Prince Andrew no surprise

[Pixxie7]

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

Just to be clear if there was a thread saying VG is lying, people just know she is lying I'd be saying the same thing. We don't know, no one on here knows. She might be telling the truth, he might be telling the truth. It might even be a mixture with some truth on both sides.

[quote julieca]@ancientgran Yes most middle-aged men are fat. Two thirds of the population are overweight or obese and the proportions are higher as people age. So no being fat as a man at 40 is not unusual, but it does not change facts.

I have been on jury service twice and listened very objectively to the evidence. It is an important role.
This is a forum. I have no power to send Andrew to jail.[/quote]
Well we can be thankful for that.

But people on MN have said VG is lying.

I have been on jury service twice and listened very objectively to the evidence. It is an important role.

Then why can’t you do that in this instance?

Because Andrew refuses to testify about this. Instead there is the car crash interview. And if that was his testimony I would judge him as a clear liar.

@julieca

Because Andrew refuses to testify about this. Instead there is the car crash interview. And if that was his testimony I would judge him as a clear liar.

You’re not interested in anyone else’s evidence? Just his?

Ancientgran there are posters practically falling over themselves to say "I refuse to accept the possibility he might be guilty and even if he is I don't care and the victims are basically prostitutes".

It's what those posters are NOT saying that I'm looking at.

None of them care about the victims. Instead they really, really care about PA not losing this case because they cannot handle the RF being revealed for what it is and are heavily invested in the status quo for their own peculiar reasons.

I'm heavily invested in men not abusing women and getting away with it.

there are posters practically falling over themselves to say "I refuse to accept the possibility he might be guilty and even if he is I don't care and the victims are basically prostitutes".

Are there? How come I haven’t seen any of them?

Because you are choosing not to look. Goad someone else, thanks.

I’m not choosing not to look. Those posts simply don’t exist.

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

Ancientgran there are posters practically falling over themselves to say "I refuse to accept the possibility he might be guilty and even if he is I don't care and the victims are basically prostitutes".

It's what those posters are NOT saying that I'm looking at.

None of them care about the victims. Instead they really, really care about PA not losing this case because they cannot handle the RF being revealed for what it is and are heavily invested in the status quo for their own peculiar reasons.

I'm heavily invested in men not abusing women and getting away with it.

Could you please point those posts out as I can’t see them. I can see solicitors pointing out that due process is required but that is categorically not the same as not accepting he may be guilty. Probably because it’s our job to examine all the evidence. Which is missing here as we’ve haven’t been presented with it.

I agree with a PP at some of the posters on here & would not like them to be on a jury for a client of mine. Thankfully I no longer work so won’t have that as an issue!

@Blossomtoes

I’m not choosing not to look. Those posts simply don’t exist.

No but there are quite a few debating the legality of sex with a 17 year old the geographical legalities and debates about was she trafficked or was she willing because he is a Prince and so many women are willing

It does leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth to be honest

I honestly don’t think anyone here is defending PA.

I think many are pointing out how beyond crap the system and the police are for women.

This is a country where Saville was allowed to carry on, there were the horrific grooming gangs preying on children and men can kill women during sex because “she wanted it rough and it got out of hand”. Rape prosecutions are abysmal.

Given all of the above, the time elapsed and the legal technicalities, I just get the feeling that some posters are jaded and depressed. And not surprised.

MissMarpleRocks, the angry male posters on here are plain to see. I'm not doing your scrolling for you. There are also quite a few other posts harping on about objectivity when they themselves have made their minds up and will only consider it from the abusive man's perspective because they clearly think VG was a little slapper on the make.

Male violence and coercion is a pandemic, a scourge that takes many many forms.

As pp suggested, the response to it on here is depressing.

No but there are quite a few debating the legality of sex with a 17 year old the geographical legalities and debates about was she trafficked or was she willing because he is a Prince and so many women are willing

That’s because the thread was started because the Met police said they wouldn’t be investigating any further. So discussions around particular laws are relevant. No one has said that because of those details he is therefore a really great guy. The thread was about a police decision, not a general view of him. Obviously it’s evolved, as discussions do, but the specific legalities were relevant to the original point.

There is no debate to be had about the legality.

No one can point to any law Andrew might have broken in 2000-2002.

@Jaysmith71

There is no debate to be had about the legality.

No one can point to any law Andrew might have broken in 2000-2002.

I wouldn't go quite that far.

On Giuffre's evidence, he may be guilty of rape. However, the question is whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had sex, Giuffre did not consent and Andrew either knew she did not consent or was reckless as to consent. Note that rape is an unusual crime. It is possible for the victim to have been raped but the accused to be innocent on the grounds that he reasonably, albeit mistakenly, believed she consented.

However, on her evidence he is clearly not guilty of having sex with her when she was under the age of consent, or of paying or offering to pay for sex with someone who had been trafficked.

I cannot see any other possible offences Andrew could have committed on her testimony.

Another law that needs urgent amendment then.

Whether the judge finds bulletproof evidence or not is irrelevant.

The 230 organisations he was a patron of didn't need a court to convince them he did wrong. But a lot of the people on here do need it. I find it strange.

prh47bridge

Can't see it. You are presumed innocent unless the prosecution can prove you are guilty, and the law at the time would seem to make that next to impossible.

Rape, like Murder, is a legal concept. It is whatever the law says it is in a particular place at a particular time.

And do I have to clarify yet again: Stating that the law at the time would have regarded Roberts as a prostitute is not approving of this state of affairs any more than Eric Clapton advocated shooting the sheriff or the deputy.

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

Another law that needs urgent amendment then.

Whether the judge finds bulletproof evidence or not is irrelevant.

The 230 organisations he was a patron of didn't need a court to convince them he did wrong. But a lot of the people on here do need it. I find it strange.

Which law? There have been changes to the laws around victims of trafficking, but they were after the time of these specific events.

I think the organisations were absolutely right to remove him a patron, the threshold for that is a lot lower than the threshold for a criminal conviction though.

@Jaysmith71 - I am not saying he is guilty of rape but that is Giuffre's accusation so it is clearly a law he might have broken. He is, however, entitled to a presumption of innocence.

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints - I'm not sure which law you think needs changing and how you want it changed, but it is for the jury to decide whether the prosecution has proved its case, not the judge. And whether there is bulletproof evidence or not is highly relevant unless you want a lot more miscarriages of justice than we have already.

My criminal law professor said it is better that 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person is found guilty. I happen to agree with him. As did my cohort.

SickandTired No human one, I have no faith that this system will deliver anything good. The patriarchy has been screwing women over for centuries, and this is the best it can do.

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

SickandTired No human one, I have no faith that this system will deliver anything good. The patriarchy has been screwing women over for centuries, and this is the best it can do.

Sorry, not sure if it’s because I’m absolutely exhausted today but you’ve lost me with “no human one”

No human law. It'll have to be DIY / natural justice and revulsion that gives PA and his ilk their comeuppance.

The legal system likes to obsess about age limits, jurisdictions, and who holds the financial power. It doesn't like to look at who might actually need protecting.