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.

something it is a key tenet of our justice system that people are innocent until proven guilty.
It sets a dangerous precedent to automatically believe one person over another purely on the basis of their say so. Because sometimes people do lie.
It's horrible for genuine victims of abuse but there is no better system. The minute you discard the requirement of actual proof, you will get all sorts of accusations made against people for monetary gain or revenge purposes.

Hmm the Daily Fail have rolled over and are now reporting that the papers weren’t served correctly and that the case will be thrown out in a technicality. Predictable.

Their father a sleazy low life who likes to have sex with teenage girls procured for him by a man who was a glorified pimp.

I honestly think that until about 20 years ago (possibly even 10), this would have been assumed to be normal behaviour amongst members of the Royal Family.

I obviously don’t know what his daughters think, but I wouldn’t be surprised if older members of the family think he did it but don’t think he did anything wrong.

The RF isn’t short of teenage brides or mistresses.

I'm not sure I agree now tho. Yes in many cases that is what is needed, but in a use cases where there often is no proof, what then?

And I must add that during almost 20yr career helping people who have been abused, not once have i ever had a client present with the problem 'I've been unfairly accused and it has ruined my life'. I have NEVER had that. It is ALWAYS 'I say they abused me, they say they did not, the court found in their favour.' How many abuse survivors do we have? Is that matched by conviction stats? No.

@something2say

What bothers me about people who say 'we just don't know' is that we DO know abusers deny it. We DO know that thousands of people have suffered abuse and they know it, and when they try to tell people about it, people sit on the fence. Here is just another example of that. Add to that what we know about him hanging out with a convicted sex offender.

Just you try being a survivor and everyone around you going 'hmm I'm not sure I believe you. We must treat the abuser fairly'.

Well, yes, guilty people often deny the crimes they're accused of. But here's the problem: innocent people also deny the crimes they're accused of, because they didn't commit them. I don't think it's reasonable to start assuming everyone accused is guilty just because the alternative might hurt someone's feelings.

It's quite grim that people actually want to think the worst of someone and not give them the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, this.

Imagine being trafficked to rich men as a young vulnerable girl, eventually being able to find the courage to speak up about it, then people don't give you 'the benefit of the doubt'.

Grim indeed.

It's a difficult thing to prove. It's not a perfect system - there will be people getting away with it because it can't be established beyond reasonable doubt. Which is why we need victims to come forward, because if several unconnected people are all separately saying the same thing about an individual then that helps to establish likelihood of truth. And the police and legal system need to make it safe and comfortable for victims to do this. Which is where the improvement can be made. Along with work to change male attitudes towards women.

You may not see many people whose lives have been ruined by untrue allegations but it doesn't mean they aren't out there. Men get named if accused and mud sticks. People will always have that seed of doubt if an accusation has been made. And wealthy/famous people are often targeted by women who want money.
That it's not worse is probably because we have this system where proof is required for conviction.

I 'get' what somethingtosay and Purpleokapi (love the name), are saying. They both make valid points. I do have some experience of these issues but still try to be objective.

@Serenster

Under UK law, sexual assault is when a person is coerced or physically forced to engage against their will, or when a person, male or female, touches another person sexually without their consent

Touching is widely defined and includes touching another person with any part of the body, or with anything else. The Court of Appeal has held that the touching of an individual’s clothing is sufficient to amount to ‘touching’ for the purposes of section 3.

The crime is cast more widely when it comes to children, as you would expect - non-contact activities, such as involving children in looking at, or in the production of, sexual images, watching sexual activities, and encouraging children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways are all caught under the legal definition.

@Rousette thanks for your comments. This is an area where I have a lot of experience personally!

@dontyouwish2 if you look at this case Ms Robert’s claim also includes an allegation that Prince Andrew sexually abused her in London (the one we all know about) and also in the US Virgin Islands. That’s three entirely separate jurisdictions, one of which is where the defendant lives. That is generally the “proper” jurisdiction to bring your claim, because the defendant does not get any choice in being pulled into a legal process, and it’s unfair to drag them into proceedings in a whole other country, where they will need to travel, appoint foreign lawyers etc etc.

The fact that Andrew has the right to claim the this is not the correct forum means it’s forum shopping on her part. It happens quite a bit with various US courts as they are often deemed to pay higher damages. One example involved a helicopter crash in Indonesia, where the victims were Japanese, and where the helicopter itself had been made in Europe. One of the victim’s families sued the helicopter manufacturer in Texas however, on the basis that the helicopter manufacturer happened to have a local maintenance office there. The reason for this was that Texas courts offered far higher damages to claimants in wrongful death cases than any other jurisdiction, so the claimants had gone looking for the best place to sue. That’s frowned on by the courts.

Admire her determination all you like - she is certainly doing everything she can to force a large settlement out of him.

Thank you for you interesting posts. Would, however, she realistically have been able and got anywhere had she filed in the U.K. though? At 17 she was over the age of consent and was being paid to do a job.

That sounds really crude. I’m not trying to say VR wasn’t a victim of Epstein / Maxwell. Rather I’m trying to see how she could be accused of shopping when the point is she was underage based on the state she lived in in her home country. Ergo her home country would be the natural place to file a suit.

As for filing on the last day, is this because she didn’t want to file unless she had to? And tried to settle out of court? Just trying to get into her mindset.

What if there arent multiple people? Dudnt happen then?

What if the one person discloses, but they have suffered such anguish, they have become mentally unwell, or drink to cope? In the hospital I worked in, even the home for people with schizophrenia I did agency work in while waiting to move, over half of the patients were abuse survivors.

Protecting them, getting justice for them, is not happening. I cannot defend the current practices of the law for that reason. It's not working.

How could you convict on one person's say so? It may have happened, it may not have. You can't send someone to prison unless you can establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually did it.
There have been high profile cases of false allegations - you can't risk ruining innocent people's lives. To put an innocent person in prison is an injustice too.

Has she accused others? (I imagine there were a few if she was an Epstein girl)
Have others come through to accuse PA of similar?

And a conviction has to hold weight to have any meaning in society. Without proof it doesn't.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

How could you convict on one person's say so? It may have happened, it may not have. You can't send someone to prison unless you can establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually did it. There have been high profile cases of false allegations - you can't risk ruining innocent people's lives. To put an innocent person in prison is an injustice too.

My criminal law professor always said ‘it is better that 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person is sent to jail’.

In any event this is a civil case & not criminal. For the avoidance of doubt I applaud VG & her tenacity in wanting to see this through.

Andrew isn't some normal person, he is a Royal. In terms of status this puts his above famous people and far more protected then normal people, not see easy for his life to be destroyed or for him to lose everything.

So what I still fail to see is why if your a decent person, would be friends with someone knowing they based underage children. Even before it finally came out, he visited and spent time with Eastern he would of seen it happening even if say its true he didn't participate himself.

What decent person would sit by and do nothing and not report it...would you sit by and do nothing? Given his status noone would be able to destroy his life. Even if he didn't want to speak up or couldn't why still stay friends? He doesn't need fame, power or money he already has those things.

Now when it all comes out he still stayed friends....

It doesn't make sense unless he believes his friend did no wrong, I dont get it

@Plumtree391

The photo is evidence that he met the girl but there's no evidence he had sexual relations with her.

It's quite grim that people actually want to think the worst of someone and not give them the benefit of the doubt.

From what I've read and heard, the worst thing Prince Andrew appears to have done is continue his association, albeit briefly, with Jeffrey Epstein after the man was convicted of sex trafficking. However so did most of his associates, presumably they believed what JE told them.

Ghislane Maxwell is the one I can't get my head around but - I am not going to spend too much time thinking about any of them. The only time it 'crops up' is when I come on Mumsnet.

Whatever happened to believing the victim? We KNOW the victim was at least a victim of sex trafficking. Whatever happened to WeBelieveYou? Where is the benefit of the doubt for the VICTIM? Why don't you take the stance of to believe women and girls when they come forward? Don't you see that attitudes like yours are part of the problem? No one makes these things up.

People defending Andrew here, will you just stop 🤮

Of all the people in the world who are deserving of sympathy he most certainly is not one of them.

@Mummyoflittledragon
As far as being 17, if you are trafficked, age is irrelevant.
And in NY state she was below the age of consent

@Itsnotover

People defending Andrew here, will you just stop 🤮

Of all the people in the world who are deserving of sympathy he most certainly is not one of them.

You aren't the thread police. You don't get to dictate what people can and can't post.

I can't stand him, have no time for him at all. He's never chosen his friends well.

I believe the woman is being exploited yet again by old white men. I hear the sound of cash registers not justice.

I don't believe it happened as she says it did.

It's an opinion I'm allowed to hold.

@Dreamstate

Andrew isn't some normal person, he is a Royal. In terms of status this puts his above famous people and far more protected then normal people, not see easy for his life to be destroyed or for him to lose everything.

So what I still fail to see is why if your a decent person, would be friends with someone knowing they based underage children. Even before it finally came out, he visited and spent time with Eastern he would of seen it happening even if say its true he didn't participate himself.

What decent person would sit by and do nothing and not report it...would you sit by and do nothing? Given his status noone would be able to destroy his life. Even if he didn't want to speak up or couldn't why still stay friends? He doesn't need fame, power or money he already has those things.

Now when it all comes out he still stayed friends....

It doesn't make sense unless he believes his friend did no wrong, I dont get it

Because P.A is not remotely 'decent'. He isn't a so-called 'decent' man, he is an indolent, sponging, entitled old lech. If he was your Grandad or your FIL you'd be ashamed of him and avoid him like the plague. And yet there he is, a member of our Royal family who are - theoretically - supposed to be the emblem of our rich and illustrious history and culture what a load of bollocks that is though

He's never had a proper job, never worked for a living, was born into huge wealth and is so dumb and arrogant that he actually though he did a good job when Emily Maitliss allowed him to self destruct on national television. All those ludicrous denials in the face of incontrovertible evidence? Claiming he stuck by Epstein the convicted paedophile "because I'm too honourable"? the absolute tripe about "not being able to sweat"? What a load of insulting shite.

I for one really hope this is the beginning of the end for the Royal Family. I don't mind the Queen I suppose, but the rest of them do nothing really, do they? they are all tax-dodgers, users and spongers in some way.

@Roussette
Exactly. Over the age of consent here but not over there. True, there is no age limit to sex trafficking. But doesn’t that have to be proved that she was trafficked? Or is this considered a fact?

I’m asking if she will get further there due to the nature of her age. This is a civil suit afaik.

I’m presuming she will get further from NY than the U.K. based on US sentiments alone, so why wouldn’t she use whatever advantage she has?

Whatever happens the Queen’s reputation has been damaged. She has clearly been complicit in allowing him to keep his military ranks.

Even if he can’t technically be shown to have broken the law, his dealings with Epstein and others show that he doesn’t deserve any honours.

I understand that he is her son, but she has enough money, land and resources to support him in a very comfortable lifestyle as a private person. That should be enough.

Yes Mummyof so she should, I agree.

@KaptainKaveman
Yes agreed on that interview. What disdain he treats us all with. As IF we are all so stupid to believe the crap he came out with.
And what is so galling is... Emily Maitlis is on record as saying this...
Maitlis told Radio Times magazine the “penny dropped” about the importance of the interview in the editing suite with her programme’s editor, Esme Wren.

She said: “We’d assumed that he’d want to show empathy to the victims or pin the blame on Jeffrey Epstein. We couldn’t understand why he hadn’t done that. We definitely thought he’d be spikier.”

The interview had been a year in the planning and Maitlis said they could have opted for a shorter interview but held out for something more comprehensive.

She said within a few minutes of the interview beginning, she knew they had something “explosive”, adding: “First, he was tackling the subject matter head on.

“Secondly, the lack of apology or any real expression of regret told me that the prince still believed that his actions had broadly been the right ones.

“And thirdly, the level of detail was unlike anything I was expecting.”

What complete arrogance of the man. How dare he.
Apparently he told wider members of the family afterwards that the interview went 'jolly well'.
Thank god for SM because it would've been buried without very loud disgust from the general public through SM.

Does he though. It has not been proved yet. Since he divorced there have been no rumours of Prince Andrew putting it about wth anyone, never mind teenage girls.

Don’t know about rumours about specific people, but there have certainly been pictures.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/10367796/prince-andrew-party-girls-photos-saint-tropez/

@ThatSunnyCorner

It's quite grim that people actually want to think the worst of someone and not give them the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, this.

Imagine being trafficked to rich men as a young vulnerable girl, eventually being able to find the courage to speak up about it, then people don't give you 'the benefit of the doubt'.

Grim indeed.

👏👏👏👏👏