Prince Andrew no surprise

[Pixxie7]

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

@queenofarles

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?

Probably because they paid up....

Call me cynical but there is a reason this didn't appear in her book, it didn't happen.

There is a reason neither the Met police nor the US police is pursuing it....

I suspect there are several million very good reasons why she isn't going after people like Clinton or Trump, PA is the only one stupid enough not to have paid up and now he's paying the price.

@Blossomtoes

And a 17-year-old in England is a child

They’re not. They can get married, ffs! The age of consent is 16. As you very well know.

Julieca is correct that a 17 year old is still considered to be a child for the purposes of the law in England, even though they are over the age of consent.

However, in the context of this case, I think it is unhelpful to say that Giuffre was a child. That leads to people calling Andrew a paedophile, for which there is no evidence. The critical point is that she was past the legal age of consent and, despite julieca's insistence that Andrew is guilty under English law, he does not appear to have committed any crime unless the charge of rape could be made to stick.

[quote julieca]@milveycrohn the police in the US tried to interview Andrew many times and failed as he refused to be interviewed. They cant make him be interviewed. So they dropped the enquiry. This does not mean they have judged there is evidence or there is not evidence. But without him agreeing to meet there was no way forward.
A civil case is different and he can be compelled to either appear in court or to be judged in his absence.[/quote]
What do you mean? Surely if they felt there was sufficient evidence they could have continued? They don’t just drop investigations because the individual doesn’t talk to them, that makes no sense.

@julieca if they had enough evidence they could ask for extradition etc , they can't make him come to a voluntary one though

[quote julieca]@milveycrohn the police in the US tried to interview Andrew many times and failed as he refused to be interviewed. They cant make him be interviewed. So they dropped the enquiry. This does not mean they have judged there is evidence or there is not evidence. But without him agreeing to meet there was no way forward.
A civil case is different and he can be compelled to either appear in court or to be judged in his absence.[/quote]
To repeat, they wanted to interview him as part of the Epstein enquiry which has not been dropped. There has been no indication that they are trying to make a case against Andrew.

Also, Andrew's lawyers have specifically denied that he refused to be interviewed and say that he made several offers to co-operate. I understand they have emails to prove this.

Quite amazed to see that Cressida Dick were at the same Oxford College and are only one year apart in age, thanks to whoever pointed that out. Interesting.

@julieca why are the un putting pressure in uk when other countries have similar ages and some even younger , I think there are other countries we need to worry about
Your supposed to have consent in england to marry at 16 , but this is not about marriage and the age of consent is 16 and unilkely to be raised

SickandTiredAgain. Of course they do!! They also enter into plea bargains with serious offenders when the political stakes are high enough (Epstein/Acasta).

[quote julieca]@milveycrohn the police in the US tried to interview Andrew many times and failed as he refused to be interviewed. They cant make him be interviewed. So they dropped the enquiry. This does not mean they have judged there is evidence or there is not evidence. But without him agreeing to meet there was no way forward.
A civil case is different and he can be compelled to either appear in court or to be judged in his absence.[/quote]
This is absolutely not true...

What you are in effect saying is that if I were to murder someone in the US but refuse to be questioned they would drop the case, but if the family brought a civil case I would be compelled to appear?
Completely ridiculous.

PA was in fact refusing to be questioned in person in the USA. He would, I believe, have been questioned remotely (particularly with COVID ongoing, and the investigation has subsequently been dropped.

@julieca

16 is the age of consent in England. But legally you are a child until you are 18. The UN has been putting pressure on England for some time to ban child marriage. You can keep saying 16 is not legally a child in England. You are wrong.

I believe that you're right about this, @julieca, and quite a few posters on the thread (some of whom I've seen on other threads saying that they have a legal background - but of course anyone can say anything on here) do appear to be mistaken on this point.

In England, 17 year olds are still legally children. This hinges on the Lord Justice Moses ruling of 2013. It was about 17 year olds in custody but set a valuable precedent for all 17 year olds across the board.

The fact that England (and the wider UK) allows child marriage is something of an historic anomaly, given that there's a reason why we don't allow under-18s to sign any other form of legal contract.

@Poetrypatty

Quite amazed to see that Cressida Dick were at the same Oxford College and are only one year apart in age, thanks to whoever pointed that out. Interesting.

This is true but it doesn't mean they were at college at the same time. Dick went to Balliol in 1979, which would have been straight from A-levels. Maxwell spent a few years doing other things so didn't start at Balliol until 1982, which would have been a few months after Dick finished.

I think it is important to state she was a child. No that does not make Andrew a paedophile. But although it is legal to have sex with a 17-year-old when you are in your late fifties, recognising she is legally a child does highlight her vulnerability.

Personally, I think our age of consent laws should be like some countries where if you are 16 or 17, it is only legal to have sex with someone up to 2 years older than you.

And a 17-year-old in England is a child

They’re not. They can get married, ffs! The age of consent is 16. As you very well know.

IIRC they can only get married with parental consent. But they can't vote, they are not "adults" in any meaningful sense of the word.

At the time of the alleged incidents, Andrew was around 40 years old. Not that it makes any difference in principle.

The UK law at that time was pretty archaic, but the trafficking of women under 18 for the purposes of prostitution was an offence to which Maxwell should have to answer.

You can think what you like @julieca, but it has no bearing on this case or on the age of consent! You clearly have a great many thoughts on this case and on others concerning members of the RF and their questionable friendships, but none of them mean that anyone has done anything illegal.

@julieca

16 is the age of consent in England. But legally you are a child until you are 18. The UN has been putting pressure on England for some time to ban child marriage. You can keep saying 16 is not legally a child in England. You are wrong.

This is not true. The UK is one of the biggest supporters of the campaign to end child marriage and the government announced earlier this year that it intends to raise the legal age for marriage to 18. However, this is entirely irrelevant to this case. Raising the legal age for marriage will not affect the age of consent, which will remain at 16. Neither the UN nor any other international body is suggesting that should change.

Personally, I think our age of consent laws should be like some countries where if you are 16 or 17, it is only legal to have sex with someone up to 2 years older than you.

I’d agree with this. I have no issue with 16 being the age of consent, but two 16 year olds having sex is totally different to a 16 year old and someone much older.

It’s worth noting that Epstein did something with all his assets in the weeks before his death that meant they were transferred to an offshore company or something, specifically with the intention of stopping anyone coming forward to try and sue him.

I suspect the main reason the FBI are not aggressively pursuing PA is because they think Ghislain can give them some bigger fish to fry. We’ll find out in the next few weeks/months I guess. Suffice to say I suspect a number of corridors of power are feeling a bit queasy right now.

@julieca too hard to police that though. Yes morally it doesn't sit right with me an older guy sleeping with a 16 year old and I think most people would feel the same
But we don't even have proof this happened , not actual hard proof as yet anyway

Okay, the article I read put out by the UN condemning child marriage in England must have been a mirage.
If you are accused of murder in the US the police from the US have no legal right to forcibly question you in the UK. What they do is seek extradition, or get permission from the UK to forcibly interview you.
Andrew was helping with enquiries. There is nowhere enough evidence to extradite a member of the RF.
But don't claim that this means there was zero evidence. Evidence does exist.

[quote worriedatthemoment]@julieca too hard to police that though. Yes morally it doesn't sit right with me an older guy sleeping with a 16 year old and I think most people would feel the same
But we don't even have proof this happened , not actual hard proof as yet anyway [/quote]
And yet plenty of other European countries have this law.

@prh47bridge thanks for clarifications on the dates , its funny how people ( previous poster ) read something then post as if its true
This is exactly why we have trials with factual evidence as opposed to what people have read on google

@Brefugee

And a 17-year-old in England is a child

They’re not. They can get married, ffs! The age of consent is 16. As you very well know.

IIRC they can only get married with parental consent. But they can't vote, they are not "adults" in any meaningful sense of the word.

In Scotland you can marry without parental consent at sixteen. You can also vote for MSPs at 16. We're clearly heathens and should hang our heads in shame.

@julieca you have Zero proof evidence exsists just as we have none it doesn't , its all opinions and thats it

@julieca what other european countries have this law. ?