Prince Andrew

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy

With respect you are rather missing the point.

On the assumption that he DID have sex with Giuffre (and I don't think anyone seriously doubts that, given that it  appears he and/or his his mother have just paid her £12m to shut up and go away) then the matter of fact is that he was party to a breach of the law on sexually exploitation of a child. My original point, is that any arguments based on the age of consent are utterly superfluous. She WAS a child. She WAS procured for him. That eliminates any consideration of age of consent. That's not up for debate: it's a matter of fact.

The question of what Prince Andrew's defence would have been if such a criminal action had been brought is secondary, but wold entirely hinge on whether it was reasonable to assume that he had close personal and social connections with Epstein and Maxwell for many years and didn't even have the slightest suspicion that they were procuring children for the sexual gratification of their guests. I don't know how these things work in court, but I'd question whether "I never thought to ask" would be a particularly robust defence in the circumstances. Especially as his previous public statement on the encounter was simply that "It didn't happen". That raises all sorts of questions as to the reliability of his statements on the matter.

[mugnapper]

Tommy, if you know of ANY millionaires give £12 million away for something they say ever happened to someone they don't remember meeting, can you pass their details on to me

[ravenrover]

Tommy

With respect you are rather missing the point.

On the assumption that he DID have sex with Giuffre (and I don't think anyone seriously doubts that, given that it  appears he and/or his his mother have just paid her £12m to shut up and go away) then the matter of fact is that he was party to a breach of the law on sexually exploitation of a child. My original point, is that any arguments based on the age of consent are utterly superfluous. She WAS a child. She WAS procured for him. That eliminates any consideration of age of consent. That's not up for debate: it's a matter of fact.

The question of what Prince Andrew's defence would have been if such a criminal action had been brought is secondary, but wold entirely hinge on whether it was reasonable to assume that he had close personal and social connections with Epstein and Maxwell for many years and didn't even have the slightest suspicion that they were procuring children for the sexual gratification of their guests. I don't know how these things work in court, but I'd question whether "I never thought to ask" would be a particularly robust defence in the circumstances. Especially as his previous public statement on the encounter was simply that "It didn't happen". That raises all sorts of questions as to the reliability of his statements on the matter.

A bit like 'but they never told me", can't remember who came up with that one

[SydneyRover]

I'm betting we will not see him in the US any time soon.

[albie]

My understanding was that the FBI investigation is still live, so further criminal prosecutions could be made if the evidence supports it.

If this has changed, and there is no longer an active investigation following the conviction of Maxwell, then is it the case that others implicated in the Epstein web are not under review.

This article suggests that the troubles of Andrew are not at an end:
https://inews.co.uk/news/virginia-giuffre-allegations-prince-andrew-still-heard-court-settlement-lawyer-1467827?ito=social_itw_theipaper&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1645121635

[rich1471]

What's strange is he has paid out around  12 million pound, but the gagging order ends at the end of the year after the jubilee celebrations.

[Donnywolf]

The grand Old Duke of York
He had 12 million quid
He gave it to someone he never met
For something he never did