Prince Andrew no surprise

[Pixxie7]

No surprise that the met have stopped. Their investigation into PA.

Don't the royals have diplomatic immunity? Which means they are untouchable legally. It's shit

@CommonRoom

CBUK2K

You seem to have posted several things here that indicate that you think that sometimes men are manipulated by dolly birds who are after their cash.

There is a very simple way for men to avoid this. They could ask themselves why an attractive and much younger woman wants to spend time with them. Either:

1. The young woman is taking them a ride for their cash or influence
2. Someone is coercing the young woman to take them a ride for their cash or influence

Either way, you would be a narcissist to believe that an attractive young woman is really interested in you. Men need to take responsibility for being naive idiots.

Old rich men probably realise that beautiful young women are after them for their money but they figure it is a transaction and if both sides are happy with what they get so what.

Being naive isn't a crime, being lonely and wanting a beautiful young woman on your arm or in your bed isn't a crime unless they are being forced.

@BoredZelda totally disagree. No one is going to leak anything. This will be dealt with at the highest level. And if anything comes to light, they can say they are investigating the "new" evidence.

@BoredZelda lots has come out that loads of people knew Saville was a paedophile. Are you really suggesting that all the security forces and aides who protect the RF had not heard those rumours and informed the RF? It would indicate their security is shit if they were totally unaware of Savilles reputation and if they did nothing to at least suggest that Charles close association with Saville was at best ill-advised.

This photo, the uncropped version. As Jim Clemente puts it in the podcast he is “t-boning” her, he has his hand around her waist and hers is around his - intimacy, not just two people.
She asked for this photo to be taken , she wanted to show her mother , so this weakens the Trafficking argument.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

You may not get my logic but nor do I yours. If you read my post I clearly state that I hope she gets the support via GM talking. HOWEVER currently from the information we are aware of it IS hearsay if they had sex or not. There is a picture of them together yes. But that doesn't prove the allegations.

So yes LET'S allow the courts to decide. I am not FOR PA however not am I pro us deciding without knowing both sides.

I want to live in a world where we use facts and not hearsay and right now we have her side not his.

What my personal view on it all is and the likely outcome wont change due to us waiting for the court case. From your reply to me I can see you have NO idea what my view is.

Don't the royals have diplomatic immunity?

No.

The Queen has Sovereign Immunity.

And there is no suggestion of any criminal offence by Andrew in this case, which is a civil claim.

@queenofarles you don't understand trafficking.
You know kidnapped girls and young women often have chances to escape and don't, and have even had photos taken of them smiling. Fear is a powerful motivator to play along.

@Jaysmith71 it is only a civil case as Andrew refused to be interviewed by US police. In the end they gave up. There absolutely was a case to answer. Don't rewrite history.

@GrrrlPwr

Don't the royals have diplomatic immunity? Which means they are untouchable legally. It's shit

No.

The Queen enjoys the same immunity from prosecution whilst abroad as other heads of state. She also enjoys sovereign immunity in the UK, which means she cannot be prosecuted for any offence - most other heads of state have similar immunity in their own countries.

The other members of the family may have diplomatic immunity when they are on an overseas visit organised by the government, but they do not have any immunity at other times. They are not immune from prosecution in the UK, which is why Princess Anne has a criminal conviction.

Princess Anne was prosecuted after her dog bit two children. It was not worth trying to cover this up.
Totally different with a sex offender in the family.

@queenofarles

This photo, the uncropped version. As Jim Clemente puts it in the podcast he is “t-boning” her, he has his hand around her waist and hers is around his - intimacy, not just two people. She asked for this photo to be taken , she wanted to show her mother , so this weakens the Trafficking argument.

That proves nothing. Many of the girls that were abused thought they were special and living an amazing lifestyle - that’s how grooming works!

Besides which I’m pretty sure if I asked a member of the Royal Family for a photograph (or any random celebrity) I’m pretty sure that is not the pose they would use when photographed with a stranger. Like I said, the body language screams intimacy and in fact is downright creepy given the age gap.

Yes it is a creepy photo.

But some of the comments remind me of my mums assertion that a family child was not harmed by sex abuse as she was laughing and playing on the swings.

Julica kidnapped/trafficked person does not ask for their photograph to be taken with someone she’s been asked to entertain?

This is what she said : She said she slept with Andrew, then 41, that night and snapped a photo with him to show her mother. The next morning, Maxwell told her, “You did well. He had fun

I really don’t know what to think of this anymore , she was asked to sleep with other men too, why isn’t she suing them too?

[quote julieca]@Jaysmith71 it is only a civil case as Andrew refused to be interviewed by US police. In the end they gave up. There absolutely was a case to answer. Don't rewrite history.[/quote]
I understand Andrew's lawyers have emails showing that he offered to co-operate on a number of occasions. However, they advised him to draw back from this when the US authorities made statements Andrew's lawyers claim are false, leading them to conclude that the US authorities could not be trusted. They claim the US authorities have repeatedly broken their own confidentiality rules.

I should also point out that, according to the US authorities, this was an enquiry into Epstein, not an attempt to build a case against Andrew. It is, therefore, wrong to say there was a case for him to answer. The US authorities have never made any such claim.

The US wanted to interview him. He refused. Sure at first he offered to co-operate but turned down any actual meetings with multiple excuses. The US police even flew over to the UK to meet with him, still nothing. They haven't the authority to make him speak to them, so they dropped this line of investigation.
And it may have led to a court case, we don't know.

@julieca

Princess Anne was prosecuted after her dog bit two children. It was not worth trying to cover this up. Totally different with a sex offender in the family.

However, although PA's behaviour was poor & unbecoming to the son of the Head of the Church of England, it isn't clear to me that he has committed an offence under English law (as other PPs have said)

The other members of the family may have diplomatic immunity when they are on an overseas visit organised by the government, but they do not have any immunity at other times. They are not immune from prosecution in the UK, which is why Princess Anne has a criminal conviction.

Technically no immunity, but in practice...

www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/07/monarchy.wildlife

www.wsj.com/articles/prince-philip-wont-be-charged-over-car-crash-11550149858

Andrew is guilty under English law. Nothing will ever happen though. In fact, the pr firms will try and rehabilitate him after people have forgotten about this. Just as people had forgotten about the very close friendship Charles had with Jimmy Saville.

lots has come out that loads of people knew Saville was a paedophile. Are you really suggesting that all the security forces and aides who protect the RF had not heard those rumours and informed the RF? It would indicate their security is shit if they were totally unaware of Savilles reputation and if they did nothing to at least suggest that Charles close association with Saville was at best ill-advised.

I’m suggesting if you have actual evidence that he knew, then present it. Otherwise you are needlessly smearing someone.

totally disagree. No one is going to leak anything. This will be dealt with at the highest level. And if anything comes to light, they can say they are investigating the "new" evidence.

How naive to think the Met is watertight.

Apparently the logs from royal protection officers seem to have been misplaced from the night in question. I hate when I lose important documents.

@boredzelda You know full well I don't have access to letters written by Prince Charles saying he knew what Jimmy Saville was up to and continued being friends with him.
But it simply defies belief that the security forces did not know and would not have advised the RF to distance themselves.

@VladmirsPoutine

Apparently the logs from royal protection officers seem to have been misplaced from the night in question. I hate when I lose important documents.

Oh what a shame! Some of you would defend Andrew and others in the RF no matter what they did. But you can't stop people from realising the truth about Andrew.

However, although PA's behaviour was poor & unbecoming to the son of the Head of the Church of England, it isn't clear to me that he has committed an offence under English law

"Poor and unbecoming" is the understatement of the century. His antics were clear enough to the 230 organisations that no longer wanted him as their patron...

You might win the legal argument, but it's a meaningless victory if we're still paying public money to a person like PA.

The UK is turning into a cesspit of a country, and the best some posters can do is shout "Conspiracy theorist" at the people who don't want to live in that cesspit.

Technically no immunity, but in practice...

Can’t read the WSJ piece without a subscription but….

news.sky.com/story/prince-philip-crash-victim-who-criticised-royal-after-collision-faces-driving-charges-11696382 the other driver had two speeding charges pending court at the time of the accident. It is likely that was taken in to consideration when choosing not to charge him, along with the low sun issue which lots of people have complained about at that junction, and whether a prosecution would be in the public interest. Unless you can provide a number of similar incidents where elderly drivers have been prosecuted in these circumstances, you can’t suggest the failure to do so was anything to do with immunity.

With the other case, there was no evidence, what exactly did you expect the CPS to do? If you think they should have prosecuted because “they probably did it and covered it up?” Again, this type of thing happens all the time with non Royals.