Prince Andrew

[meccacos2]

In circumstances wherein no one can actually say how Epstein made his money... could it possibly be that this news.com article sheds some light on this?

www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/virginia-roberts-reveals-details-of-three-sexual-encounters-she-claims-she-had-with-prince-andrew/news-story/91885ffd2595498dabf290116aa6544d

This woman is saying she was trafficked.

She’s been saying it for years.

Why is this a conversation no one is having?

Why is the palace waiting for it to blow over?

I'm surprised the comment about the nightly legal battles to keep things out of the papers wasn't picked up on and analysed more

So was I intially, but then I started to wonder just what digging the media are doing behind the scenes. As you said yourself, we only see a fraction of what they'll be aware of, and then only when the horse trading's exhausted and they consider it a good time to publish

As with some previous revelations, where it's become known that the media had the details for ages, who knows what may appear in future?

It’s just not possible the RF are somehow vetoing every paper each night. I think you’ve taken his phase out of turn and he’s just referring to their reaction to being told about the story and asked for comment / negotiation* in advance

You’ve made it sound as though the RF have special access to see papers before they’re published. The deadlines are so tight this simply isn’t possible, not even asking why on Earth any newspaper group would allow it in the first place

@Puzzled I’m afraid I don’t understand what your link has to do with the RG getting some kind of daily approval of the news.

• negotiation as in : don’t publish this and we’ll give you a nice photo of them at ascot.

It’s not really in the media’s interest to publish half the stuff as they need the RF on their side. And with Willian and Harry, the legacy of their mothers press intrusion lives on and they know it won’t take much to rile the public

Passthecherrycoke It’s just not possible the RF are somehow vetoing every paper each night. I think you’ve taken his phase out of turn and he’s just referring to their reaction to being told about the story and asked for comment / negotiation in advance*

That sounds like what I said but in a different way.

I am sure the RF have lawyers on speed dial to send legal threats if anything damaging is published. Hence it would make sense for editors to run certain stories past their legal teams before they are published. I have no idea exactly how its done - you would need someone who worked in that industry, for a paper that had been involved in that type of story, to come on here and breach any confidentiality agreement to clarify how it was done.

The comment by Prince Harry was made in writing. It specifically refers to "nightly legal battles". Not daily, not weekly, but nightly. And the purpose was "to keep things out of the papers". Its clear and unambiguous.

You don’t need someone to breech a confidentiality agreement to tell you how it works, it’s well known. The royal family are no different to anyone else.
Say the Beckhams. The sun want to rub a story to say Victoria has been playing away they of course run it past their lawyers. That’s why they have them. Then they phone up the beckhams people and say we’re running the story about Victoria playing away again, just to let you know. Any comment? How about we she fesses up and gives us an exclusive interview about it? We’ll go easy on her. She can get her side out first. Let us know.

Then the beckhams phone their lawyers who try and get the story suppressed. It’s totally normal and I can’t see how it’s unique to Harry? You’re making out like the RFs lawyers read through all the papers each night to check nothing bad is being published

cherrycoke has described the process accurately. Also note that if you are being sued for libel, it helps your case if you’ve contacted the subject of the story for comment. It’s part of what used to be called the Reynolds defence and papers do it as standard.

Some of the posters here ate using exactly the same arguments as Jimmy Savile and his supporters used.

@ticking
there is evidence putting them together in London when she was 17. Grubby, yes, distasteful, yes, illegal, no. (PA does deny this though). The police don't think there is a case to answer....

Actually, the allegations (from multiple women) were sex trafficking and rape.

The female in question might have been 17 and passed the age of consent but she was trafficked for sex to a member of the royal family!!

Sex trafficking is illegal.

Sex trafficking 12 year olds (as has been reported) is illegal.

How can any of you defend this?

Investigators/the police did think there was a case.

In America, Epstein had a cheeky backroom deal done where he got away with it - purely because he had money.

All this time this Australian women has spoken the truth and no one would hear her.

I believe her, I believed her from the beginning. I also believe that Prince Andrew is a stain on the British Monarchy ...but when you look at it closely - the British monarchy is a stain on many countries it purports to represent.

@meccacos2

I definitely think PA should be prosecuted, however the courts/police say "no case to answer"

I think though you are confusing two things, Maxwell and Epstein are accused by her of trafficking, not PA. Epstein was in the process of being prosecuted when he committed suicide, and as I said above it's public record that "the original roberts v.s maxwell case was "settled" i.e. a payout made and the case dropped." So Roberts chose to take money rather than ensure a sex trafficker was prosecuted.....

I absolutely believe all these people should be prosecuted including PA, but at the point when the accuser is taking money rather than seeing the prosecution through there has to be some questions asked as to her motives. There is not doubt that PA will avoid prosecution partly because of this....

There is also the big fact, that even in her book she says she was 17 and in the UK... so the only chance of prosecution you would have to prove PA knowledge of sex trafficking, which would be very hard without the prosecution/conviction of Maxwell, which Roberts herself has allowed to be "closed".

Don't mistake the fact that I'm saying PA isn't going to be convicted for me saying he shouldn't be prosecuted.... I absolutely believe he should be.

Why has it been decided to not open up files on the Kincora Boys Home in Belfas scandalt for approximately 85 years ????
Why isn't there a huge outcry in the media.
Something rotten about that.
Are there no investigative journalists who will get to the bottom of it and people demand those files are opened ?

Why has it been decided to not open up files on the Kincora Boys Home in Belfast scandal for approximately 85 years?

I imagine that's a question which might be best directed at the church who ran it ... who are, after all, not terribly keen on accountability and openness

Does Freedom of Information not apply to churches? Serious question, does anyone know?

Does Freedom of Information not apply to churches?

Apparently not - at least not to the CofE, Catholic Church or the Church of Scotland, which are the ones I've checked so far

I don't think it's the churches that are the problem here. The upper echelons of society may be impacted.
I just wish there was somebody willing to go after this. Why shoukd it be hidden for 85 years ?
I know nobody involved in the Kincora case but just think it is wrong to hide things away for a generation. What are they hiding?
Who are they protecting ?

I do wonder how it is that the churches mentioned above do not need comply with Freedom of Information. Who let them get away with that?
Slightly goes off thread

Do they really not need to comply ?
Who decides a file can't be opened for 85 years ?

I just wish there was somebody willing to go after this. Why shoukd it be hidden for 85 years ?

That's just the problem. It probably could be successfully challenged, but it would require almost unlimited resources and possibly multiple appeals. Even the research on FOI and human and fundamental rights would cost a fortune to get carried out. There does seem to be a public interest argument in not permitting privacy but these things are always more complicated to argue than they seem. Its also so easy for authorities to avoid answering FOI requests on the grounds of the exceptions when they want to do so, and the ombudsman is fairly useless in dealing with hard cases.

Who decides a file can't be opened for 85 years?

The people who don't want it to be and who can shout loudest / have the deepest pockets?

I'm no expert in these things and I'm sure QualCheckBot will answer it better, but reading suggests churches are exempt from the FOI Act because they're not designated as "public bodies"

Interesting article on Prince Andrew’s close relationship with Epstein in today’s Sunday times

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/paedophile-jeffrey-epstein-had-13-phone-numbers-for-prince-andrew-mx9fk9h0g

From the article:

“ Prince Andrew met Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire paedophile, at least 10 times over the course of their 12-year friendship, according to an investigator.

Mike Fisten, a former police detective sergeant in Florida, claims Epstein had up to 13 phone numbers for the Queen’s second son.”

Article continues

The Mail group have placed a number of articles questioning the funding of the RF recently. Today's is about Andrew's unaccounted for wealth. I think the RF get a far too easy time from the press for their ridiculous spending and lifestyles and they are getting some warning shots about how that could change. Queenie with her vast collection of palaces, endless servants, luxury cars, carriages, her own train and who cried when she lost her yacht somehow passes as thrifty! And they claim we have a free press.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7591869/Former-MP-NORMAN-BAKER-asks-Duke-York-buy-13million-ski-chalet.html

I think the RF get a far too easy time from the press for their ridiculous spending and lifestyles and they are getting some warning shots about how that could change

Good luck with that; when they've got the wealth to afford the very best PR and accountants AND are exempt from the FOI Act, I really wouldn't expect any changes any time soon

Trafficked? The reason that she wanted the photo taken with Prince Andrew was apparently so that she could send a copy to her mum!

This 'trafficked' stuff doesn't wash with me. If I were being trafficked I would scream the place down at the earliest opportunity. Of course if I had been offered the chance to travel and to make a lot of money I might have been interested even if the money-making didn't involve a nine-to-five job. But X years down the track I'd have to come up with a different story to sound respectable.

In my view she doesn't exactly look unhappy in THAT photo.

He's fine he must be cos his Mummy wouldn't protect him otherwise and she's the most amazing woman in the world. Never puts a foot wrong and protects us humble folk from self serving politicians and stops the country getting in a terrible mess.