You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
never understood why his ever present police escort cant just come forward and confirm dates and locations for, say, Pizza Express visits. That'd put this thing to bed once and for all, and Andrew would be free to go about his business without these distractions.
he really is an utter fool.
No argument on that
^^I agree vinnyeh and I suspect we know why.
Its obvious his security/ protection has a broad view of their remit.
How far can a really good nail gun shoot a nail?
I would guess a shorter distance than the royal protection officers handgun can shoot a bullet.
You would need a really, really dedicated person to deliver that indictment.
Its obvious his security/ protection has a broad view of their remit.
MBE's all round and a strong former employer in your corner when you want to get into 'that' golf club.
💰🍾🥂💂♂️
Lets look at the facts, Epstein threw private parties for the wealthy elite and supplied them with everything that entails including absolute secrecy and sex, and Prince Andrew went.
Epstein may well have stitched him up, he was after all a master manipulator and it wasn't only Prince Andrew for sure, but he was there, and he went back for more, and we all know why.
Avoiding the serving of legal papers does not exactly give a good impression…
Avoiding the serving of legal papers does not exactly give a good impression…
100% this
Does he not have PR people advising him?
IIRC his or guy quit b4 the maitliss interview
he went back for more, and we all know why
Do we? Or can we just jump to another conclusion? If we know then why are we bothering with a trial?
Alternatives could include him being coerced to attend a "chit chat" with evidence of a setup held over him. Perfect target really. Would also explain why he would be so keen to avoid any trial.
Not saying that's what happened but it's just one of many possibilities other than what the tabloids are punting. This is why we have due process.
This is why we have due process.
Some of us do...
Lets look at the facts, Epstein threw private parties for the wealthy elite and supplied them with everything that entails including absolute secrecy and sex, and Prince Andrew went.
Thats a great case against Epstein...not Andrew. I've been at plenty of parties where illegal activities took place. I didn't partake but despite that does that make me guilty by association?
You may not like Andrew but the fact you can place him at the scene of a crime doesn't make him complicit or culpable. Where is the evidence?
Were you photographed with your arm round any seventeen year old girls at these parties who are now accusing you of rape?
For the record I've done illegal things at parties but not nonconsensual sex with girls 24 years my junior whilst being married with children. Cos that'd be (more than) a bit ****ed up.
Were you photographed with your arm round any seventeen year old girls at these parties who are now accusing you of rape?
Really??? that is the basis of your accusation?? How does a photo of him with his arm around a girl proof beyond all reasonable doubt he had sex with her?
Were you photographed with your arm round any seventeen year old girls at these parties who are now accusing you of rape?
Not these specific parties of course...but I've been photographed with plenty of women and girls over my life that I've not had sex with. So you've only been photographed with girls and women you've had sex with??
Its obvious he is up to his neck in slime. He has clearly been an utter shit. Criminal? Thats for the courts to decide. If he was truely innocent his security logs would show it
This is a civil suit because in the US a time limit was about to run out. If Guiffre had not put the suit in now she would have lost all right to do so
Dirty sleazy slimeball and I hope he gets whats coming to him
Dirty sleazy slimeball and I hope he gets whats coming to him
No arguments with that...but he should get what's coming to him within the confines and rules of law.
The accusation of rape is not and should not be an assumption of guilt. The overarching rule of law in that you are innocent until proven guilty should be protected at all costs. If not then anarchy will follow. I realise this presents difficulties that need to be addressed with those who are genuine victims with all the known difficulties of them coming forward and pressing charges...but innocent till proven guilty is a cornerstone of our society that should be protected and not handed over to the media to manage and control.
The implications and consequences of an innocent person being wrongly convicted absolutely outweighs the consequences of the odd guilty person slipping though the net...assuming you acknowledge that 100% accuracy of convincing only those who are guilty is but a pipe dream. If you get 99% then the it as good as we can expect.
"So you’ve only been photographed with girls and women you’ve had sex with??"
Yes but then I've only ever been photographed at paedo billionaire's Jeff Epstein's island and Ghislaine Maxwell's flat on my whooooole life
Yes but then I’ve only ever been photographed at paedo billionaire’s Jeff Epstein’s island and Ghislaine Maxwell’s flat on my whooooole life
Was Prince Andrew the only person ever to attend one of Epsteins parties during the '80's or whenever he was active? Did everyone who attended his parties indulge in what was on offer? (I don't know). My understanding is his parties were pretty legendary amongst the 'party set' of the era....so why is only Andrew being singled out as the only person ever to partake in the 'services' on offer at his parties? He was a bit of a playboy in his time and attended alot of parties...where are the accusations of rape from all those other parties??? Where are the other accusations against all the other people famous or not who attends Epstein's parties? Other celebrities...politicians....business people, others of wealth and power?
Andrew is a slime ball...I'm not arguing at that but all I'm saying is where is the evidence? Maybe its not been made public due to the ongoing allegations and legal action...fair enough. A random photo is not evidence... I could fabricate a photo of me with Marilyn Monroe even though she died before I was born... its irrelevant. If that is the only evidence the case is built on then it pains me to say.... so what?
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.
To some extent it does - it’s only reasonable that for a court case to proceed in your absence you’ve been made aware of the case and all the details.
It’s a tactic used not just by those at the very top of society, various dodgy small ltd co’s try to dodge claims by denying service and some even engineer things to make it likely people serve on the wrong entity. Whilst in criminal matters people will often try to evade service for matters with a time limit or in the vague hope someone will get bored.
Service doesn’t usually have to be in person, it can be served on someone else in the household, by fixing to the door as thegreatape says or even just by post (usually recorded but some documents are deemed served by 1st class post). There can certainly be legal technicality arguments about if/when something was served but given the purpose of ensuring service is to make sure you are aware of proceedings, unless there is some time limit all you usually do is buy time as by appearing to dispute the matter you can be served in person (or on your solicitor). It seems very unlikely Andrew can claim he is not aware of the proceedings?
I can’t recall when serving internationally if the service needs to be to the standard of the recipients country or the country where the action is taking place. That’s the sort of detail the lawyers earn their money knowing and keeping everyone right on.
Were you photographed with your arm round any seventeen year old girls at these parties who are now accusing you of rape?
Don’t accept any photo published by the media as fact, it’s so very easy to fake photos with photoshop; I know because I’ve done it, placed a person into a group photo who was absent on the day the photo was taken. It’s even easier when it’s flash-lit with a dark background.
Andrew is a slime ball…I’m not arguing at that but all I’m saying is where is the evidence?
The evidence has come from the girl involved, whom the prosecution know was below legal age. What other type of evidence are you talking about ?. Hidden cameras, testimony from staff, Andrews personal guard, who we all ready know arent taking, given they know whether he was in pizza express or not and haven't spoken or reported on it, and the staff and customers dont remember seeing him. And he's quite a high profile face.
Honestly mate, I think you're trying to flog a dead horse here.
If anyone has Netflix and hasn’t watched the Epstein documentary I’d recommend it, it touches on the Andrew issue including an eyewitness confirming Andrew was on “Pedo” Island cavorting with a topless Giuffre.
It’s also interesting that the British consulate in NY went on record that there was no record of a stay that Andrew includes in his Pizzagate interview.
My view is he’s had sex with her, in locations where she was below the age of consent which is considered rape and is seeking to minimise the damage.
I consider that I do not have access to all the evidence and look forward to Andrew doing the ‘honourable’ thing and defending his reputation.
Avoiding service would simply seem like an attempt to avoid clearing his name.
Don’t accept any photo published by the media as fact, it’s so very easy to fake photos with photoshop
It's also very easy for experts to detect the use of photoshop.
The accusation of rape is not and should not be an assumption of guilt. The overarching rule of law in that you are innocent until proven guilty should be protected at all costs. If not then anarchy will follow.
+1
I also don't understand at all why people on here are so upset about it all. Personally, at best I feel mild indifference to the whole situation. There's an accusation of rape, the police / CPS don't have enough evidence to prosecute and a writ is being served for a civil case. There are probably 100s of rapes every day which never get to court and no one seems very bothered about those - certainly don't generate any threads on here. Why so concerned about it all now?
Epstein, as vile as he was, seemed pretty intelligent and cunning. Andrew is clearly a bumbling idiot (and possibly pretty vile too).
Judging from pieces like this https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/hedge-funders-have-some-thoughts-on-what-epstein-was-doing.html it seems likely he was blackmailing a lot of rich and powerful people, and from what we know so far, it seems pretty likely that it would be easy for Epstein to have dirt on Andrew.
Hopefully all of Epstein's "evidence" will see the light of day, but in reality I imagine a few less powerful individuals will be sacrificed, to detract from the untouchable few.
Why so concerned about it all now?
Says the guy who's so unconcerned by it all he's made sure to post several times in this thread to let us know how unconcerned he is.
Why so concerned about it all now?
The average rapist isn't often a millionaire whose lavish lifestyle is directly paid for by the tax payer and who's lofty position in society is solely down to an accident of birth conferring status.
The issue of the alleged crimes should definitely be decided by due process in court but there appears to be plenty of evidence of terrible judgement and very shady goings on that reflect very badly on his character.
plenty of evidence of terrible judgement and very shady goings on that reflect very badly on his character.
That's part of his problem, innocent or guilty he seems to blunder from one PR disaster to another
Whoever his advisors are, they're not the best
The average rapist isn’t often a millionaire whose lavish lifestyle is directly paid for by the tax payer and who’s lofty position in society is solely down to an accident of birth conferring status.
If all the (justified) vitriol on this thread was applied to support all the poor women who get abused by "nobodies" rather than saved up for this waste of Royal space, the world might be a better place.
If only it was possible to care about more than one thing at a time eh?
That's just it though. Sexual crimes are notoriously hard to prosecute.
A few high profile convictions will be good to possibly deter potential offenders who are 'nobodies'.
I also don’t understand at all why people on here are so upset about it all
Because we paid for it, we pay for his luxury lifestyle and we paid for him to fly the globe doing whatever he was doing. Yet, despite, that, he is absolutely devoid of any humility. He absolutely, completely and without hesitation thinks he is better than us and above the law. His smirking arrogance and sense of entitlement is off the scale. More so than that though, a victim has come forward and she has the right to be heard, and he has the right to defend himself. Hiding behind royal privilege does nothing to help either party, except to perhaps make him look more guilty.
Incidentally, when I was a kid we lived next door to Daily Mail photographer. Apart from his choice of employer he was (is) a great guy and still really good friends with my dad. I remember him frequently talking about Randy Andy around 30 years ago, even then it was an open secret.
"never understood why his ever present police escort cant just come forward and confirm dates and locations for, say, Pizza Express visits" Their silence is telling too: either they aren't ever-present and don't know where he's been (which is a security risk that I think they are cagey about/guilty of) or they do know he was there.
US prosecution should ask the question, is this another one that comes back to Cressida Dick ?
Says the guy who’s so unconcerned by it all he’s made sure to post several times in this thread to let us know how unconcerned he is.
What does concern me is the whole lynch mob mentality and the general enthusiam to forget due process. I think due process is something very important and worth defending, without it we're just back to lynching the first person we don't like (black, gay, disabled, muslim, royalty) etc for every crime. As for the defendant and accused, don't know them from Adam, so yep, pretty indifferent.
That’s just it though. Sexual crimes are notoriously hard to prosecute.
A few high profile convictions will be good to possibly deter potential offenders who are ‘nobodies’.
You're jumping the gun a bit there, this is just a civil case and it's far from clear he'll be convicted.
“never understood why his ever present police escort cant just come forward and confirm dates and locations for, say, Pizza Express visits” Their silence is telling too: either they aren’t ever-present and don’t know where he’s been (which is a security risk that I think they are cagey about/guilty of) or they do know he was there.
He's not been charged with anything by the CPS, so there's no need / requirement for them to do / say anything. Discrestion is part of the job of the close protection service, one leak to the press and you could loose your job and your pension etc. There will be accurate records available, so if it ever gets to a criminal prosecution, I'm sure that evidence would be made available.
There is of course the possibility he was telling the truth and there is no cover up....
US prosecution should ask the question, is this another one that comes back to Cressida Dick ?
Why would US prosecutors be at all intested in her?
I remember him frequently talking about Randy Andy around 30 years ago, even then it was an open secret.
I don't think anyone is suprised by that, even I remember that nick name from the 80s/90s.
Because we paid for it, we pay for his luxury lifestyle and we paid for him to fly the globe doing whatever he was doing. Yet, despite, that, he is absolutely devoid of any humility. He absolutely, completely and without hesitation thinks he is better than us and above the law. His smirking arrogance and sense of entitlement is off the scale. More so than that though, a victim has come forward and she has the right to be heard, and he has the right to defend himself. Hiding behind royal privilege does nothing to help either party, except to perhaps make him look more guilty.
That's the first rational explanation on this thread so far!
Given that he hasn't evaded the civil case yet, and this isn't the first case delayed by difficulty serving papes, I would say it's a bit soon to worry about avoiding justice.
I have every reason to believe Virginia Giuffre whose account fits with all the evidence made public - logical coherent and makes sense. I have no reason to believe Andy whose account is implausible on many levels and lacks evidence that should be there but isn't.
Do we? Or can we just jump to another conclusion? If we know then why are we bothering with a trial?
Alternatives could include him being coerced to attend a “chit chat” with evidence of a setup held over him. Perfect target really. Would also explain why he would be so keen to avoid any trial.
Not saying that’s what happened but it’s just one of many possibilities other than what the tabloids are punting. This is why we have due process.
Your alternative is another tabloid style possibility, which offers a jump to another conclusion, one that suggests there is enough 'evidence' for a ''chit chat''.
Epstein was in the business of using evidence, there was an unconnected report of him installing cameras in a bedroom at one of these parties, I think it's reasonably safe to assume these parties offered things other parties didn't, and those that went, and went back, and stayed in touch with people they met there, knew what was going on at the party they were at.
Crime committed or not, is this what tax payers want to fund?
the general enthusiam to forget due process
Nearly every poster in this thread other than you is complaining about someone using their status and the security we pay for to AVOID due process.
it's all very "organized crime" to use the hired muscle to prevent the lawful serving of papers.
. There will be accurate records available, so if it ever gets to a criminal prosecution, I’m sure that evidence would be made available.
Why would there be accurate records, or indeed any records of a deployment which took place twenty years ago and where nothing of any importance happened? I’d thought time sheets, expenses for the security escort staff etc would’ve been shredded after about seven years
Nearly every poster in this thread other than you is complaining about someone using their status and the security we pay for to AVOID due process.
And also presuming his guilt.
I consider that I do not have access to all the evidence and look forward to Andrew doing the ‘honourable’ thing and defending his reputation.
Webley .45 and a very good whiskey for the ignoble prince.
And also presuming his guilt.
No one has said that just that his behaviour looks like that of a man with something to hide.
Let's not forget he's refused to give evidence to a criminal investigation into sex trafficking - evidence which could be helping in putting away people associated with Epstein's trafficking of girls as young as 11.
He's repeatedly claimed in public he will cooperate, but is now essentially in hiding instead.
But yes, poor Andy.
Guilty or not of any sexual misconduct as far as I'm concerned the royals as figureheads of the British empire have a duty to be squeeky clean...they are after all role models etc etc and have access to vast wealth and power so they can bloody well tow the line and shady gang bangs with young girls and the like using tax payers cash ain't happening. This is exactly what will bring the royals down (no bad thing in my book) so if they want to keep a semblance of power and credibility then they will need to live horrid scrutinised sanitary lives as that's the price. So maybe a kiss and tell money grab from the girl..who knows but if he wants to large it up on our cash then he catagorically cannot get into compromising situations simple as!! This goes for all the royals...Saint like... or do one.
They either live and abide by the same rules as we do or they don't. Make your mind up.
They either live and abide by the same rules as we do or they don’t. Make your mind up.
They don't live by the same rules though do they, which is the point!
squirrelking
Free Member
They either live and abide by the same rules as we do or they don’t. Make your mind up.
Apart from the Queen of course, the whole Crown vs the Crown argument works for her
They don’t live by the same rules though do they, which is the point!
Precisely this. If a run of the mill STWer had kept company like Epstein and had as many 'unfortunately coincidental' attendances at his 'parties' they would be banged up in Alcatraz by now. Not running around trying not to be handed a piece of paper.
God help anyone who's the victim of some of you lot that are called up for jury duty.
Firstly to be clear, if Andrew went away and hid for the rest of his life, we would all be better off. I think he is at best a slime ball and probably a lot worse. But a couple of reminders
- This is all being done under US law, avoiding the summons is normal.
- This is all about the money. There is no evidence to prove anything, if so the US authorities would be filing a criminal case. The statute of limitation was extended and this case was done just before it expired.
- Even if it goes against the slime ball, he is not guilty of anything as this is a civil case. At this point he would appeal against any payment (remember that it is all about the money).
- Even if he was ordered to make payments - this only applies in the US against assets in the US. I suspect he has none.
So mostly pointless. And rather ironically it will get us no closer to the truth. We've all made up our minds based on interviews, photographs, hearsay and gossip.
I bet he’d be sweating about this if he was capable.
If he’s got nothing to hide he’s doing an extremely piss poor job of showing it. Dodgy interviews, paper thin alibi, close with the accused etc. I’d be going out of my way to help the women who’d been abused. Genuinely hope that this goes some way to toppling the monarchy. Utterly ridiculous thing to have in a modern society.
They don’t live by the same rules though do they, which is the point!
Well donks seems to think that's the way it should be and that they should have a higher standard of behaviour than the rest of us.
One rule for them and another for us.
You can't have it both ways.
God help anyone who’s the victim of some of you lot that are called up for jury duty.
Quite.
God help anyone who’s the victim of some of you lot that are called up for jury duty.
Well it would have to get inside a courtroom first...
In this case it seems like avoiding that eventuality is the be all and end all.
And also presuming his guilt.
No one has said that just that his behaviour looks like that of a man with something to hide
Well thanks for your generosity there Grum but I'll fall far short of your standards say guilty as ****ing sin. Prepare Madame Guillotine!
@sadmadalan it's all about the money but there's no money, lay an egg on it bro
This isn't going to end up in front of a jury though is it. Most sex crimes don't and even those that do often end up with an aquital. That doesn't make Viginia Giuffre's claims any less plausible. I believe her when she says she had sex with him but if I were on a jury I doubt I could be convinced the level of proof required has been met at this point.
But, the level of proof required for a civil case may well be met which is why the case is being brought.
As for the photo, the FBi has it according to Giuffre, an credible New Zealand journalist reckons it's genuine. It'll all come out in the wash in a bigger case that's building - Maxwell.
Andrew is a small part of a bigger puzzle and it's only if they put the whole jigsaw together that he has anything to fear.
This case has perhaps been brought too soon, a verdict against Maxwell would make it a whole lot easier to make stick.
God help anyone who’s the victim of some of you lot that are called up for jury duty.
Yes you're right many people on here are strangely relaxed about sex trafficking of children and happy to see offenders avoid justice.
she'll be falling down the stairs into a flaming poison tipped woodchipper before too long, by accident
God help anyone who’s the victim of some of you lot that are called up for jury duty.
But that’s the point. Dury = due process which HRH Slimeball seems to be doing his best to avoid. I’m withholding my guilty verdict but in the absence of both sides presenting and challenging evidence, his evasiveness is difficult to ignore (not to mention galling) for many people.
^^^
Struck by a falling gargoyle whilst swimming off of Beachy Head?
Or tragically slipping and falling backwards on the spire of Norwich cathedral?
Credit to the writers of The Blackadder.
Looks like a *
Acts like a *
Sounds like a *
Lies like a * (proven)
Abuses his position like a *
The whole Royal Family "thing" is like an old family dog, no one wants to have it put down... but at some point a decision has to be made to relieve its suffering. Do we really have to suffer a *ing coronation of a random old fella?
They are part of a list of things that suppress ordinary folk including the House of Lords, religion, Tories and a raft of titled ****s
Need to order a few guillotines... oh bollocks they are made in France and no HGVs available... maybe Amazon have a cheap Chinese copy...
God help anyone who’s the victim of some of you lot that are called up for jury duty.
Man gives one of the worst ever interviews on record whilst clearing up confusion about his part in the affair and allegations against him.
Man says he is willing help police with enquiries into his dead friend and Ms Maxwell then reneged on commitments to the point police make statement about his non compliance.
Man then becomes extremely elusive and difficult to serve papers on. All the while living at UK tax payers' expense.
But........the real story is some people on the internet not putting all this aside and overtly stating his right to presumed innocence regardless of his behaviour in the intervening years. Is Andy actually acting out a morality play to trip up bigots and we should all be showing him a bit more respect? Maybe throw him a party. Get the daughters of STW to show him a good time.....
The overarching issue is that the whole sordid world of Epstein is not being adequately investigated and prosecuted. I think it's obvious why..... and that is the larger problem.
I have no doubt that he had sex with Ms Giuffre - no doubt that he's guilty of everything she's accusing him of. But if she was trafficked (particularly internationally), then THAT is by far the bigger offence - particularly if it was widespread and going on for years. Ms Giuffre would be in a position to shine a light on the whole operation, how it worked, who was complicit etc. Why aren't charges being brought against numerous individuals/organizations in relation to the fact that she was trafficked - just Maxwell?
Maybe the more serious stuff is being done in the background? I know that Maxwell is in custody - maybe she's working out the biggest immunity deal in the history of the US justice system ever? I'm inclined to think that Epstein and Maxwell had/have dirt on all sorts of people and that's what she's bargaining with. One thing that's clear was that the people that attended these parties were like a who's who of the rich, famous and powerful - even if there are no photo's/tapes, there must be a ton of witnesses. These people are not cleaning up their own hotel rooms after a weekend of debauchery - those private Jets didn't fly themselves.
Why are we having this weird trial-by-media and civil case for what is (at worse) going to be a statutory rape charge. Andrew is just going to say that he thought she was there willingly, had no idea that there was any trafficking involved, and believed she had consented to have sex with him.
I think that the Royal Family are aware that any kind of trial (or another idiotic interview) with Andrew is just going to make matters worse - and so he is being told to shut-the-F-up, and keep out of sight while his lawyers negotiate a cash settlement. Hiding behind his taxpayer provided security boils my piss..... but it's arguably the most sensible course of action in the short-term. My real question is: why Andrew but nobody else?
My opinion until now was: Because D O N A L D T R U M P
Need to order a few guillotines…
We have lamp posts and piano strings are cheap and effective!
Would any 'normal' Tom, Dick, Harry, Andrew, Donald have managed to stay out of a courtroom for this long in this case?
There's your answer to why people are pissed off with this and beginning to draw their own conclusions.
And that is before you consider his frankly appaling 'performance' so far and his track record of being an arrogant, dismissive, thick, entitled and nasty piece of work.
Swap him for the diplomat woman who did a hit and (cross-Atlantic) run and kill two birds with one stone.
We have lamp posts and piano strings are cheap and effective!
Nah, the unearned privilege that protects him needs exposing in court. In detail and at length. Maybe after.
Yes you’re right many people on here are strangely relaxed about sex trafficking of children and happy to see offenders avoid justice.
No one has said that. Please quote where people have said that.
A lot of people have suggested that he's got a right to a hearing in court though, rather than being presumed guilty/liable in the court of public opinion. Which does not have all the evidence and facts at the moment.
And it's clear that a lot of people's opinions here are being swayed by the royal/republican issue. Which is fine, though guillotine and lamp post references, for any human being, are pretty repugnant in my opinion, intended seriously or not.
a hearing in court
That's a great idea.
If you decide to use your privilege and position to avoid appearing in court for a fair trial, even a civil one, then the court of public opinion is definitely in session, and people are entitled to infer whatever they fancy from the available information.
If Andrew thinks he won't get a fair trial in the US, then he should say so, rather than offering mealy-mouthed promises to cooperate and hiding behind his big gates.
Webley .45
.455 or .38/200 would be the norm for a service revolver.
.45 ACP is too high pressure a cartridge - the user might be killed!
Would any ‘normal’ Tom, Dick, Harry, Andrew, Donald have managed to stay out of a courtroom for this long in this case?
Possibly, it’s far easier to evade service if you are inconspicuous, and far easier to quietly disappear if you are not a face recognisable to everyone.
I’m not trying to defend him, but was he the only person who was sleeping with trafficked young women at these parties? Why is he the one at the top of the pile?
I’m not trying to defend him, but was he the only person who was sleeping with trafficked young women at these parties?
Maybe we would know more if he co operated with the criminal investigation like he claimed he would.
The Queen’s implicit in this nonsense
This^^, the sooner we get rid of these royal leeches the better off we'll be as a country.
Other people potentially implicated:
Possibly, it’s far easier to evade service if you are inconspicuous, and far easier to quietly disappear if you are not a face recognisable to everyone.
A fact a few people are overlooking.
This isn’t going to end up in front of a jury though is it.
Im not sure - the US love jury for a high profile civil case.
Most sex crimes don’t and even those that do often end up with an aquital. That doesn’t make Viginia Giuffre’s claims any less plausible. I believe her when she says she had sex with him but if I were on a jury I doubt I could be convinced the level of proof required has been met at this point.
It’s a very weird starting point to assume you won’t reach the standard of proof before the first witness has even taken the oath.
. I’m withholding my guilty verdict but in the absence of both sides presenting and challenging evidence,
A presumption of innocence (until proven guilty) is not the same as “withholding my guilty verdict”. Its no wonder Andrew is scared to go in front of jurors - they mostly seem to be pretty opinionated before the evidence has even been officially presented.
Various people in this thread have said things to the effect of “he should have a fair trial but I hope it brings down the monarchy”. As a fairly strong republican I hope he does get a fair hearing because I think every person deserves to be treated equally and fairly by the law. I don’t care what effect either a good or bad outcome has on the monarchy because my dislike of inherited power has nothing to do with whether he did or didn’t cause her the suffering and damages she is pursuing him for.
Let’s not forget he’s refused to give evidence to a criminal investigation into sex trafficking
Let’s not forget that it’s a fundamental of the US constitution (and our own laws) that he has a right to silence. I doubt there’s many lawyers who would say, “Andrew, you did such a good job explaining things to Emily Maitlis that I think you should give an open and frank interview to the FBI even if they thought his position was not criminal (eg, “ I was at the parties, nobody seemed to be there against there will, everyone was having a good time, there were lots of people having brief encounters, it’s probably not where a British Prince should have gone, but I felt it was good for the country to build links with these senior business people and I joined in the parties. I meet so many people I can’t recall every encounter especially if there was nothing significant for me, but I’ve never coerced anyone into bed. If anyone felt that I did I deeply regret that, but it certainly wasn’t apparent at the time, unfortunately my public profile makes post coital regret something which attracts publicity and the potential for money”).
It’s difficult to blame the man for following legal advice we would all be given if we were in his shoes and 100% innocent.
I assume even if the Judge today rules the papers have not been served the case doesn’t drop - a new date will be set to allow more time for service?
A lot of people have suggested that he’s got a right to a hearing in court though, rather than being presumed guilty/liable in the court of public opinion. Which does not have all the evidence and facts at the moment.
He should ****ing well get into that courtroom, then.
Although a 'media frenzy' plays into his hands too. His (very expensive*) legal team can use the 'a fair trial is not possible in this case now' angle too. Although they will have tried that anyway.
This^^, the sooner we get rid of these royal leeches the better off we’ll be as a country.
I also happen to agree with this, but it doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't be able to hold an objective view of the specific matter in this case.
As a country we would be much better off without a hereditary rallying point for the flag-shaggers. If Prince Andrew does end up being found guilty and that verdict does hasten the demise of an anachronism like the royal family, then I wouldn't be unhappy. In this scenario the 'effect' is easy to identify, but the 'cause' has to be carefully and meticulously demonstrated - the cause being one man's depravity and the use if unearned privilege to evade justice. Not something that the flag shaggers can portray (with any credibility) as 'politically' motivated.
*Who pays? Does queenie have to flog Sandringham at some point to pay his legal bills, do we think?
This^^, the sooner we get rid of these royal leeches the better off we’ll be as a country.
No wanting to derail the thread but what do you propose replacing them with? How certain are you that we don’t end up with Boris, Farage or other leeches replacing them?
Let’s not forget that it’s a fundamental of the US constitution (and our own laws) that he has a right to silence.
No right to silence in the UK. Well, there is but it can be used against you.
And yes there's a right to silence in the US, something very useful to guilty people who don't want to incriminate themselves.
It’s difficult to blame the man for following legal advice we would all be given if we were in his shoes and 100% innocent.
Yes your scenario of 'well I did bang the teenage hookers but I thought they just really liked me' probably wouldn't wash with a court.
A lot of pragmatic sense and realism from poly up there - we may all have overlooked the "acting on legal advice" angle, however wrong it seems.
(And its a good point on the monarchy - I'm not sure I'm pro-monarchy rather than pro-the devil I know. I wasn't pro-Remain but I was definitely anti-the alternative that hadn't been thought through, and I'm not convinced the Republicans have got things any more planned than the Brexiteers or the underpant gnomes)