Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case

[MarshPhantom]

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

Jimboka said:

xjsdriver said:

Good!!!

Most will disagree with you there.

So you'd prefer there was no evidence for the sake of the monarchy?

Whereas you'd prefer the story to run regardless of whether there is any truth to the allegations.

No different to Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall etc. Why should the royals be exempt?

So what are the similarities between this case involving the Duke of York and that of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall?



I'm not suggesting that the Royals should be exempt from anything btw.

We all heard about the allegations against them before they were proven guilty, that's just how it goes.

So you're suggesting that the Duke of York is guilty of what exactly?

Where have I said he is guilty of anything?

[don'tbesilly]

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

Jimboka said:

xjsdriver said:

Good!!!

Most will disagree with you there.

So you'd prefer there was no evidence for the sake of the monarchy?

Whereas you'd prefer the story to run regardless of whether there is any truth to the allegations.

No different to Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall etc. Why should the royals be exempt?

So what are the similarities between this case involving the Duke of York and that of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall?



I'm not suggesting that the Royals should be exempt from anything btw.

We all heard about the allegations against them before they were proven guilty, that's just how it goes.

So you're suggesting that the Duke of York is guilty of what exactly?

Where have I said he is guilty of anything?

OK, you've not said it, however you certainly seem to be inferring it, if that's not the case what is your stance?

[MarshPhantom]

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

Jimboka said:

xjsdriver said:

Good!!!

Most will disagree with you there.

So you'd prefer there was no evidence for the sake of the monarchy?

Whereas you'd prefer the story to run regardless of whether there is any truth to the allegations.

No different to Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall etc. Why should the royals be exempt?

So what are the similarities between this case involving the Duke of York and that of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall?



I'm not suggesting that the Royals should be exempt from anything btw.

We all heard about the allegations against them before they were proven guilty, that's just how it goes.

So you're suggesting that the Duke of York is guilty of what exactly?

Where have I said he is guilty of anything?

OK, you've not said it, however you certainly seem to be inferring it, if that's not the case what is your stance?

You seem to think that we shouldn't hear about until it has been proven in court, but that isn't how it works.

That is all I am trying to say.

[Oakey]

So the womans father is now claiming that his daughter also met the Queen when she met Prince Andrew in London. Seems doubtful?

[don'tbesilly]

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

Jimboka said:

xjsdriver said:

Good!!!

Most will disagree with you there.

So you'd prefer there was no evidence for the sake of the monarchy?

Whereas you'd prefer the story to run regardless of whether there is any truth to the allegations.

No different to Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall etc. Why should the royals be exempt?

So what are the similarities between this case involving the Duke of York and that of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall?



I'm not suggesting that the Royals should be exempt from anything btw.

We all heard about the allegations against them before they were proven guilty, that's just how it goes.

So you're suggesting that the Duke of York is guilty of what exactly?

Where have I said he is guilty of anything?

OK, you've not said it, however you certainly seem to be inferring it, if that's not the case what is your stance?

You seem to think that we shouldn't hear about until it has been proven in court, but that isn't how it works.

That is all I am trying to say.

I don't think anything of the sort, however I do think that jumping to conclusions about people being guilty based purely on what is currently being circulated within the media is not an ideal situation.

You seem to have already made your mind up based on what you've read/seen however.

[don'tbesilly]

Guam said:

Oakey said:

So the womans father is now claiming that his daughter also met the Queen when she met Prince Andrew in London. Seems doubtful?

That would be easy to prove/disprove, IIRC anyone granted an Audience is vetted (to some degree) and a list of those in contact will exist.

As someone else indicated earlier, there is the real possibility of some nasty legal consequences for some out there, when this gets laid to rest I would imagine!

That story has now been denied by the Palace (meeting the Queen).
Apparently Virginia Roberts has never made the claim directly, perhaps her Father fantasized that the meeting took place.

[smn159]

don'tbesilly said:

Guam said:

Oakey said:

So the womans father is now claiming that his daughter also met the Queen when she met Prince Andrew in London. Seems doubtful?

That would be easy to prove/disprove, IIRC anyone granted an Audience is vetted (to some degree) and a list of those in contact will exist.

As someone else indicated earlier, there is the real possibility of some nasty legal consequences for some out there, when this gets laid to rest I would imagine!

That story has now been denied by the Palace (meeting the Queen).
Apparently Virginia Roberts has never made the claim directly, perhaps her Father fantasized that the meeting took place.

So no story about The Queen procuring sex slaves for her children then?

Shame

[Jasandjules]

MarshPhantom said:

Jasandjules said:

Someone said that they heard this was on tape. Anyone else heard this?

The Sunday peeps said it was all on video.

Well then I would suspect that the papers have seen the vids to run the story?!?

[Gargamel]

I think it was Philip that introduced Diana to Charles

[Oakey]

Jasandjules said:

Well then I would suspect that the papers have seen the vids to run the story?!?

I've just looked at that story. It doesn't say he was filmed, it said he MAY have been filmed because Epstein supposedly had his properties wired up with hidden cameras.

[don'tbesilly]

Gargamel said:

I think it was Philip that introduced Diana to Charles

How old was Diana when that happened?

Is there a story there?

[wc98]

glasgowrob said:

ever thought the whole thing is a ruse by the palace to show Andy as preferring taco to sausage?

it would appear at the upper levels of society many like both .

[TTmonkey]

Anyone else noticed that the BBC seems to have totally dropped reporting on this story?

[don'tbesilly]

TTmonkey said:

Anyone else noticed that the BBC seems to have totally dropped reporting on this story?

Hardly surprising is it.

A story needs legs for it to run, this story had stumps to begin with.

[XJ Flyer]

don'tbesilly said:

Gargamel said:

I think it was Philip that introduced Diana to Charles

How old was Diana when that happened?

Is there a story there?

That would depend on wether anyone believes the idea that the establishment was sniffing round the Spencer household to fix up Charles with Di's older sister or Di.

Ironically if we're going to go all American in agephobic policies then it seems obvious that Di was groomed into an interest by a well over mid 20's pushing 30's,man when she was well under 18.While logically,by US standards,it should have been Andrew not Charles who was fixed up with Di at the time in question.While justifying all that to the public would 'possibly' explain the media blitz at the time pushing the older man and teenaged girl agenda.Such as was seen on top of the pops etc etc and which was taken advantage of as we've seen by numerous miscreants in the day.

[XJ Flyer]

Guam said:

Don't know and bnh don't much care, even if it did happen (unlikely given the persistence of the other rumour).

She wasn't a minor in any of the Jurisdictions alleged was she?

Unless we are now saying that US state laws now encompass the whole of the world?

Seems to me to be nothing more than a classic muckraking exercise imho!

The inconvenient fact in that case being that shagging a 17 year old prostitute is considered as statutory rape in all the juristictions referred to in the allegations including here.In addition to being in breach of US laws related to age difference and the variable age of consent regards same assuming it happened under such juristiction.

[MarshPhantom]

don'tbesilly said:

Hardly surprising is it.

A story needs legs for it to run, this story had stumps to begin with.

It's hardly a nonstory - it's still on the front page of all the papers today.

The Royals will just continue issuing denials until people get bored and move on to something else.

There is no doubt that this woman's story is true, people have gone to prison in the states as a result, so what does she have gain by lying about Prince Andrew?

[Vipers]

MarshPhantom said:

There is no doubt that this woman's story is true.

no doubt at all, yea right. She sticks to,her "story", no,case to,answer, can't prove she lied, unlikely she will be jailed.

[XJ Flyer]

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

Hardly surprising is it.

A story needs legs for it to run, this story had stumps to begin with.

It's hardly a nonstory - it's still on the front page of all the papers today.

The Royals will just continue issuing denials until people get bored and move on to something else.

There is no doubt that this woman's story is true, people have gone to prison in the states as a result, so what does she have gain by lying about Prince Andrew?

It seems obvious that if 'people have gone to prison in the states' for any crimes that Andrew allegedly was implicated in then the obvious question is why didn't the US authorities summons Andrew to court as part of the case in question.Where he would obviously have had the chance to defend himself on the basis of innocent until proven guilty.I'd still go by the idea that this could blow up in the newspapers faces big time if the allegations can't be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt bearing in mind the legal resources available to the Royal family.

[don'tbesilly]

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

Hardly surprising is it.

A story needs legs for it to run, this story had stumps to begin with.

It's hardly a nonstory - it's still on the front page of all the papers today.

The Royals will just continue issuing denials until people get bored and move on to something else.

There is no doubt that this woman's story is true, people have gone to prison in the states as a result, so what does she have gain by lying about Prince Andrew?

So it's in the papers so it must be true, is that really what you're suggesting?

Why would the Royals not deny it, if it's not true, do you know otherwise?

It's obvious that some elements of the story are true for the reasons you've stated, but do you really need an explanation of what the prostitute stands to gain by hawking the story to everyone/anyone who will listen and no doubt pay.