jvm32 Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 2 hours ago, doctor jambo said: Not to throw a spanner in here, but proving he knew she was trafficked is difficult. If he didn’t , then he had sex with a woman over the age of consent, with her consent . cannot stand the royals , but beyond it being a bit sleezy, are we not jumping the gun ? Of course if it happened in the US, then she was under age, but as far as I’m aware it was only in London The allegations relate to 3 separate incidents, London, New York and the US Virgin Islands. No idea of the legalities of it in those regions, but it isn't just London. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 54 minutes ago, jvm32 said: The allegations relate to 3 separate incidents, London, New York and the US Virgin Islands. No idea of the legalities of it in those regions, but it isn't just London. Just googled it and in New York it's 17 & the US Virgin Islands it's 16, don't know what the age of consent was when the alleged incidences happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 On 11/08/2021 at 07:14, superjack said: That's a bit far, she gave birth to them and then let her staff bring them up. Yes, I blame the staff, they were probably far too lenient. I bet Andrew never had a skelp on the backside from his nanny, and he's probably bitterly disappointed about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobNox Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 11 hours ago, doctor jambo said: Not to throw a spanner in here, but proving he knew she was trafficked is difficult. If he didn’t , then he had sex with a woman over the age of consent, with her consent . cannot stand the royals , but beyond it being a bit sleezy, are we not jumping the gun ? Of course if it happened in the US, then she was under age, but as far as I’m aware it was only in London They first have to prove he had sex with her. He claims to have no recollection of ever having met her. Even if there was irrefutable evidence that he did have sex with her (say someone had been secretly filming proceedings) then they would still have to prove it was non-consensual. I'm not sure what the burden of proof is in a civil case in the USA. Is it 'balance of probabilities' as it is in the UK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 12 hours ago, doctor jambo said: Not to throw a spanner in here, but proving he knew she was trafficked is difficult. If he didn’t , then he had sex with a woman over the age of consent, with her consent . cannot stand the royals , but beyond it being a bit sleezy, are we not jumping the gun ? Of course if it happened in the US, then she was under age, but as far as I’m aware it was only in London Is it not more of a problem in US that she was 17, rather than 18 - I believe the sex was in UK but there was allegedly oral in NYC...? Proof beyond balance of probabilities might not be so hard when you look at 2 40-somethings hanging out with a 17 year old "masseuse" who also gives their 40-something pal "extras"...You'd have to be pretty naive not to wonder about that one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyCant Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 (edited) Prince Andrew should have, and quite possibly still will, stick Ghislaine Maxwell firmly in the frame for this. All he needs to say is that Maxwell introduced her and said she was old enough. He can also say that Epstein confirmed it (which can’t be denied or disproven) The boy’s an utter idiot for THAT TV interview, as is his lawyer for allowing it, but I doubt very much it’s admissible in US law. He’s not the sharpest tool in the Royal box. This will never see the inside of a courtroom. It will be settled with a huge payment, unless of course Ghislaine decides to bring the house down for a plea deal. She knows a lot of stuff that a lot of famous people won’t want getting out. It’s a popcorn case and I hope we get her trial live. Edited August 13, 2021 by JimmyCant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 2 hours ago, RobNox said: Yes, I blame the staff, they were probably far too lenient. I bet Andrew never had a skelp on the backside from his nanny, and he's probably bitterly disappointed about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 He's innocent. Well, at least until proven guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister T Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 52 minutes ago, JimmyCant said: Prince Andrew should have, and quite possibly still will, stick Ghislaine Maxwell firmly in the frame for this. All he needs to say is that Maxwell introduced her and said she was old enough. He can also say that Epstein confirmed it (which can’t be denied or disproven) The boy’s an utter idiot for THAT TV interview, as is his lawyer for allowing it, but I doubt very much it’s admissible in US law. He’s not the sharpest tool in the Royal box. This will never see the inside of a courtroom. It will be settled with a huge payment, unless of course Ghislaine decides to bring the house down for a plea deal. She knows a lot of stuff that a lot of famous people won’t want getting out. It’s a popcorn case and I hope we get her trial live. I don't think he's smart enough to think like that. There was a Sunday Times journo on the TV this morning who had interviewed Andrew some years ago, anyway I can't remember the exact phrase he used but it was along the lines of Andrew has an exaggerated opinion of his own intelligence. In other words he's as thick as shit, but thinks he's a genius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks said no Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 Thought I would look across the pond to see how its being viewed there. The Prince Andrew strategy would appear to be drag it out as long as possible. Article in USA Today https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2021/08/11/prince-andrews-legal-options-epstein-accuser-virginia-giuffre-lawsuit/5557425001/ Found this paragraph particularly galling, especially the part I have highlighted. It is 2021 isn't it? That's not going to happen because Andrew can't be forced to participate in an American proceeding. He can't be extradited because it's a civil lawsuit, not criminal charges. As a "prince of full blood," he could claim sovereign immunity, which could take years to resolve if challenged, Stephens says Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Boy Named Crow Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 I'm rewatching the Newsnight interview. It's even worse than I remembered! You know your country has problems when this is the family you choose to have ruling over you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 2 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: I don't think he's smart enough to think like that. There was a Sunday Times journo on the TV this morning who had interviewed Andrew some years ago, anyway I can't remember the exact phrase he used but it was along the lines of Andrew has an exaggerated opinion of his own intelligence. In other words he's as thick as shit, but thinks he's a genius. That butler that did a book said the royal family all had nicknames among the palace staff - Andrew's was The ****. So not only is he thick as utter ****, he's a **** too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 18 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: I don't think he's smart enough to think like that. There was a Sunday Times journo on the TV this morning who had interviewed Andrew some years ago, anyway I can't remember the exact phrase he used but it was along the lines of Andrew has an exaggerated opinion of his own intelligence. In other words he's as thick as shit, but thinks he's a genius. You could probably say the same about all of Queen Victoria's descendants. A quick assessment of the royal family in the last 100+ years suggests that they are all a bunch of over-privileged dullards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said: You could probably say the same about all of Queen Victoria's descendants. A quick assessment of the royal family in the last 100+ years suggests that they are all a bunch of over-privileged dullards. I think you could go further back than her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 17 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said: I'm rewatching the Newsnight interview. It's even worse than I remembered! You know your country has problems when this is the family you choose to have ruling over you! Choose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 18 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said: Thought I would look across the pond to see how its being viewed there. The Prince Andrew strategy would appear to be drag it out as long as possible. Article in USA Today https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2021/08/11/prince-andrews-legal-options-epstein-accuser-virginia-giuffre-lawsuit/5557425001/ Found this paragraph particularly galling, especially the part I have highlighted. It is 2021 isn't it? That's not going to happen because Andrew can't be forced to participate in an American proceeding. He can't be extradited because it's a civil lawsuit, not criminal charges. As a "prince of full blood," he could claim sovereign immunity, which could take years to resolve if challenged, Stephens says Is this so very different from the UK being unable to try the US diplomats wife who killed someone while driving on the wrong side of the road (allegedly). No time for any of the royals but America would have a cheek to get on a high horse about this given its own approach to extraditing its nationals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 Wonder if this is right enough… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indianajones Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 57 minutes ago, jack D and coke said: Wonder if this is right enough… Fingers crossed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 2 hours ago, maroonlegions said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister T Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 2 hours ago, maroonlegions said: That doesn't look like it's been photoshopped😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 He'll just hide in his grace and favour mansion. Somehow doubt we'll see him extradited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Boy Named Crow Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 4 hours ago, Francis Albert said: Choose? Yes, the royal family got where they are by force, but they stay there by consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greedy Jambo Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 He'll still get away with it. Can you imagine him in prison? nae chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor FinnBarr Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 58 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said: Yes, the royal family got where they are by force, but they stay there by consent. I didn't vote for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 5 hours ago, jack D and coke said: Wonder if this is right enough… And if Priti Patel ignores, it gets ignored. Then Michael Give ignores, then the next HS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Boy Named Crow Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 1 hour ago, FinnBarr Saunders said: I didn't vote for them. Nope, nor did I, but if the majority of people wanted rid of them, they'd be gone. Too many people are just happy to go along with it. I've heard before that if there was a popular vote to remove them, they'd be able to stay in place with the support of the military. If that's true though, that we have armed forces that would stand against the people to protect an unelected monarch who is in place by accident of birth, we should disband the military and rebuilld it with an ethos not based on total ****wittery... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor FinnBarr Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 21 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said: Nope, nor did I, but if the majority of people wanted rid of them, they'd be gone. Too many people are just happy to go along with it. I've heard before that if there was a popular vote to remove them, they'd be able to stay in place with the support of the military. If that's true though, that we have armed forces that would stand against the people to protect an unelected monarch who is in place by accident of birth, we should disband the military and rebuilld it with an ethos not based on total ****wittery... Agreed mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasquale for King Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasquale for King Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 (edited) On 11/08/2021 at 08:10, DETTY29 said: While the Queen is alive, favourite son will be protected at all costs. Charles who isn't popular, certainly compared to Elizabeth, or William however, may have a decision to make once ER2 departs to protect or transform the monarchy. Unless they can find a way for The Mail or The Express to run a daily campaign for months put the blame on Meghan. 😉 Favourite son you say? Maybe his real dad is a nonce also, allegedly. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a29752077/who-is-porchey-queen-elizabeth-ii-friend/ Edited August 15, 2021 by Pasquale for King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Vince Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 9 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said: Nope, nor did I, but if the majority of people wanted rid of them, they'd be gone. Too many people are just happy to go along with it. I've heard before that if there was a popular vote to remove them, they'd be able to stay in place with the support of the military. If that's true though, that we have armed forces that would stand against the people to protect an unelected monarch who is in place by accident of birth, we should disband the military and rebuilld it with an ethos not based on total ****wittery... I think the only way you'll remove these heinous vermin is by force. The French and the Russians had the right idea about so-called Royals. The servient British are a different breed altogether, it'll never happen here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Boy Named Crow Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Savage Vince said: I think the only way you'll remove these heinous vermin is by force. The French and the Russians had the right idea about so-called Royals. The servient British are a different breed altogether, it'll never happen here. That's what I meant in my earlier post, there's something fundamentally broken about somebody who'd feel good about this arrangement. It's mental. Edited August 15, 2021 by A Boy Named Crow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Vince Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 2 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said: That's what I meant in my earlier post, there's something fundamentally broken about somebody who'd feel good about this arrangement. It's mental. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auldbenches Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 They said in one of the paper reviews this morning that he might go for diplomatic immunity. Immunity from what if he hasn't done anything wrong? Just get his arese to the states and answer some questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor FinnBarr Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 6 hours ago, Auldbenches said: They said in one of the paper reviews this morning that he might go for diplomatic immunity. Immunity from what if he hasn't done anything wrong? Just get his arese to the states and answer some questions. Is he a diplomat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auldbenches Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 Just now, FinnBarr Saunders said: Is he a diplomat? I don't think he is but maybe his ma will do something. A bit if a coincidence that the story about the American hit and run woman came back into the headlines last week just as the headlines about the legal case against him started being discussed? Why ask for immunity if haven't done anything wrong? The queen also has this on her hands by not making him go to the states and help the FBI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Vince Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 3 minutes ago, Auldbenches said: The queen also has this on her hands by not making him go to the states and help the FBI. Big time. A very bad year for old Lizzie would get much much worse if they go down the diplomatic immunity road. This mob are nowhere near as loved as the media would have us believe. The bizarre respect she has is will hopefully disappear if that happens on her watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auldbenches Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 Just now, Savage Vince said: Big time. A very bad year for old Lizzie would get much much worse if they go down the diplomatic immunity road. This mob are nowhere near as loved as the media would have us believe. The bizarre respect she has is will hopefully disappear if that happens on her watch. This will have a huge impact on her, and the rest of them, if he manages to wriggle out of this. Any respect anyone had for her should've went when it came to light she had 10 million in an offshore account. How much does she need and what the **** does she and the others spend it on? Charles is a greddy bassa as well. It's nothing but a money making machine for a few social retards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Vince Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 7 minutes ago, Auldbenches said: This will have a huge impact on her, and the rest of them, if he manages to wriggle out of this. Any respect anyone had for her should've went when it came to light she had 10 million in an offshore account. How much does she need and what the **** does she and the others spend it on? Charles is a greddy bassa as well. It's nothing but a money making machine for a few social retards. She's got plenty more than that. All the land they acquire under the pretence of charity as well. Parasites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auldbenches Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 1 minute ago, Savage Vince said: She's got plenty more than that. All the land they acquire under the pretence of charity as well. Parasites. It's the raw cash they go through. Fergie ended up in 20 million debt and had to work on American tv to help pay it off. That means she must've blown the money she had and an extra 20 million. On ****ing what? Sadly their are millions still brain washed with this shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 40 minutes ago, Auldbenches said: I don't think he is but maybe his ma will do something. A bit if a coincidence that the story about the American hit and run woman came back into the headlines last week just as the headlines about the legal case against him started being discussed? Why ask for immunity if haven't done anything wrong? The queen also has this on her hands by not making him go to the states and help the FBI. No need to go to the states, can be questioned via video link, besides I'm sure there is an FBI office in London, so there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever not to help the FBI in their enquiries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auldbenches Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 24 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: No need to go to the states, can be questioned via video link, besides I'm sure there is an FBI office in London, so there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever not to help the FBI in their enquiries. The only excuse/reason that he won't help is guilt. I hope Maxwell squeals and brings the lot of them down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 1 hour ago, Auldbenches said: The only excuse/reason that he won't help is guilt. I hope Maxwell squeals and brings the lot of them down. Correct. One would think that a leading member of the Royal Family would be anxious to assist authorities in dealing with a case where under-age girls have allegedly been sexually abused. Especially when said member of the Royal Family has had accusations directed against him. But he isn't anxious to help and there seems to be only one reason for that ... he has something to hide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auldbenches Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 9 hours ago, Maple Leaf said: Correct. One would think that a leading member of the Royal Family would be anxious to assist authorities in dealing with a case where under-age girls have allegedly been sexually abused. Especially when said member of the Royal Family has had accusations directed against him. But he isn't anxious to help and there seems to be only one reason for that ... he has something to hide. There is no need for any delay unless he is hiding something. Going by his interview, he has nothing to worry about so why not just help victims get justice. In this situation, I think the queen should be getting openly criticised in the media for this. Head if a church and doesn't want to get her son to help victims of sexual abuse? This should bring them all down if he gets away with this. It's a ****ing scandal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indianajones Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 10 hours ago, Maple Leaf said: Correct. One would think that a leading member of the Royal Family would be anxious to assist authorities in dealing with a case where under-age girls have allegedly been sexually abused. Especially when said member of the Royal Family has had accusations directed against him. But he isn't anxious to help and there seems to be only one reason for that ... he has something to hide. 50 minutes ago, Auldbenches said: There is no need for any delay unless he is hiding something. Going by his interview, he has nothing to worry about so why not just help victims get justice. In this situation, I think the queen should be getting openly criticised in the media for this. Head if a church and doesn't want to get her son to help victims of sexual abuse? This should bring them all down if he gets away with this. It's a ****ing scandal. The truth but MSM will sweep it under the carpet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auldbenches Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 1 hour ago, indianajones said: The truth but MSM will sweep it under the carpet. They are already playing their part. Last week as the the news was breaking about the civil law suit against andrew, they start printing stories about getting that hit and run women back here. Coincidence? Not a chance. Even heard it get a mention on tv that we shouldn't send him there until she comes here Very handy for Andy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auldbenches Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 It's been said that he will have to retire from any royal duties because of this. Why if he hasn't done anything wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon Sailor Posted August 17, 2021 Author Share Posted August 17, 2021 6 hours ago, Auldbenches said: It's been said that he will have to retire from any royal duties because of this. Why if he hasn't done anything wrong? Retired because of his past association / friendship with a sex offender. We'll probably never know for sure if Randy did anything wrong after all he doesn't drink, doesn't party and doesn't sweat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.