To want Prince Andrew to lose his title and go to prison?

[Fandango52]

I read an extract at the weekend of Virginia Giuffre’s book and it really shocked me. I was aware - like lots of people - of her case against Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Prince Andrew, and also watched Emily Maitlis’s interview with Prince Andrew when it came out a few years ago.

We know that Epstein and Maxwell went to prison and I think Andrew should also go to prison. He raped Virginia Giuffre and lied about this, repeatedly denying he had actually met her. This would definitely lead to criminal charges for non-royals (even if the case was later dropped, as it often is with rape - which is another story).

I know it’s likely Andrew won’t go to prison - mainly because he is a prince - and I find that so grim. I know he’s lost some of his titles, like his dukedom, but I don’t think that is enough.

I have no connection to the case at all and no reason to be particularly invested in it, apart from the fact it’s shocking and quite unique, and because I think it’s hugely unjust that Andrew probably won’t be brought to justice because he was born royal.

AIBU to think Andrew should at least be tried in court - and if found guilty, should lose his titles and go to prison?

id Prefer his removal from public life, his titles and his house. Let him live in the suburbs on his naval pension.

I see where you’re coming from about letting him fade into obscurity.

I can’t look past the fact that he raped VG though - as everything points out that this happened - and want him to face justice for that.

If that doesn’t happen (and I doubt it will happen), I think it sends out the wrong message. Basically, it says that being a royal lets you get away with things.

I know rich and powerful people - mostly men - usually do get away with awful things. But I really want this to be a turning point.

What happened to the process of law? To innocent until proven guilty? Have the standards of 'beyond all reasonable doubt" been met?

I don't think they have. It is his word against hers.

Did she write that book, to maximise her financial legacy for her family? Did she exaggerate through anger and trauma? Did she tell the absolute truth? As she saw it, or as it was? Was her book a final act of revenge? I don't know and neither do you.

Just because you don't like someone, because he is an arrogant entitled fool and you are jealous of the advantages he has had in life, does not make him a criminal. Proof is needed to deprive someone of their freedom.

I prefer to live in a country where being sent to prison depends on a high standard of proof, and it applies to everyone equally. Trial by broadsheet is nothing to aspire to.

I wish the whole family would fade into obscurity.

You really think that he will ever face trial? That they haven’t pulled every string and taken advantage of every loophole to make damn sure that he will never face a trial?
Ordinarily, yes, innocent until proven otherwise is a good rule, but in this case the power imbalance is so great that the law doesn’t make a blind bit of difference.

@Meadowfinch In my OP, I wrote ‘AIBU to think Andrew should at least be tried in court - and if found guilty, should lose his titles and go to prison?’

I also said ‘tried in court’ and sent to prison ‘if found guilty’, which is the process of law.

There is nothing in my posts that suggests I don’t like him or that I’m encouraging a ‘trial by broadsheet’.

I hope he faces a trial in court. I would like him to. I agree with you, however, that it’s unlikely.

Could you honestly sleep nights, knowing that someone had been locked up, deprived of their freedom, without you knowing whether he deserved it or not?

We may be regressing on some fronts at the moment but we don't need a modern day prince in the tower. This is not the 15th century.

Not in my name anyway.

I absolutely support the rights of women, but not by shredding the rights of others in the process.

It would be somewhat difficult now that two of the major witnesses are dead.

Just to add, Meadowfinch, that VG got a multi-million pound settlement from Andrew/the royal family - as reported here and in many other sources: https://news.sky.com/story/victory-for-virginia-says-family-of-prince-andrews-accuser-as-royal-gives-up-all-his-titles-13451850. This indicates the case was rather more solid than just ‘his word against hers’.

There is no way that Andrew/the royals would have paid VG any money to settle if her case had been baseless - yet they paid her several millions of pounds. There is a strong possibility that the money was paid to essentially keep VG quiet.

Who is the other dead witness apart from Epstein?

Sorry, ignore me. I know Virginia Giuffre and Epstein are both dead.

A trial in a court would be a way of finding out if Andrew was guilty or not. Granted, our justice system in the U.K. isn’t perfect, but it does have a lot of safeguards and checks to ensure that miscarriages of justice are very rare.

Your OP stated that he raped her, not that he was accused of raping her, which he has steadfastly denied. There is a very very clear difference in law.

How would it go to court though? Surely it'd be based on a "she said he said" trial? And sadly if she's no longer here to speak her side of the story then it'd not hold up in court?

I just don't know how that would even work? If an alleged victim isn't alive to give a statement. And it's not related to information supplied regarding an actual murder case. Then there's nothing to act upon legally?

Yes, that is very true that she has accused him of rape (her US lawsuit says she was forced to have several sexual encounters with him) and he has denied it.

However, he has paid her a multi-million settlement (estimated to be £12m). Why did he pay her?

And why did he have sex with her? She was less than half his age (41 compared to 17, which is just a year over the U.K. age of consent and still seen as a child in terms of U.K. law).

That is a very good point. I do feel quite angry that he will never be judged for it though.

I fully agree with everything you’ve said.

It infuriates me - genuinely - that VG has faced so much suffering and pain and Andrew has just had pleasure and privilege in comparison. That is disgusting. And I think it’s fair to say Andrew did cause some of VG’s pain - otherwise why would he have paid her £12m?

But he’s not going to be locked up is he? That’s my point. There is nothing democratic about a world where he evades ever answering in court because he’s rich and his mummy was the queen.
It keeps me up at night that a man who is a predator (allegedly 🙄) is free to live his over privileged life when he (allegedly) commited heinous acts.

OP you don’t wish Andrew to be given any special protection because of his position, but surely the opposite is also relevant? If he was just any old Joe, he would be highly unlikely to be charged, let alone convicted.

It is incredibly difficult to bring charges of rape, let alone get a conviction.

There is just not enough evidence sadly.

Yes me too. I have never been a fan of the concept of royalty, I think it’s obscene as an institution, but as a person I did have a degree of respect for the Queen at least, but that left for me when she used her influence to keep him from being served court papers and generally supported him. If that was my son…urgh.

Yes, I understand, but his case would probably be investigated if he was ‘any old Joe’. As it is, it wasn’t and won’t be (not in the U.K. courts). I just want the U.K. courts to try him - and, partly because VG and Epstein are now dead, and partly because of his position, he likely won’t ever be tried.

If he was an ordinary person who knows what evidence there might be that has conveniently disappeared?

Same. I also didn’t like that she never paid income tax until the early 90s, but that’s a story for another day.