You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Here’s a question for you, do you think OJ Simpson was guilty?
Not so fun fact... that dodgy so and so Alan Dershowitz, who was himself implicated along with Epstein and negotiated the plea deal that meant Epstein could still live the high life after his initial conviction (after which Prince Andrew continued to visit), was also on OJ Simpson's defence team.
Dershowitz also arranged for private investigators to dig dirt on many of Epstein's victims so they could be intimidated and discredited...
Of course, there's much talk about due process and the rule of law, but many seem to be forgetting that much like diplomatic immunity (not forgetting that most of MI6s work will be dealt with via embassies around the world) intelligence services (who have oh so many questions to answer in all of this) are above the law; so much so in fact, that whilst everyone was losing their shit about covid, new laws were introduced to further protect their right to break the law...
Undercover informants working for the police and MI5 are going to be explicitly permitted for the first time under British law to commit crimes.
The unprecedented legislation to authorise and oversee crimes comes after years of unclear rules over when these agents can break the law.
The law will not specify exactly which crimes can be committed.
Which agencies will be able to authorise secret crimes?
MI5 and other intelligence bodies
Police forces and the National Crime agency
Immigration and Border Officers
HM Revenue and Customs, Serious Fraud Office
UK military forces
Ministry of Justice (investigations in prisons)
Competition and Markets Authority, Environment Agency, Financial Conduct Authority, Food Standards Agency, Gambling Commission and Medicines and Healthcare Regulation Authority
It would be foolish to assume that Prince Andrew (or Ghislaine Maxwell, or Jeffrey Epstein) has had no dealings with the intelligence services throughout his life
where someone MIGHT find themselves accused of criminal activity where they’ve perhaps been stupid rather than criminal.
Stupidity isn’t a defence and doesn’t negate criminality. If it was the vast majority of criminals wouldn’t be convicted.
None of us know if Andrew is innocent or guilty. What I do know is that refusing to give evidence after saying you would help in any investigation and then conducting a televised interview that makes you look like you’re guilty of all the crime isn’t a great start.
Unlike those nasty foreign children who keep getting in the way of drone strikes (whose only redeeming features are dispensing with all the faff of serving legal papers and freeing up valuable court space), our humble prince is clearly innocent:
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1440593152927145984
He has finally had to accept the court papers are served. Now what is his next slimebag move to try to get away from the courts examination of him?
My guess is he will claim immunity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58682356
I think the argument will be as she took a settlement previously the case is not legal. We are a long way from any immunity claim.
I thought that had already been ruled on in the US courts - the deal was so badly written as to not be binding in this case or something
I think his lawyers will argue this in New York. Obviously he could choose to settle with no admission. Or he could go to a full jury hearing but I suspect this case will not get that far.
Here’s a question for you, do you think OJ Simpson was guilty?
Also remember that OJ was found not guilty of the criminal case, but guilty in the civil case!
Sounds like the Met are a bit busy just now to deal with the fall out of this one!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58866108
Or they've checked and still not got enough evidence to reach the threshold for a criminal prosecution, see the OJ comment above.
Sounds like the Met are a bit busy just now to deal with the fall out of this one!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58866108/blockquote >
As most of it didn't occur in the UK they have a point.
No matter how scum baggy it might seem, but a 40 something Prince Andrew having sex with a 17 year old in the UK isn't illegal or considered rape. Hence it is an issue for the US courts - and it is a civil case.Andrew has big issues - reading the ST yesterday , it would appear that nobody in the royal circle likes him, most of the people who work with him feels he is arrogant and unpleasant. Whatever the outcome, he won't be playing first team Firm football ever again
No matter how scum baggy it might seem, but a 40 something Prince Andrew having sex with a 17 year old in the UK isn’t illegal
It is if she was trafficked or did not consent
Yeah, i doubt there is any evidence of any wrongdoing, or anything inappropriate, it's just funny that no matter what happens, the Met are always front page just now and getting negative stuff, this side of the atlantic it's more an Epstein/Maxwell issue
It is if she was trafficked or did not consent
I guess they have looked into that and consider it is difficult to prove? I have no idea of what details the prosecution cases have - but if there is too little evidence and it is going to fail, the what is the point in proceeding.
I am assuming a lot will hang on Ms Maxwell's conviction or not - she has been left in the "Only Pimp left alive" position
It's funny to see all the comments about PA. Whilst I totally agree with all the dislike disgust that he undoubtedly earns it's interesting to compare it with my personal experience with him.
A few years ago I caddied at a golf charity event (his in fact) in a four-ball with PA.
Tbh, I was expecting it all to be very hard work and a bit unpleasant. The reality was that he was fine. Pleasant and jokey (and sweary) with everyone including us caddies. Mucked it with looking for lost balls, cursing his own bad play. Shook hands with all the caddies, joked with us and just talked normally. I guess from start to finish I must have spent about 4.5 hours with him.It was actually quite a pleasant day out.
So don't take this as a vote for the man but just to give a personal insight.
perhaps that could be his epitaph "Quite Nice for a Nonce."
There is plenty of evidence of Andrew behaving badly and that Guiffres story is true.
I do however doubt that there is anything like enough for a criminal conviction in the UK. firstly Guiffre was over the UK age of consent and also its a he said / she said situation. add to that most of the crimes happened outside of the UK
I have no doubt at all Andrew is guilty. I have huge doubts that there is anything like enough evidence for a UK criminal conviction. Us criminal conviction is a different matter as us the US civil case
Pleasant and jokey (and sweary) with everyone including us caddies.
Just one of the lads?
anyone a regular listener to richard herring's rhlstp podcast?
Richard has been insinuating the Prince is a sleaze for years - once or twice he's gone off on rants about him that have been bleeped out!! for comedic affect im sure, but does anyone know what Rich's opinion is founded on?
Just one of the lads?
I wouldn't go as far as that and no one was taking the p*ss out of him, other than himself.
None of the other "lads" had their security man discreetly walking around with them either.
Oh and btw, none of the other players were what you might call "lads" ...all a bit posh (but very pleasant).
No matter how scum baggy it might seem, but a 40 something Prince Andrew having sex with a 17 year old in the UK isn’t illegal or considered rape.
I see this idea banded about on pro royal newspaper comment sections and call it out as false as the case is she is American and in the US the legal age is 18.
The legal age of consent in Japan is 13, so how does that argument stand if you took a 13yre old English girl to Japan to have sex with ?,do you think the UK courts would accept that as a defence.
I see this idea banded about on pro royal newspaper comment sections and call it out as false as the case is she is American and in the US the legal age is 18.
The legal age of consent in Japan is 13, so how does that argument stand if you took a 13yre old English girl to Japan to have sex with ?,do you think the courts would accept that as a defence.
Depends on the law of the land where to offence took place. I know age of consent in NL is about 12 - but there cannot be a big age gap between the two people involved.
Andrew may well be guilty of whatever he is being accused of in the States , under their laws, but will not be guilty of the same here in the UK.
And then it become about proving consent and trafficking - so we are on to a he said/ she said discussion. Hence why they will not be proceeding.
And remember it is being pursued as a civil, not a criminal, case
Depends on the law of the land where to offence took place.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Have a read. Changed that for UK citizens' acting abroad (for these kind of offences and others). Doesn't apply the other way around though (so it depends on USA/state law).
Personally I think jimmy748 has it, but then I am a raging cynic!
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Which the alleged offences predate. And in any case it only applies if it is an offence in England and Wales or NI.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/72/enacted
The question was a hypothetical one about jurisdiction, not about the particulars of this case.
she is American and in the US the legal age is 18.
The legal age is state-specific. That's where the 'trafficking' allegation comes in, moving someone across the border from a state where she's underage to one where she isn't is also illegal. As I understand it, anyway.
@erictwinge that’s the thing. Private Eye have been making very similar suggestions for years. Same with Saville. “Everyone” knew he was a wrong-un, it’s just that those who had the proof chose not to use it. IE there’s a strong smell of excrement but that’s not solid evidence.
@erictwinge that’s the thing. Private Eye have been making very similar suggestions for years. Same with Saville. “Everyone” knew he was a wrong-un, it’s just that those who had the proof chose not to use it. IE there’s a strong smell of excrement but that’s not solid evidence.
My OH is from Aylesbury (Stoke Manderville hospital) and when the truth came out about Saville she said it was well known in the town/hospital. I was quite surprised, although I guess shouldn't have been with what the 'great & good' have proven to get away with, and still do.
Saville was well known to be a peado. the extent of his crimes were not known but the fact he was a sexual predator of children was
John Lydon putting Mr Savile in 1978..
Apologise for the Piers Morgan bit ...
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/sep/24/john-lydon-says-he-was-banned-from-bbc-over-jimmy-savile-comments
All that said the Savile issue and how he was protected by the BBC, is a different issue to Prince Andrew and his appalling choice in friends
Just one of the lads?
I suspect the poster of this comment was hinting at behaviour arising from spending time amongst like-minded people 'the lads', and nothing relating to the specific social class associated with the term. In this case I'm guessing white, wealthy, influential (I dunno I wasn't there but it was charity golf), one characteristic maybe being boorish behaviour towards women as a result of inhabiting a world where you typically get what you want. That's just my interpretation, poster can speak for themselves.
<Patiently awaits the testimony of Ms Maxwell>
My OH is from Aylesbury (Stoke Manderville hospital) and when the truth came out about Saville she said it was well known in the town/hospital. I was quite surprised, although I guess shouldn’t have been with what the ‘great & good’ have proven to get away with, and still do.
My cousin was a nurse at Stoke Mandeville, and my aunt volunteered there. After the Saville story broke they were very much "it was always known" but still no one actually did enough.
The legal age of consent in Japan is 13, so how does that argument stand if you took a 13yre old English girl to Japan to have sex with ?,do you think the UK courts would accept that as a defence.
Surely in that scenario Andrew would be Japanese (and therefore not an issue for British law)?
And asside from that I would assume it would hinge on whether the prosecution could prove that the minor involved was trafficked and not just on holiday.
Otherwise you've got to draw a very dodgy looking line between sex trafficking and teenage holiday romances equating to sex trafficking convictions for the parents.
IANAL/Nonce/Royal. Just curious if or where a line is drawn between the two legally.
I understood that the civil case alleged that Andrew knew that she was 17, knew that she was trafficked and that sex with her was non-consensual, that he used power, position and connections to knowingly abuse a child.(the UN says that everyone under 18 is a child) The well known photo of her with Andrew's arm around her waist was taken in London, and she has alleged that after it was taken they had sex. While the age of consent in the UK is 16, the other parts of her accusation make that a bit moot.
Saville was well known to be a peado. the extent of his crimes were not known but the fact he was a sexual predator of children was
Well known by whom? In the circles he moved, I don't doubt that it was an open secret.
But the general public have always loved a bit of gossip and scandal, they'll cheerfully throw muck at anyone who's a bit odd and when it suddenly sticks they'll go "see, we knew all along!" No, you didn't, you were guessing and got lucky. I certainly didn't see Savile coming (hush), the Louis Theroux interview was an eye-opener.
the Louis Theroux interview was an eye-opener.
There was a ITV documentary last week that had several folks from regional BBC offices and TOTP staff who were clearly in the know about his activities, and people from various Hospitals. All of whom now clearly regret not speaking up. With hindsight his activities, the way he led his life, and made no secret to others about what he did, (he apparently boasted to a BBC colleague that he's had 3 fourteen year old in his camper that morning, with a knowing wink at the meaning of "had") must have reinforced the idea to everyone around him that he was untouchable
Saville was well known to be a peado. the extent of his crimes were not known but the fact he was a sexual predator of children was
It's a shame that none of the people who "knew" stepped up and started the process to out him. Same of Cyril Smith and many others.
he apparently boasted to a BBC colleague that he’s had 3 fourteen year old in his camper that morning, with a knowing wink at the meaning of “had”)
He sounds like the sainted John Peel...
Banging on a cars window will seemingly get you arrested quicker than if you’re a suspected paedo,
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/prince-andrew-woman-arrested-car-b1978698.html
He will do anythig to avoid this going to court
this seems a pretty weak attack line to me
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/29/prince-andrew-lawyer-seeks-to-halt-us-case-as-accuser-lives-in-australia
Yeah I read that and thought it sounds like something a wealthy person would do to get away with something illegal.
Now it's all over the net that Prince Willy has been giving the ferret a run. A Lady Chumley, or something like that.
Wonder if his inability to sweat has miraculously just cured itself?
Now it’s all over the net that Prince Willy has been giving the ferret a run. A Lady Chumley, or something like that.
You can normally tell when Willy has been 'active', as lots of briefing against nasty Meghan pops up, and photo ops with the saintly Kate.
The maxwell verdict will now add to andrew's concerns.
He's deep in shit; he knows it and is now more exposed than ever.
Off topic but the William affair was first reported a year or so ago.
Now it’s all over the net that Prince Willy has been giving the ferret a run. A Lady Chumley, or something like that.
Not condoning playing around when you're married, but the women in question does look to be to be well over 18 and it's not exactly the same thing as what Randy Andy has been accused of.
@mogrim - nothing illegal per se about having consensual sex with someone over 16 in UK. Still, being over 40 and banging a 17-year-old has sleaze all over it, but the main issue (from a legal position) was the alleged sex trafficking/coercion.
Far be it from me to cast moral aspersions or cistercians, I just love to see these people discredit themselves and the institution.
Royals and Aristo's have been forking around, stealing from those less fortunate and pissing on tramps since the middle ages. The real problem is for most of that time there as also been the higher than average threat of poison, torture and hideous methods of execution due to either being in line to the throne or being mates with someone in that arena....these days not so much. All the fun and privilege but no chance of being run through in a duel or chucked in the tower kind of reduces it to a tawdry side show - Windsor Shore or I'm a Royal, pay my lawyer to get me out of here.
@i_scoff_cake none of which is relevant to the actual point he made (he was talking about William).
He's just too honourable for his own good, thinking only of the monarchy
I did make a cracking social faux Pas earlier this year. Guy about the same age as me (early 40s) moved to our village from London. He is a bit of a mess, I had him pegged as classic lifestyle casualty. I had chatted to him a few times when walking my dog, got along ok. One day he asks me if I saw royal visit from Will and Kate the previous afternoon - 'you would have had a great view from your window up there'. I replied 'no, shame I missed it, I would have had clear line of sight with my sniper rifle.' Tumbleweed central. 'Not a royalist then, I'm from a background of privilege. Maybe we shouldn't discuss politics.' Turns out he is the tearaway son of a local aristo.
I did make a cracking social faux Pas earlier this year. Guy about the same age as me (early 40s) moved to our village from London. He is a bit of a mess, I had him pegged as classic lifestyle casualty. I had chatted to him a few times when walking my dog, got along ok. One day he asks me if I saw royal visit from Will and Kate the previous afternoon – ‘you would have had a great view from your window up there’. I replied ‘no, shame I missed it, I would have had clear line of sight with my sniper rifle.’ Tumbleweed central. ‘Not a royalist then, I’m from a background of privilege. Maybe we shouldn’t discuss politics.’ Turns out he is the tearaway son of a local aristo
Wow, you were so brave.
I bet in many years time you will be seen a the new Karl Marx
Wow, you were so brave.
Strange reaction. Just an anecdote about an awkard conversation.
God I hope they nail him to a wall*
*this is a saying, not intended to be taken literally**
**although...
BBC News - Virginia Giuffre: Prince Andrew accuser seeks evidence he could not sweat
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59839351
He’s just too honourable for his own good, thinking only of the monarchy
It's quite humbling, isn't it?
That's got to be a good play from his lawyers, asking for evidence of not being able to sweat.
They know he's unlikely to provide evidence even if (mega unlikely) he has any as its likely a bizarre lie.
It does no harm to their client and only gets him in the news again for all the wrong reasons.
His continuing attempts to get off on a technicality are also going down very poorly in the American media.
The proof of sweating thing is absolutely brilliant trolling by the legal team
They should be slapping their thighs with laughter about his no sweating claim on bbc news but we're too busy cap doffing
^^ I'm really hoping it's another nail in the coffin of this anachronistic institution.
It's well past its sell by date and shouldn't be indulged a minute longer.
The proof of sweating thing is absolutely brilliant trolling by the legal team
I agree
They should be slapping their thighs with laughter about his no sweating claim on bbc news but we’re too busy cap doffing
Who is doffing a cap?
It’s well past its sell by date and shouldn’t be indulged a minute longer.
It has pros and cons, the legacy of land ownership, and wealth and deference need to go. The ability to have someone willing to open something who isn't famous for eating a kangaroo penis is a pro. The constitutional issue needs resolving as does the honours system with its ridiculous faux heirarchy of awards and titlesl
But we can't send "Ponce Andrew" to jail! my god he would wreck havoc in the showers!
The Royal ring would not be amused...
IANAL but I dont see how he doesn't lose this case
At this point if he tries to argue he can't sweat, it's looking as surreal as a Vic & Bob sketch
What is the Royal Families next move?
Exile him ala Edward
Just ignore it
Fight it tooth & nail?
must have reinforced the idea to everyone around him that he was untouchable
Being close personal friends with Margaret Thatcher was probably pretty helpful in that respect too.
He snookered himself with his own bizarre interview. The "can't sweat" thing has become a meme, likewise I've not heard anyone ever claim to have seen Andy in a Pizza Express in Woking on his daughter's birthday. Not even Beatrice herself can recall it apparently.
What is the Royal Families next move?
Probably the offer to the accusers of a substantial settlement in return for dropping charges and keeping quiet.
Exile him ala Edward
Whatever did happen to Ed?
Papers are reporting the palace is considering the following if he losses the case:
Stop him using his royal title.
Remove him from the charities he supports.
Remove him from honorary military rolls.
"Internal exile" as they put it.
But still continue to bung him a fistful of cash every year for living expenses?
The royal cheque book will appear in the next 48 hours to make the case go away.
I think the queen has plenty of questions to answer too. Are we really expected to believe she didn’t know what he was upto? Are we really meant to believe that his close protection team and the secret service don’t know. I thought there was a vetting process and checks made on people who the royals spend time with. I hate to think how much this is costing the taxpayer in legal fees
The royal cheque book will appear in the next 48 hours to make the case go away.
A) they've had loads of time to make this happen already, but haven't
B) given its a civil case for damages, that's kind of what the victim wants as well
they’ve had loads of time to make this happen already, but haven’t
waiting for their loyal subjects cough up, one thing we known about the royals is don't spend your own money if you can squeeze it from the plebs.
I think the queen has plenty of questions to answer too. Are we really expected to believe she didn’t know what he was upto?
Probably not the sort of thing you say to your mother.
How was your trip to Epstein's place darling?
Oh great, he had loads of underage girls there!
I would be surprised if the secret services surrounding that lot weren't on to Maxwell pimping kids and advice would have been shared and, seemingly, ignored. Boies was commenting on how astounded he was was that Maxwell stayed in the US and could have walked but was sufficiently arrogant that these 'know-nothings' ' complaints against a socialite would be dismissed. Hey ho.
"At stake is not just Prince Andrew’s future and Giuffre’s pursuit of justice, but the international reputation of the British royal family".
The non-UK media is reporting on other kinds of royal scandal right now too.
^^ That link not working for me. Takes me to an stw members profile page.lol
Unsealing on Monday has been confirmed for a few weeks.