You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
No wanting to derail the thread but what do you propose replacing them with?
Er.. No one.! Constitutionally they are superfluous to the running of the country.
Looks like a *
Acts like a *
Sounds like a *
Lies like a * (proven)
Abuses his position like a ****
Ah Duck typing……
I don’t think he cared the where’s and why’s of how he got his poonanny, must have been a great life jetting off to sex parties with your best bud on private islands without any of that annoying press intrusion.
A lifestyle few of us get to indulge in other than a week in magaluf when we were young:-)(although not put on a plate for us)
Behaviour stinks, especially for not spilling the beans for the Epstein case but theses people aren’t for the little people and tbh how Epstein even managed to cash out is frightening.
The whole Epstein incident reeks and if your defending people implicated, my brother the Nigerian Prince could do with some help 🙂
we may all have overlooked the “acting on legal advice” angle
I mentioned it earlier, I think.
EDIT:
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 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.
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?
Just pick from the best system that the rest of the world without a monarchy uses. Even if we did end up with a system that allowed a terrible president they could have a time limited presidency and no heirs allowed to takeover. Even if we did have Farage/Boris they could have one residence and a limited income. We don't have to give them everything the Windsors currently enjoy.
I hope he does get a fair hearing because I think every person deserves to be treated equally and fairly by the law.
This is about the one thing here I agree with completely and wholeheartedly.
Perhaps the legal advice was to avoid stepping into a US court whatever the cost, and he's decided that the extra reputational damage to him, and his mother, is worth it.
The indisputable core of the matter for me is that, after Epstein was convicted of sexual offences, he continued to fraternise with him. That is the measure of the creature, and he deserves all the opprobrium he's getting.
Sooner or later the Queen is going to have to realise that her favourite son is endangering the entire monarchy and treat him appropriately. She happily cast out her grandson for simply wanting a semi-private life with his family.
Er.. No one.! Constitutionally they are superfluous to the running of the country.
Well we've certainly seen that at least outwardly the monarch does nothing other than rubber-stamp government instructions. However, I'm not sure that the head of state should be entirely superfluous. Just the fact that things need to go to someone "independent" to be rubber-stamped is in itself a little bit of a controlling influence on governments who have a desire to rush through some policy change, or break with hundreds of years of convention.
Many countries have both a President and a Prime Minister (or equivalent). The former should provide some safeguard against a rogue PM attempting to prorogue parliament to force their personal will through. Usually, pro-republicans are keen also on Lords reform, but again people often underestimate the importance of the lords to maintaining some sanity in the legislative process and as a degree of safeguard against a strong govt majority being free rein to do whatever they wish. At the end of the day if you abolish the Monarchy's constitutional role, without carefully defining what replaces it - you'll end up with the usual suspects or their allies filling the gap. I think they are past their sell-by date - but they are so entrenched in many aspects of how our country is run that removing them is not an overnight decision.
Even if we did end up with a system that allowed a terrible president they could have a time limited presidency and no heirs allowed to takeover. Even if we did have Farage/Boris they could have one residence and a limited income
That's worked well in Russia, Zimbabwe etc. Even Hitler came to power through a corrupted democratic system.
Andrew's situation here is from the abuse of money and power - getting rid of the monarchy will only remove one head of that monster. He's a symptom rather than the cause.
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.
It really isnt. You only need to look at similar cases of historical sex crimes. They are notoriously hard to prosecute beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
He can avoid the courtroom but by doing so he will raise doubts about his innocence. Personally if someone is avoiding the entire "proven" part of the process it does make me doubt their innocence.
I would agree he should be worried though given that, as far as I am aware, most people are basing their opinion of him on his own words in an interview which hasnt has any criticism about false editing etc.
How certain are you that we don’t end up with Boris, Farage or other leeches replacing them?
Yeah thank god we dont have Johnson running the country eh?
The major flaw with this argument is via the soverigns prerogative Johnson has a lot more power than the average president/PM does.
As for Queenie reining him in. That only seems to be the case for laws which might impact her families money making ability. When it comes to protecting the country as a whole the courts have been doing a better job.
No right to silence in the UK. Well, there is but it can be used against you.
That's not quite right, but adverse inferences can be drawn in some circumstances where you have not chosen to explain yourself, or more to the point if when first questioned about something you don't mention it and then introduce it as an excuse later.
And yes there’s a right to silence in the US, something very useful to guilty people who don’t want to incriminate themselves.
But I'm pretty sure the US also have the ability to draw adverse inference when people "take the 5th". Be very careful saying it's only so guilty people don't incriminate themselves. It doesn't just protect the guilty - it protects people who aren't particularly good at explaining themselves* but weren't guilty; it protects people from the state going on a fishing expertise to find something to stick on him; it protects people from having to admit to some personally embarrassing situation (like having an affair, or being at the local tory party cheese n wine - which possibly has no bearing on the alleged crime).
* A huge number of people in our justice system are far less eloquent or logical than a STW "politics" thread and can make themselves seem like they are hiding something just because they aren't used to standing in a witness box being asked questions which may be designed to back them into a response. Even those who are trying to tell the truth are often a bit confused or forgetful and can seem like they are changing their story. Many people who end up in the justice system are to put it bluntly, not that bright, and a Jury can hear that and draw damaging conclusions (sometimes it might be helpful to the defendant, but often it won't be). I dare say in some trials sounding like a smarmy etonian trying to be smart with words would be just as damaging.
Yeah thank god we dont have Johnson running the country eh?
The major flaw with this argument is via the soverigns prerogative Johnson has a lot more power than the average president/PM does.
I'm with you there - but that was my point, you can't just rub out the monarchy and expect a better Britain. You actually need MAJOR constitutional reform. I'm all for it - but I think many "get rid of the monarchy" calls ignore just what you may be leaving open...
As for Queenie reining him in. That only seems to be the case for laws which might impact her families money making ability. When it comes to protecting the country as a whole the courts have been doing a better job.
I agree. I understand for example she was in a difficult position to refuse the request to prorogue, but it undermined the institution in my opinion. And yes the courts have done a better job of protecting democracy/constitution than the queen - but those Judges were appointed by the queen (based on recommendations from an independent committee) - take HM out of the picture and who is appointing judges? the PM? you end up with the US where judges are appointed on political lines - that cannot be good.
The indisputable core of the matter for me is that, after Epstein was convicted of sexual offences, he continued to fraternise with him. That is the measure of the creature, and he deserves all the opprobrium he’s getting.
He covered that. He stayed with the convicted child sex trafficker because Prince Andrew was 'too honourable' and because Epstein offered 'a convenient place to stay'.
He also said he did not regret his friendship with Epstein, saying "the people that I met and the opportunities that I was given to learn either by him or because of him were actually very useful" and "had some seriously beneficial outcomes"
But yes, let's not judge him by the prerecorded interview that he willingly gave to the BBC after 6 months of negotiation. Have they offered the accuser(s) the chance to explain her side of the story?
Going from queenie ceremonially rubber stamping judge appointments to having US style political appointments is quite a jump
I hope he does get a fair hearing
Yes absolutely. But the problem is he is doing everything he can to avoid getting that fair hearing in the first place.
Going from queenie ceremonially rubber stamping judge appointments to having US style political appointments is quite a jump
the point being, I'm a republican, I think the monarchy is an outdated idea that should be replaced in any modern democracy. BUT a bit like saying we should leave the EU, or Scotland should leave the UK or any other major political change - you need to go beyond just the headline and explain the substance otherwise we can't decide if it's out the frying pan and into the fire. Make no mistake, the current government would not think twice about putting in place a structure for appointing the judiciary that let them influence sentences and avoid awkward judicial reviews etc. They'd even dress it up as "giving the people what they want". I asked the question because I've not seen any pro-republic politician actually spell out what they envisage and I wondered if I'm the only one who wonders what it looks like. If there was one common vision for a new world it would be far easier to get the vaguely monarchists to consider it...
Have they offered the accuser(s) the chance to explain her side of the story?
The alleged victim is trying to tell their story in court, it is the prince of slime that decided to go to the court of public opinion and try to avoid the legal courtroom.
Yes absolutely. But the problem is he is doing everything he can to avoid getting that fair hearing in the first place.
and doing that is part of his right to a "fair process". Whether it helps or hinders his case long term is more his worry than ours.
My money would be that the Judge today says the papers are served anyway... I don't see how he can send a lawyer to say the papers were not served, without the papers then being served on the lawyer on his behalf! Of course his strategy might be to just pretend its not happening and let judgement happen by default, and either pay out so it relatively quickly blows over or make them go through the process of trying to extract it internationally! He can potentially do all that without ever admitting fault, and saying "I never even received the formal papers, so had nothing to deny." Afterall 80% of the British public have already decided his guilt, or think its OK cause he's a prince.
The alleged victim is trying to tell their story in court, it is the prince of slime that decided to go to the court of public opinion and try to avoid the legal courtroom.
This is the thing - he clearly thought the interview was going to help get the public on side and make it all go away. He/his supporters can hardly complain because it backfired so spectacularly.
She happily cast out her grandson for simply wanting a semi-private life with his family.
Yes, but he committed a far higher crime (in the screwed up eyes of Brexit Britin) by marrying 'one of them'.
I'd like to see the monarchy removed for two main reasons:
1. It is massively unfair that a person can be born into such unearned privilege. Even more so if that privilege gets you a more advantageous brand of 'the law'.
2. It removes a childish and pointless rallying point for the Plastic Patriots who just wave a Union Jack every time it looks like an inconvenient rendezvous with the reality of the UK's position in the world looks likely. The type of person who instinctively rejects any form of constructive compromise with other nations as 'unpatriotic'. I'd like to see many of their cherished 'certainties' smashed on the floor in front of them until they are forced to concede that their sepia-tinted fantasy land of plucky chaps in cotton vests being Olympic champions, spitfires overhead and a quarter of the globe imperial pink is just what it is. A fantasy.
Then we might be able to reconstruct our international reputation to some extent.
This is the thing – he clearly thought the interview was going to help get the public on side and make it all go away. He/his supporters can hardly complain because it backfired so spectacularly.
The arrogant, out of touch, over-fed and under-mannered man probably thought he could 'Do a Diana'.
It is precisely correct that he tried to conduct his defence in the court of public opinion, appealing (via the good old Beeb) to as narrow a segment of popular opinion as possible. His monumental arrogance also probably led him to believe it would be a whitewash job.
Out of touch, anachronistic and past his sell by date. As good a frontman for the monarchy as anyone realistic could wish for.
I know a few are questioning the picture, but i remember this picture being used several times in Private Eye as an inside joke on Prince Andrew, same with Andrew Neill and the picture of him with a young asian lady.
I doubt it's fake if it's been doing the rounds in the press for the last decade or two, only now that it's being used as evidence is it being argued about!
I hope he does get a fair hearing because I think every person deserves to be treated equally and fairly by the law.
This is about the one thing here I agree with completely and wholeheartedly.
Me too 😉 Not sure (as I think was the intent of your comment) those trying to swerve justice agree...
Many people who end up in the justice system are to put it bluntly, not that bright, and a Jury can hear that and draw damaging conclusions (sometimes it might be helpful to the defendant, but often it won’t be). I dare say in some trials sounding like a smarmy etonian trying to be smart with words would be just as damaging.
Does that include those tooled-up with the best legal defence money can buy? Sure I get you're on your own on the witness stand but I suspect your comment is better applied to those who simply don't have access to coaching to present the best defence, which wouldn't be the case here.
I'm sure he would have suggested it was fake if that was the case, instead of hiding behind the classic 'I do not recollect meeting' non-denial.
No wanting to derail the thread but what do you propose replacing them with?
They've already been replaced. The process started with Magna Carta. Moving from a prehistoric way of running things to....well at least you don't have to actually be born at Eton to go there.
I suppose I could be persuaded about a few statues and an exhibit at Madame Tussauds at a stretch.
I’m sure he would have suggested it was fake if that was the case, instead of hiding behind the classic ‘I do not recollect meeting’ non-denial.
"I categorically deny ever having met her" is a million miles from "I don't recall ever having met her".
Especially in the 'law as tool of the cynic' section of society.
I don't recall ever riding my bike on a public footpath either, then.
I’m sure he would have suggested it was fake if that was the case, instead of hiding behind the classic ‘I do not recollect meeting’ non-denial.
He has suggested it can't be proven whether it's fake or not, but pointed out that he doesn't think it can be genuine because those are his 'travel clothes' and he would never go out without a suit and tie in London. I'm convinced.
Does that include those tooled-up with the best legal defence money can buy? Sure I get you’re on your own on the witness stand but I suspect your comment is better applied to those who simply don’t have access to coaching to present the best defence, which wouldn’t be the case here.
1. you'd have to recognise you have an issue / fault first (he obviously didn't before the Maitliss interview).
2. I'm not sure he can be coached not to just talk nonsense (that doesn't mean he's guilty - just because he lies / exaggerates about what/why etc doesn't mean he's a rapist - but it undermines his evidence)
3. you can have the best legal defence, but you get no control of what the otherside might ask or spring on him - and we can be pretty sure they will be faster thinking than he is; so if he has a habit of bullshitting under pressure he will, and they'll show it.
I’m with you there – but that was my point, you can’t just rub out the monarchy and expect a better Britain. You actually need MAJOR constitutional reform. I’m all for it – but I think many “get rid of the monarchy” calls ignore just what you may be leaving open
Just keep the monarchy but on a scale of 1% of what it currently is. Do they need all the land, all the buildings, all the money etc,.? Just have a King/Queen by name with everything else much reduced. Then plan for complete removal by covering all the stuff that actually needs to be done via other processes.
you can have the best legal defence, but you get no control of what the otherside might ask or spring on him
So you think in the 6 months of negotiating with the BBC that reportedly happened before the interview, the nature of the questions that would be asked never came up?
So queenie gets to send a hand delivered letter to a tennis player in New York without any problems, but when a letter for her lad comes from New York it all seems so difficult.
It doesn’t just protect the guilty – it protects people who aren’t particularly good at explaining themselves* but weren’t guilty;
A very key point. I may have mentioned the writings of the Secret Barrister before.
They’ve already been replaced. The process started with Magna Carta.
King John rescinded most of the Magna Carta within months, the process was restarted several times.
The idea that Prince Andrew needs to be even more protected from a potential miscarriage of justice than he already is, is bizarre to say the least.
And yes there’s a right to silence in the US, something very useful to guilty people who don’t want to incriminate themselves.
I watched a vid a bit back on this subject. The comment and this case brought that to mind so i've went and found it.
The idea that Prince Andrew needs to be even more protected from a potential miscarriage of justice than he already is, is bizarre to say the least.
I know! Good job nobody's actually suggested this should happen.
They are. They're suggesting that some people on a mountain bike forum thinking he appears guilty are somehow going to kill his chances of a fair trial. Despite the fact that he went on TV through his own choice to tell his far-fetched tales and be grumpy and self righteous.
Interesting video dyna-ti but that guy has cherry picked examples. Are you really telling me there's never been a case where someone talking to police has helped identify/convict other people? He's chosen not to help identify child sex traffickers and make them face justice with the hope of saving his own skin.
Also, why has he repeatedly claimed he will co operate with police if he's not going to?
Are you really telling me there’s never been a case where someone talking to police has helped identify/convict other people?
I've no idea and im not telling you anything.
But there are a great number of cases of miscarriage of justice both here and in the US. Plus we know the police are prone to withholding evidence from the defence.
So its a case of you decide, should such a scenario suddenly arise where youre involved.
King John rescinded most of the Magna Carta within months, the process was restarted several times.
Yes, I'm aware of that, thanks. I just picked the first well-known example of the monarchy being brought to heel that I could think of. I couldn't remember if the other deal with the barons thing was before or after or, indeed, if it had a catchy title like 'Magna Carta'.
Do you reckon King John ran around furtively trying not to be found when he rescinded most of Magna Carta?
He should just pull a Michael Jackson special. Settle out of court, which will make everyone believe he’s guilty, then die and all will be forgiven!
Settle out of court, which will make everyone believe he’s guilty, then die and all will be forgiven!
Well, two out of three ain't bad.
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.
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.
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:
https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/1437681188655837184
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?
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.
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?
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.