Prince Andrew has bolted to Balmoral

[Viviennemary]

This according to guess who. The DM of course. To avoid getting papers served says the article. Maybe he's just gone for a nice break. Accompanied by Fergie.

Spindle so agree.
Whilst PA might slip through the net as far as a conviction of anything, his reputation is shot to pieces, he's a laughing stock throughout the world, and he's dragged the Monarchy down with him.

Plumtree no rumour on the house.
A £3million backhander that everyone knew about and did nothing about

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/prince-andrew-facing-questions-over-sale-his-mansion-kazakh-oligarch-a7043101.html

PA was heavily involved with Kazakhstan and Sunninghill was sold to the corrupt president's son in law. PA has been a big fan of despots, gun smugglers, and dodgy regimes. For a very long time I have wondered how he's got away with all of this.

Libby Purves wrote in The Times in January 2015: "Prince Andrew dazzles easily when confronted with immense wealth and apparent power. He has fallen for 'friendships' with bad, corrupt and clever men, not only in the US but in Libya, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, wherever."[

Sums it up.

She must have a good memory. I have an excellent memory but not sure I could remember exactly who I saw on a precise date

Really?
If you saw a member of the RF breaking some moves on the dancefloor when you were on a night out, you're would forget just like that?

I was a few feet from the Queen at a race meeting decades ago. I remember exactly which race meeting it was, I was struck at how petite she was, I even remember what I wore!

I would normally agree that it’s unusual for a witness to have such a clear memory decades after the event, but seeing PA or any member of the RF is a memorable event. People dine out on those stories for years. I have heard really detailed stories about people meeting the RF when they were kids.

I once served Bill Bailey in M&S. I can tell you all about it and it was over 10 years ago. I only vaguely knew who he was. If I bumped into the Queen's son on a night out, I know I'd definitely remember the details.

I agree it’s not that unusual for someone to have a clear memory of the time they saw someone really famous. Remembering the date you did something 20 years ago is less usual, though dates can be established through other sources - a diary entry, for example, or because it was the only time you went to a particular place so you can place it in time fairly accurately.

The bit that is more dubious is still having a clear memory of the unknown people that the famous person was with some 20 years or so after the event - those kind of memories are often consciously or subconsciously constructed after the event.

She said she never saw royalty in real life before or after the event, it remains etched in her mind forever.

I’m sure she thinks it is rubicscubicle, that’s the nature of a subconsciously created memory. But it would genuinely be extremely unusual for someone to have an accurate memory of the face of a random stranger 20 years after the event. I’m not saying this just to be argumentative, that’s just how it is.

Isn't the whole point that she saw PA in Tramp with a woman, despite him saying not?
Not sure she's identifying VG also.

I don't think she identified the woman as VG. But is disputing the fact that Andrew was not at Tramps and was at Pizza Hut Woking instead.

I don’t think that Prince Andrew has ever said that he never went to Tramp though?

We all know that the date these events took place will be one of the issues to be determined at a trial should this case get this far. Did it all happen on the day Virginia Giuffre has alleged? Does Prince Andrew’s story that he was at Pizza Express in Woking on that day stack up? Is there any evidence, including other witnesses, that can shed light on these two, currently conflicting accounts? We really can’t say how that will all pan out at this stage.

All I was saying that someone now saying they have a memory of Prince Andrew, not just at Tramp on the relevant day, and not just with some unknown woman, but with Virginia Giuffre as well, was not that likely.

Is there any evidence, including other witnesses, that can shed light on these two, currently conflicting accounts?

Given that one of his PPOs wanted to check his timesheets under the FOI act for that night and was told they'd been destroyed, I doubt it. The RF will be working hard at damage limitation.

The PPO believes PA returned to BP in the early hours of the morning, contradicting the pizza express story

I hasten to add...I mean.. contradicting PAs account of staying in all evening after pizza express

Yes, if the timeline sheets from his officers are destroyed - don't know how, since everything about the royals gets archived for history - then surely the ones from where he returned that night should be available. And what about the chauffeur and protection officers themselves, can they be asked what happened that night or if they recall a trip to Pizza Express. How come no one has come forward recalling seeing him there. What about the birthday girl and her friends, can they recall anything.

This is one of the problems about trying to litigate events that happened so long ago - loads of evidence that would have been helpful will no longer be available. Which is not in itself remotely suspicious, it just goes with the territory.

Yes, if the timeline sheets from his officers are destroyed - don't know how, since everything about the royals gets archived for history

Are you having a laugh! I’m trying to imagine the faces of the royal archivists on being told they need to pay for the storage of the millions and millions of tangential business and employment records of all people in promixity to all members of the Royal family, even those not even employed by the Palace, in perpetuity just because…

You do realise they no longer archive everything in paper form right?

They store these in museums, I do remember seeing a documentary with a royal historian showing this.

Electronic records are not stored in museums! They are stored on servers. Many of the paper records fo the royal archives are actually stored in the Round Tower at Windsor castle.

Anyway, timesheet records are highly unlikely to be kept in any form past a certain date, not least because they have no intrinsic value, but also because you have obligations under the various data protection legislation operative in the UK for the last few decades not to store records containing personal data for any longer than is needed.

I would rather be dead than anyone find out had anything as unpleasant as this business happened to me when I was a teenager.

@Plumtree391

@mathanxiety spot on

Not even as a salutary lesson when talking to them about the dangers of being duped or coerced into something?
I talked about this sort of thing to my DDs and they know a bit of my experience

Timesheet records are highly unlikely to be kept in any form past a certain date ...

Very true, and in this case it's been said that the Met scrap them after 2 years

However let's not kid ourselves that they wouldn't have "disappeared" anyway, if that suited Andrew's/the RF's interests. Taken to Windsor and destroyed in the fire perhaps? Eaten by a corgi? Just plain "mislaid"?

As I've said so often, with little else to offer the RF depend to a large extent on how things look, and I'm struggling to imagine how this could possibly look worse

Now that R Kelly has been found guilty on all counts, with a victim count well above the current estimate of over 60 (according to the Chicago Sun-Times reporter who first brought the story to the authorities' attention and published it) I am wondering if the role of the press in bringing the powerful to account can be viewed in a more flattering light?

Can it also be acknowledged that the willingness of victims to step forward and stick to their guns (for years) even when threatened by a powerful man and his friends and coat-tailers was facilitated by the persistence and dogged determination of a music reporter who put the interests of integrity and decency above access to a major mover and shaker in the business he covers?

Also, are the R Kelly victims going to be vilified if they eventually seek compensation from the coffers of the man who preyed on them?

As I've said so often, with little else to offer the RF depend to a large extent on how things look, and I'm struggling to imagine how this could possibly look worse

Agree. I also think VG’s team must believe they have enough evidence to show that he knew VG was being trafficked, and that arguing over dates and times might win the case but won’t save his reputation if it is believable that he knew what was going on.

mathanxiety
I think/hope the tide has turned against these very rich powerful men who draw in these young girls.

I confess to not knowing much about the RKelly case but have read up today and it's the sheer numbers and the organisation of this sex trafficking and the demeaning of these girls and boys, I just was shocked.
Brave brave brave coming forward

Also, are the R Kelly victims going to be vilified if they eventually seek compensation from the coffers of the man who preyed on them?

I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this. These man used that money to cover up and get contacts to reach these girls. Taking a chunk out of that money seems fair. Especially since the damage cannot be undone. And frankly some of them had to or will spend money on therapy etc. (not that it would replace anything, but it's better than nothing).

I saw the documentary on RKelly a few years ago, and there were so many victims and witnesses. What struck me was also how many former employees (male and female) came out on recount, in details what was taking place. If you saw it, you just knew the writing was on the wall for him, surprised it took so long.

@Dreamstate

And all those conspiracy theorists who have been saying this for decades that there the elite, rich and famous are running these trafficking rings are 100% right. Epsteing, R Kelly and God knows who else.

Such an abuse of power

Agree with this and because the information is vague we all dismiss it - also the ones who are the victims are likely to be people who have vulnerabilities in some way so are not taken seriously. There were discussions several years ago that mentioned groups in UK such as politicians and RF etc but what happens sometimes is if a name is given and it turns out to be incorrect that incorrect case is used as warn against other victims from coming forward because it happened so long ago they may not be confident to share their story. This sews a seed of doubt in our minds and these cases hang around until the alleged perpetrators have either died or are in no capacity to be investigated

Thing is, Carl Beech, AKA, 'We believe you, Nick!' gave so many wrong names. Nothing was ever proved against any of the men he named, despite the police investigations. Some of the men were very elderly and public opinion was horrified at the interviews with elderly wives and widows, who wept as they described their houses being raided and frail or demented husbands questioned. Or of men losing their homes.

It ended up being Carl himself who was the paedophile.

Even before then, there wasn't much critical thinking employed on the many MN threads about the Westminster paedophile ring. They became increasingly hysterical.

The PA/Epstein threads do seem more measured.