Prince Andrew

[scawsby steve]

Paid her off. Got away with it.

[rich1471]

Paid her off. Got away with it.

always going to happen ,amazing what you can get away with when you have money,Just like all the people with gagging orders

[idler]

 I'm no supporter of Andrew but what if all she ever really wanted was a pay off?
If I were the innocent party I would want my day in court and make him pay for how he had impacted my life and give others the chance and confidence to speak up.

[i_ateallthepies]

Agreed, idler, none of us know the truth of the allegations and like you I have no cause to judge the accused or the accuser but it is unfortunately too easy to make false allegations against men in the public eye.
He's been unbelievably stupid with some of his 'associations' and his interview last year only serves to show he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer but stupidity alone is not a crime.

[Draytonian III]

I'm no supporter of Andrew but what if all she ever really wanted was a pay off?
If I were the innocent party I would want my day in court and make him pay for how he had impacted my life and give others the chance and confidence to speak up.

I totally agree, all she was interested in was the money

[SydneyRover]

I guess being good friends with paedophiles, saying he didn't sweat and had never met her didn't help.

[tyke1962]

Agreed, idler, none of us know the truth of the allegations and like you I have no cause to judge the accused or the accuser but it is unfortunately too easy to make false allegations against men in the public eye.
He's been unbelievably stupid with some of his 'associations' and his interview last year only serves to show he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer but stupidity alone is not a crime.

And never you'll never know the truth because he's paid her off simply because he's wealthy enough to do so .

[normal rules]

There will be a huge gagging order attached no doubt.
And a f**k off big cheque given he has had to sell his multi million pound ski chalet in Verbier to fund this .

[andy didcott]

I served onboard the same ship as him in the 1980s and had a few foreign visits .We sailed into St Helena one time for their centenary celebrations and spent the night in their only club on the island, he ended up dancing with the local girls, some of them very young looking. Some things you don’t forget and having a few beers with royalty close by was one of those things.
He was a sweaty arrogant prick by the way.

[idler]

Agreed, idler, none of us know the truth of the allegations and like you I have no cause to judge the accused or the accuser but it is unfortunately too easy to make false allegations against men in the public eye.
He's been unbelievably stupid with some of his 'associations' and his interview last year only serves to show he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer but stupidity alone is not a crime.

And never you'll never know the truth because he's paid her off simply because he's wealthy enough to do so .

Would she have brought the issue up if he was poor though?
Only her and Andrew know the true full story.
I would be a bit worried if I were him and was guilty that it might encourage others to come forward for a slice though.

[MachoMadness]

£12m, paid in part by the Queen. Meaning in part the British taxpayer is paying to protect a sweaty nonce.

[keyser_soze]

I imagine there will be a big queue outside his house today if he is giving millions away to people he hasn't met.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I'm no supporter of Andrew but what if all she ever really wanted was a pay off?
If I were the innocent party I would want my day in court and make him pay for how he had impacted my life and give others the chance and confidence to speak up.

I totally agree, all she was interested in was the money

She can still testify against him if the US authorities decide to prosecute. As she claims she was seventeen at the time that'd be statutory rape.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Paid her off. Got away with it.

always going to happen ,amazing what you can get away with when you have money,Just like all the people with gagging orders

You can't gag anybody from speaking in a criminal investigation.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Agreed, idler, none of us know the truth of the allegations and like you I have no cause to judge the accused or the accuser but it is unfortunately too easy to make false allegations against men in the public eye.
He's been unbelievably stupid with some of his 'associations' and his interview last year only serves to show he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer but stupidity alone is not a crime.

And never you'll never know the truth because he's paid her off simply because he's wealthy enough to do so .

No he isn't. The figure of 'millions' has been mentioned and he doesn't have that amount of money himself, especially now he's been stripped of so many positions. I'd like to know where it's coming from as I doubt whether the public would be happy if it's their money that has been used this way.

[mugnapper]

There will be a huge gagging order attached no doubt.
And a f**k off big cheque given he has had to sell his multi million pound ski chalet in Verbier to fund this .

He had to sell it because he never finished paying for it and was in danger of being sued. It'd be interesting to know where he got £6.6million from to pay off the arrears.
I bet his Mum dreads it when her phone rings and the Caller ID says 'Andrew'.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/11/prince-andrew-sell-swiss-chalet

[TommyC]

Whilst I understand it to be common knowledge he is a somewhat horrible man, I suppose the slightly odd aspect of this case is that whilst the actions of which he was accused (if proven) would indeed make him a "nonce" in the USA,  he wouldn't actually be guilty of a crime under the laws of England and Wales. She was 17 and therefore above the age of consent in England and Wales. I've also not seen anything suggested (I may be wrong on this) that he forced himself upon her. The action for "sexual assault" is termed as such simply because a minor in incapable of giving consent to sexual intercourse, much the same as it is here so even if she consented (which it seems clear that she did), the law would not recognise that consent as being valid.  So surely the starting point for us good honest citizens of this country,  is the question over whether or not it is acceptable for a 41 year old man to diddle a 17 year old woman/girl (depending on where you live). Anyone brave enough to ask that question of themselves? Given his position and responsibilities, the answer is clearly that he should have known better and he quite rightly is now publicly disgraced and has to sell his chalet. She gets a whacking great payoff which is what she wanted all along. That seems to me a pretty fair outcome for all involved!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy.

You are missing a MASSIVE part of the story there.

[TommyC]

The Epstein sex trafficking angle?

[mugnapper]

I wonder if they'll issue a Commemorative 50p to mark this great Royal moment?

[danumdon]

Great shame if the taxpayer is in hock for this, always seemed on the cards that this freeloader would get his just deserts.

I would think that this episode has got people rethinking their opinion on this whole family with this episode following on from all the other underhanded dealings they persue(see big bro thread)
The whole lot should be shut down after the Queen completes her stint, they are not worthy.

[rich1471]

I wonder if they'll issue a Commemorative 50p to mark this great Royal moment?

well if he sell enough ,he can pay the tax payers back as we are paying some of this are we not

[drfchound]

I guess being good friends with paedophiles, saying he didn't sweat and had never met her didn't help.

He didn’t say he hadn’t met her.
He did say he couldn’t remember meeting her.
There is a difference.
Over the years there must have been lots of people who asked if they could have a photo taken with him.
Just trying to put you right.

[ravenrover]

Not many 17 year olds has had copious amounts of sex with him though....... allegedly so he might have just remembered that

[drfchound]

Not many 17 year olds has had copious amounts of sex with him though....... allegedly so he might have just remembered that

I’m not disputing anything, just making sure Syd doesn’t misrepresent anything.
He does do a lot of guessing these days.

[MachoMadness]

Sorry you can't afford to eat, feed, or clothe yourselves anymore but you've got to cough up for the £12m nonce tax.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Epstein sex trafficking angle?

Yes, of course. Age of consent has nothing whatsoever to do with it. That  would only be the case if she had been a starry eyed young girl who had fallen for the charms of a famous, charismatic older man. Then he would just have been rather sordid and seedy.

But that wasn't the case. She was, at 17, provided for his sexual gratification. That comes under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, Clause 47.

A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person (B),

(b)before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for those services to B or a third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment, and

(c)either—

(i)B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

(ii)B is under 13.


So Prince Andrew's only possible defence against that would be to claim that he assumed these girls turned up at Epstein's parties of their own free will and jumped into bed with rich and powerful men more than twice their age. On conviction in the UK, he'd be liable for a prison term of up to 14 years.

In old fashioned terms, he had had sex with a child prostitute. In modern parlance, he had taken part in child sexual exploitation.

[albie]

Ready for a sing song...all together now,

"The grand old Duke of York, he had 12 million quid.
He gave it to someone he never met, for something he never did."

[rich1471]

This made we laugh , palace spend 12 million on Giuffre but I don't think it will be enough to keep them up

[TommyC]

The Epstein sex trafficking angle?

Yes, of course. Age of consent has nothing whatsoever to do with it. That  would only be the case if she had been a starry eyed young girl who had fallen for the charms of a famous, charismatic older man. Then he would just have been rather sordid and seedy.

But that wasn't the case. She was, at 17, provided for his sexual gratification. That comes under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, Clause 47.

A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person (B),

(b)before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for those services to B or a third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment, and

(c)either—

(i)B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

(ii)B is under 13.


So Prince Andrew's only possible defence against that would be to claim that he assumed these girls turned up at Epstein's parties of their own free will and jumped into bed with rich and powerful men more than twice their age. On conviction in the UK, he'd be liable for a prison term of up to 14 years.

In old fashioned terms, he had had sex with a child prostitute. In modern parlance, he had taken part in child sexual exploitation.

There's a lot of assumptions going on there BST based on hypothetical arguments in hypothetical criminal trial circumstances. Let's not forget that he has has not been party to criminal proceedings either in his own capacity or as part of the Epstein or Maxwell trials nor has he "paid off" any such trial proceedings. If there was a criminal case to answer in the USA then presumably that case would have been brought (and I appreciate there will be conspiracy theories as to why it hasn't been - that's a different discussion entirely). It hasn't. So any question of criminal liability is something of a non-point really.

If we do however want to examine that statute you've put up and what he could/could not be found theoretically be found guilty of under the laws of England and Wales (which is of no relevance to the actual facts of the Giuffre case remember) on a brief reading of that statute, he would have defences under the following grounds:

1. He did not "intentionally" obtain those services for himself. So say for example he was at a party fully of girls all of whom were there with the intention of pleasuring the rich and famous. He could defend himself on the grounds he didn't intentionally procure their services. So the case would fail on (A), the lack of intention to procure those services for himself. Someone else obtained them for him and he may or may not have known that. We all have our suspicions but proving it is another matter!

2. Even if we proved (A), he could then argue he had no idea that she was being paid, that he wasn't paying her and he had no idea that there was payment involved from a third party. So it then fails at (B). And even if the prosecution got past that aspect;

3. He would simply argue it was reasonable to believe that she was 18 or older. It's not like we're dealing with a 12 year old girl. I struggle to see how any Court could hold it unreasonable to believe a 17 year old is actually 18. Lots of wiggle room for him on that one.

So ultimately, if we work through that hypothetical scenario in a hypothetical jurisdiction, it STILL looks like he wouldn't have been convicted. Neither you or I can possibly know what the facts of that hypothetical trial would be, what the evidence would be, what his pleadings would be and what his defence would be. You can't just put that statute up and say "Look at this...this is what the bas**rd is guilty of!". That's a matter for due legal process to establish. 

Hence my comment that if we strip away all of the moral outrage and the suspicion, the only stick that you can actually beat him with that has any degree of justification and certainty, is that he as a 41 year old man had sex with a 17 year old girl. I think there is enough in the public domain and enough inferences can be drawn from him paying her off that we can establish that with some certainty!

Any other accusation beyond that is simply conjecture. Icky and seedy yes. Criminal, no. You're mixing moral outrage and validly held suspicions with actual established facts (and if we want to split hairs, even the "fact" he slept with her has not been conclusively proven). No matter how much you dislike someone or suspect them of wrongdoing, you have to put the rule of law first when discussing criminal liabilty, not the Court of Public Opinion.

The Court of Public Opinion quite rightly will form its own opinions as to Prince Andrew as a man, a Royal and a public figure and it is quite right that he is now publicly disgraced. That's what the Court of Public Opinion is for, not to apportion criminal liability where none has been proven.