probably moreso as the youth of today are far more promiscuous than we ever were.
Seems a pointless case this does. No evidence after all these years so purely his word against hers. Can't blame Andrew for avoiding things as much as he can though...IF he's innocent then why go to court unless you absolutely couldn't avoid it? He's never going to get a fair trial and its just going to be tabloid fodder - just look at the disaster of that interview when he naively tried to set the record straight...he'll have learned from that and no longer offer up any help to plead his case. He's daft but not that daft. And IF he's guilty then of course he's going avoid it for as long as possible.
I recon we trade him in for that wife of a CIA spy (or was it she who was the spy??) who knocked that lad off his motorbike and killed him because she was driving on the wrong side of the road and is not hiding behind diplomatic immunity.
just put him in court and let him freeform jazz his way to prison.
Nicely put!
Advocacy for the mass murder of a group of people, that’s a good look…..
A parasitic group of people who hoard wealth and power and help hold our country back in the dark ages. I mean, we don't actually have to guillotine them we could just take all their wealth I suppose and do something useful with it.
Prince Andrew wasn’t the only or first lad to be screwing around.
A very rich man taking part in an international sex trafficking operation exploiting very young girls isn't quite the same as going out on the pull, IMO. 🙄
Not sure what this has to do with anything.
He was in his forties, and married, and I agree, just pointing out that what seemed scurrilous at the time may end up being somewhat darker.
Like Savile.
Seems a pointless case this does
Is that just your opinion? Do you reckon hers might be different?
The thought of Prince Andrew hiding behind the curtains while his butler tells the lawyers he's not here in the castle is too much 😂
What an absolute embarrassment the man is.
If she was trafficked, if she hadn't consented and if he knew, then yes, he's a nasty dirty crook.
There are other scenarios where rather than being a criminal he might "only" be one of many morally dubious middle aged men who have sex with much younger women when they get the chance.
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.
Let's hope no one makes any allegations about any of us eh?
I’m impressed that so many people are happy to leap to judgement without waiting for the outcome of a legal process.
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.
If she was trafficked, if she hadn’t consented and if he knew, then yes, he’s a nasty dirty crook.
What if (as seems likely) she had consented but was very young and vulnerable and was being exploited by clever, vastly powerful people, and Prince Andrew didn't care - because he was used to having pretty young girls made available to him, and didn't want to ask too many questions about the mechanics of that?
happy to leap to judgement without waiting for the outcome of a legal process.
He seems to be doing his best to avoid any legal process though.
Just pop the summons in a Pizza Express box and deliver it to him,that should do it as he likes pizza apparently,he can clearly remember going out for one years ago!
Chose a good day to respond to keep it off the headlines eh.
If you’re going to claim it’s ok for Prince Andrew to be having sex with girls in this situation just because they are over the legal age of consent, then, well…. we have very different sets of morals.
You do know he is alleged to have had sex with her in London and not Little Saint James. And Jeffrey Epstein is not his nome de guerre. I'm aware of the Epstein connection but that doesn't necessarily mean anything at this stage since, as I have pointed out, there has thus far been no legal case.
What if (as seems likely) she had consented
Wait, was she trafficked or not? If she consented then there is no case to answer, even in Sweden.
There are other scenarios where rather than being a criminal he might “only” be one of many morally dubious middle aged men who have sex with much younger women when they get the chance.
I think this is far more likely. I also don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that someone like Epstein could set up a compromising situation to catch out an idiot like Andrew, which is probably what he's actually terrified of seeing light.
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.
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 MemberI 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.
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/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 ****ing 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.