Prince Andrew no surprise

[Pixxie7]

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

A five-year investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) found that the Rotherham police ignored the sexual abuse of children for decades for fear of increasing racial tensions

Yes it did, and it's the elephant in the room which folk always dodge mentioning - or if they do, it's only to insist this was a very minor aspect of the whole thing

The police get a hell of a lot wrong, but in fairness who'd be the first to stick their head over the parapet when the tone from the top meant that speaking about this could be career-ending?

@derxa I have read the full report. That is why Councillors did nothing. It is not why the police did nothing. Words fail me. Have you heard of Maggie Oliver?

@derxa I have met her. Please dont lecture me in something you don't know much about and have only read the headlines for.

That would be the same Maggie Oliver who "quit in disgust over the way GMP handled the Rochdale grooming trial" (from the Manchester Evening News) "What I saw in Rochdale was police officers and senior cops acting without any shame because it was convenient to ignore the abuse they knew was happening."

[quote julieca]@derxa I have met her. Please dont lecture me in something you don't know much about and have only read the headlines for.[/quote]
I'll post what I like within talk guidelines. Thanks

Bottom line, as julieca says, nothing was done.

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

That would be the same Maggie Oliver who "quit in disgust over the way GMP handled the Rochdale grooming trial" (from the Manchester Evening News) "What I saw in Rochdale was police officers and senior cops acting without any shame because it was convenient to ignore the abuse they knew was happening."

Exactly

@derxa sure you can patronise me and talk rubbish and still be within guidelines.

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

Thank you, prh47bridge, I do get all that.

But again, not enough is being or has been done. Women are NOT protected, they are vulnerable in all sorts of ways.

For example, kerb-crawling in the UK not being a crime if you are targeting schoolgirls.

I wouldn't go as far as saying women are not protected but I completely agree that more protection is needed.

Kerb crawling targeting schoolgirls is a crime. There isn't a specific offence but the offender should be charged with inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and possibly also soliciting. Some of the claims about the law in this area bear little relation to reality. The offence of soliciting is committed when someone in a street or public place solicits someone for the purpose of getting their sexual services as a prostitute. It doesn't matter whether the person being solicited actually is a prostitute. But, to be honest, I would want the authorities to go for a charge of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity as that is a far more serious crime than soliciting.

There may well be good reason to strengthen the law in this area, particularly if police are failing to enforce the existing law. But misrepresenting the law is unhelpful.

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints - For clarity, I wasn't aiming my comment about misrepresenting the law at you. I know you are repeating what campaigners are saying. My gripe is with them. They have every right to campaign for a change to the law, but I wish they wouldn't misrepresent the current law.

[quote julieca]@derxa I have read the full report. That is why Councillors did nothing. It is not why the police did nothing.

@Serenster Meeting someone is very different to flying to his private island with the unusual decor that made his house look like the brothel it was. Yes anyone who went to that house and his private parties should have realised what was going on.[/quote]
Your reading and comprehension skills are severely compromised if you think that wasn’t a police decision. Read it again, who said “the town would erupt”?

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

Bottom line, as julieca says, nothing was done.

Except it’s not her saying nothing was done. She’s the one making excuses for them.

No I am not making excuses for them at all.

Very easy to see where the confusion arises and why women do not feel protected. MP Harriet Harman said this when trying to get the kerb-crawling law extended to include "kerb-crawling amounting to harassment": “Kerb-crawling is an offence if a man is seeking a prostitute, seeking to buy sex, but it is not an offence to kerb-crawl a girl home from school, and I think it should be.”

She's wrong, then? Whatever, her proposed amendment did not go through.

This directly curtails women's freedoms. 3 years ago my daughter (then 14) was harassed by a group of 18yo lads in a car in the middle of the day in a built-up area with people around. They tried to pull her into the vehicle. Luckily she resisted and ran off, but was terrified and thinks it was her fault for that to have happened.

Lots of other points not pushed through into law either:

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57680917

Except it’s not her saying nothing was done. She’s the one making excuses for them.

What julieca actually said was "they [the police] didn't see the crime as it was". Not sure how that's making excuses for them.

Why do some posters only come on to carp at other posters without adding to the debate?

[quote ChurchofLatterDayPaints]Very easy to see where the confusion arises and why women do not feel protected. MP Harriet Harman said this when trying to get the kerb-crawling law extended to include "kerb-crawling amounting to harassment": “Kerb-crawling is an offence if a man is seeking a prostitute, seeking to buy sex, but it is not an offence to kerb-crawl a girl home from school, and I think it should be.”

She's wrong, then? Whatever, her proposed amendment did not go through.

This directly curtails women's freedoms. 3 years ago my daughter (then 14) was harassed by a group of 18yo lads in a car in the middle of the day in a built-up area with people around. They tried to pull her into the vehicle. Luckily she resisted and ran off, but was terrified and thinks it was her fault for that to have happened.

Lots of other points not pushed through into law either:

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57680917[/quote]
Yes, she's wrong. She is a QC but she worked in human rights law, not criminal law. This is not by any means the first time she has misrepresented the state of criminal law. I don't know whether she is simply unfamiliar with criminal law or deliberately misrepresenting it for political advantage.

I'd hazard a guess at the second option.

Rapidly losing interest in what any MP says.

What an absolute mess.

Just saw this in the Telegraph:

Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers have made a highly unusual request to keep secret questions they plan to ask the judge and prospective jurors, ahead of what is set to be a bombshell trial....

How strange Spindle... I've just read that...

This sort of explains it.... all to do with jury selection. Cages are rattled methinks.

twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1448283204134260738

If this was a film it would be too far fetched.

It is indeed to do with jury selection. The bit about questions they "plan to ask the judge" is wrong, however. This is entirely about questions that will be asked of prospective jurors.

In the US, unlike the UK, both sides are allowed to question potential jurors and object to any they don't like. In New York, where this case is being heard, both sides put together a written questionnaire and a proposed series of oral questions to be asked of jurors - they do not ask the judge any questions. Maxwell's lawyers have asked for these questions to be kept secret to avoid media coverage that would prejudice the process - in other words, they don't want potential jurors to find out in advance what questions will be asked so that they can arrive with prepared answers. The prosecution has supported this request.

I have not read the full thread, but I shall.

The point I suppose I'd like to make is that PA does seem to have enjoyed special protection based purely on his "Royalty" since I think back to how Dominic Strauss-Kahn an equally unsavoury person in his private life, extremely wealthy and positioned to become the Premier of France got fucked out on the side of the road at last because of his alleged assault on a (poor, unconnected) hotel worker.
Remember that?!
One of the biggest scandals of French political life in recent modern history. He was ended. By the French (who of course notoriously look the other way as adults conduct themselves as they wish behind closed doors).
The Andrew scandal will end up being another festering boil on the arse of Britain and absolutely nothing will happen.
Off to read the full thread now

The prosecution has supported this request.

Well of course they would They'd be pretty daft not to. The more bombshells that land during the trial the better for them - and the prosecution will know exactly what they expect them to be, and now they'll be even more sure of where the defence's potential pinch points lie.

I don't think the defence has necessarily won anything here - just delayed the inevitable.

That's interesting Sunscreen
I certainly remember StraussKahn and there was a Netflix programme on him. And yes of course I've just realised this was also NewYork justice Department. His downfall was meteoric.

I agree nothing will happen to PA but he will be shamed for the rest of his days.

@SpindleWharl

The prosecution has supported this request.

Well of course they would They'd be pretty daft not to. The more bombshells that land during the trial the better for them - and the prosecution will know exactly what they expect them to be, and now they'll be even more sure of where the defence's potential pinch points lie.

I don't think the defence has necessarily won anything here - just delayed the inevitable.

No, this won't lead to any bombshells during the trial, nor will it give the prosecution any knowledge of the defence's pinch points. This move does not require the defence to give any information about the questions they intend to ask the prosecution's witnesses, nor does it require them to disclose any information about Maxwell's defence. It purely tells them what questions the defence wants to ask potential jurors. These are likely to be around what the jurors know about the case and the views they have on the issues to be decided.