Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case

[XJ Flyer]

Claudia Skies said:

It really is a hoot watching the sucker royalists trying to defend their paper heroes. Look at the conduct of the royals over the decades and you soon find they can't behave themselves for more than 10 minutes consecutively. Chuckles carrying on with Camilla right through his marriage to Di, Harry with his trousers round his ankles in Las Vegas etc etc etc.

To be fair adultery,except under sharia law,and whatever might have happened in the case of Harry's trousers isn't in the same league of alleged wrong doing as having sex with a 17 year old hooker.

Or between anyone considered as being 'too old' for a 17 year old in the land of the free in which case all 'activeties' have to carried out under the caveat of variable age of consent limits can go up as well as down.

As for the Charles/Di/Camilla fiasco that probably had more to do with the establishment and the public at large on both sides of the Atlantic supporting the effective grooming of the 15 year old Di as a breeding machine to create the next official line to the throne,than Charles' first choice of a wife,also bearing in mind that the CofE faith that the Royals stand for is actually founded on the idea of justifying adultery and multiple ( albeit sequential ) marriage.In which case the hypocrisy of that same public now trying to impose US type agephobic standards,related to who is the 'right age' for who,on both sides of the Atlantic is just unbelievable.Being that by those same standards Di should/would have been off limits to any interest by Charles and long since married off to Andrew,or at least someone of similar age to herself,before Charles even got a look in.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 5th January 19:25

[Claudia Skies]

toppstuff said:

Personally, I don't care if HRH did it or not.

Sums it all up really.

[Frybywire]

Claudia Skies said:

It really is a hoot watching the sucker royalists trying to defend their paper heroes.

Boris on the radio this morning was embarrassing. When asked "Should he face questions over this allegation?" His reply... "He does a lot of good work...." We've heard that deflective reply before somewhere.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/06/prince-...

Also, Fergie, "He is the greatest man".

[MarshPhantom]

Frybywire said:

Boris on the radio this morning was embarrassing. When asked "Should he face questions over this allegation?" His reply... "He does a lot of good work...." We've heard that deflective reply before somewhere.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/06/prince-...

Also, Fergie, "He is the greatest man".

Yes, I heard Boris, as though the last few years hadn't happened, he could have been talking about Jimmy Savile.

I'm also not sure the character reference from Fergie was exactly what they need right now.

[XJ Flyer]

MarshPhantom said:

Frybywire said:

Boris on the radio this morning was embarrassing. When asked "Should he face questions over this allegation?" His reply... "He does a lot of good work...." We've heard that deflective reply before somewhere.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/06/prince-...

Also, Fergie, "He is the greatest man".

Yes, I heard Boris, as though the last few years hadn't happened, he could have been talking about Jimmy Savile.

I'm also not sure the character reference from Fergie was exactly what they need right now.

Having been a teenager in the day of similar age to Andrew I think the Saville type issues were more about the media blitz pushing the older man,with younger naive type girl unsuited to age difference type relationships agenda,as part of the plan to fix Charles up with Di Spencer.Instead of going by their own US age issue standards which they are obviously going by now.In which case Di obviously should have either been fixed up with Andrew or left alone for someone else much closer to her own age.In this case I think the hypocrisy of the establishment and the media is worse than anything which Andrew may or may not have allegedly done.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 6th January 18:54

[Claudia Skies]

XJ Flyer said:

Di obviously should have either been fixed up with Andrew or left alone for someone else much closer to her own age.

Wasn't she busy fixing herself up with the England rugby team?

http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/guide/themes/diana_l...

And who was James Hewitt anyway?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-harr...

[XJ Flyer]

Claudia Skies said:

XJ Flyer said:

Di obviously should have either been fixed up with Andrew or left alone for someone else much closer to her own age.

Wasn't she busy fixing herself up with the England rugby team?

http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/guide/themes/diana_l...

And who was James Hewitt anyway?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-harr...

I was actually referring to a time before she'd obviously been corrupted by the establishment agenda of finding a young 'virgin' for Charles and best possible biological mother material for the next generation in official line at all costs.Even if that meant the grooming of a naive well under 18 girl from a troubled family background.

Together with the grooming of who knows how many others in the population outside as part of the media blitz that was implemented to justify the 'relationship' in the eyes of the public such as the Nolan and Saville example on stage which certainly would have set alarm bells ringing 'if' we're going to apply US type age standards.

Bearing in mind that the establishment had obviously counted out Diana's older sister at that point for obvious reasons thereby leaving the obvious question what was the 'real' reason for Charles continuing to be on the scene at the Spencer household assuming we are going to apply US type age standards.

www.princess-diana-remembered.com/uploads/5/3/3/5/...

[Foppo]

What else can Sarah Ferguson say about her ex husband that he is great.

She is scared,Diana was a example not to step out of line.

Powerfull enemies one doesn't want.

[Vaud]

Foppo said:

What else can Sarah Ferguson say about her ex husband that he is great.

She is scared,Diana was a example not to step out of line.

Powerfull enemies one doesn't want.

I'd have thought that it was more to do with the help he gave her in clearing down her self-created debts than any tin foil hat conspiracy.

[ATTAK Z]

Foppo said:

What else can Sarah Ferguson say about her ex husband that he is great.

She is scared,Diana was a example not to step out of line.

Powerfull enemies one doesn't want.

Give her fifty quid and she'll close her mouth

[Foppo]

Fifty quid maybe maybe not.You don't mess with this family.

[NDA]

Not sure if this CNN clip has been posted:

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/01/05/bts-ne...

Alan Dershowitz describes the woman as a lying prostitute. I suspect AD wants his day in court and will get it. All of which will discredit and undermine this woman's story.

Unfortunately the law won't change on anonymous rape accusations. I wish it would.

[Pupp]

Not sure that his assertion, 'I am denying categorically the truth...' does much to clear the fog

[XJ Flyer]

Foppo said:

What else can Sarah Ferguson say about her ex husband that he is great.

She is scared,Diana was a example not to step out of line.

Powerfull enemies one doesn't want.

In which case being consistent even 'if' the claims were substantiated in court,surely the establishment would just shrug off the subject on the basis that even if proved it doesn't regard the issue of a US statutory rape offence,regarding the vagaries of US age of consent laws at least,as a serious issue and certainly not serious enough to be confused with the generally accepted definition of 'under age'.

As opposed to what actually seems to be happening in a hypocritical change in UK societal attitudes in that regard which also applies at Royal/establishment level with an obvious media campaign to match.With inflammatory headlines related to an 'under age' girl who in fact was actually above the UK age of consent.

That is assuming that Andrew wouldn't have been stupid enough to get involved with an under 18 year old girl in a prostitution type relationship which would be illegal on a virtually worldwide basis.

[MarshPhantom]

NDA said:

Not sure if this CNN clip has been posted:

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/01/05/bts-ne...

Alan Dershowitz describes the woman as a lying prostitute. I suspect AD wants his day in court and will get it. All of which will discredit and undermine this woman's story.

Unfortunately the law won't change on anonymous rape accusations. I wish it would.

Interesting that Dershowitz says he now wants his day in court as the girls lawyers are claiming they have requested him to give testimony on five occasions and he has refused to turn up.

[smn159]

MarshPhantom said:

NDA said:

Not sure if this CNN clip has been posted:

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/01/05/bts-ne...

Alan Dershowitz describes the woman as a lying prostitute. I suspect AD wants his day in court and will get it. All of which will discredit and undermine this woman's story.

Unfortunately the law won't change on anonymous rape accusations. I wish it would.

Interesting that Dershowitz says he now wants his day in court as the girls lawyers are claiming they have requested him to give testimony on five occasions and he has refused to turn up.

The woman's lawyers have now filed a lawsuit against Dershowitz for defamation during his media interviews

[XJ Flyer]

smn159 said:

MarshPhantom said:

NDA said:

Not sure if this CNN clip has been posted:

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/01/05/bts-ne...

Alan Dershowitz describes the woman as a lying prostitute. I suspect AD wants his day in court and will get it. All of which will discredit and undermine this woman's story.

Unfortunately the law won't change on anonymous rape accusations. I wish it would.

Interesting that Dershowitz says he now wants his day in court as the girls lawyers are claiming they have requested him to give testimony on five occasions and he has refused to turn up.

The woman's lawyers have now filed a lawsuit against Dershowitz for defamation during his media interviews

The woman in question seems to be making the case that she was being paid for her 'services' she wasn't doing it for her own enjoyment at her own choice.IE her case seems to be based on the issue of her being taken advantage of as an under aged hooker.In which case why would it be considered as defamatory to call an alleged under aged hooker a hooker.

The fact is either Andrew is allegedly implicated in being involved with an under aged hooker.

Or he is allegedly implicated in being involved with a 17 year old girl in contravention of ageist agephobic variable US age of consent laws.

Assuming that the woman's lawyers are saying that calling her a hooker would be defamation then it can only be the latter possibility.In which case unless the media and the establishment want to look like total hypocrites,regarding how the Charles and Diana relationship started,then at worse Andrew could only be guilty of a minor technical offence under unjust,discriminatory,US laws.

All on the basis of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.None of which seems to be the agenda in this media witch hunt.In which case it is Andrew who has most reason to call defamation against him.

[Claudia Skies]

XJ Flyer said:

.None of which seems to be the agenda in this media witch hunt.

Noooo. He should get the "Sir Cliff Richard" treatment.

You know, five squad cars parading up the Mall to Buckingham Palace and giving the place a thorough search, while BBC helicopters hover overhead for live coverage on peak time news.


OK, he doesn't live with his Mum any more but you get the point.

[XJ Flyer]

Claudia Skies said:

XJ Flyer said:

.None of which seems to be the agenda in this media witch hunt.

Noooo. He should get the "Sir Cliff Richard" treatment.

You know, five squad cars parading up the Mall to Buckingham Palace and giving the place a thorough search, while BBC helicopters hover overhead for live coverage on peak time news.


OK, he doesn't live with his Mum any more but you get the point.

I think in the case of Cliff Richard it was all about the issue of 'looking for evidence' to 'substantiate' any possible alleged case against him and that was made clear in the media.

While in the case of Andrew the media seem to be acting as judge and jury regarding the reporting of the alleged accusations in their own right outside of any actual court case against him.While at the same time obviously trying to exaggerate the seriousness of what would,in any event,be a relatively minor offence,in a way which panders to the discriminatory nature of US law regards same.IE if it had been a group of teenagers of around her own age at the time,instead of 'older men' considered as being 'too old' for her,I'd doubt that we'd be seeing the same type of media and/or court,feeding frenzy over the issue.

[Claudia Skies]

XJ Flyer said:

I think in the case of Cliff Richard it was all about the issue of 'looking for evidence' to 'substantiate' any possible alleged case against him and that was made clear in the media.

So why no "looking for evidence" in the case of His Andiness to substantiate (or otherwise) any possible alleged case?

Let's face it, Savile got away with it for decades because nobody bothered to look.