Time to either prosecute Andrew or forget him.

[Bougainsillier]

Firstly let me say I am in NO way defending him; hes clearly completely awful in so many ways. Finally stripped of all titles and position, and dumped over in Norfolk, but still not charged with or found guilty of any crime.

But it’s starting to feel like he’s being tried by the press now to sell stories. Isn’t there enough evidence to prosecute? Is there a cover up? Or can we just leave him to himself now? It’s news headlines endlessly…

Mandelson in the other hand is another matter..

If punishment is an all-expenses paid gorgeous country mansion with a full staff and stables, you mean.

There are people in this country who have maintained high moral standards their whole life and live in poverty and pain and desperation.

It’s a topsy-turvy world where privilege and lineage allows you to do whatever you please and you’re “punished” with a more gorgeous and carefree existence than 90% of us plebs can even dream of.

I hope William casts him loose because it looks as though Charlie won't. Liz babied him and should have been ashamed of herself paying money to try and shut Virginia Guiffre up. Typical rich persons attitude. It's not that long ago that the royals thought us plebs didn't feel and hurt or emotion. It seems they still do.

This is why Lownie suggested that the focus should be on prosecuting AMW for his alleged financial crimes. There is plenty of evidence available. Lownie has an entire file full of information that he couldn’t put in the book that is available for the NCA should they be interested. And there are pages of information alluded to in the book itself that could be investigated. And it has to be someone independent of the RF doing the investigating.

Steps could be taken ro ensure it’s not a show trial.

Sure, it would be so much easier for everyone involved if the USA investigates AMW, but imho, it’s all too convenient to suggest that nothing can be done here,

For a start, there is all of the information emanating from the High Court Selman Turk trial in 2022. High Court evidence is surely of a sufficiently high standard to use to launch an investigation?

All of those payments of thousands of pounds paid in to AMW’s personal Coutts account for alleged nefarious as yet unproven reasons related to Pitch@Palace work. And the alleged possible acquisition of a passport as yet unproven.

Alleged payments from a Libyan gun smuggler who was allegedly invited to St James’s Palace. That certainly warrants investigation.

The payments to Sarah Ferguson’s accounts allegedly from Turk’s company Alphabet Capital about which one of the solicitors involved in the case stated in an affidavit that there was “strong evidence” it was a front used to make payments to his associates and those people alleged included AMW and SF. What he allegedly received in return for these alleged payments would be of legitimate interest to an investigation.

The fact that Turk was allegedly living in a multi-million pound flat in the Crown Estate at the time is also of interest,

All of the accounts of Pitch@Palace are presumably available for investigation? Lownie certainly seems to have sound sources willing to fill in details.

What about AMW’s alleged relationship with David Rowland and his son Jonathan and their alleged trips to Azerbaijan? What about their alleged business ventures in the ME and alleged trip to meet Colonel Gaddifi in Libya?

Lownie refers to a copy of a Foreign Office diplomatic cable , intended for government eyes only, allegedly passed from Amanda Thirsk to Rowland, allegedly detailing AMW’s
alleged conversations with Chinese politician; information that Lownie states is still not in the public domain.

What has happened about the Met investigation in to AMW’s alleged attempt to use his publically funded protection contacts to allegedly dig up information to discredit Giuffre? Presumably that information is available?

There is pages and pages of this sort of information in Entitled and available elsewhere, which hints at serious corruption, none of which suggests to me that a prosecution would flounder.

The fact is that plenty of evidence exists, but the will to investigate does not.

And we all know why.

I will personally NEVER tire of being reminded of his heinous, treacherous, revolting behaviour whilst occupying public office and a position of extreme unchecked privilege. There will be no charges brought because he is royalty - don’t you understand? He is protected.

If we are reminded daily of his abuses until he dies, I wouldn’t mind reading about it and I’d continue to feel angry every day.

I want him to finally feel some tiny measure of accountability. Why should he slink away to his luxury estate and be permitted to lick his wounds in private? It should be public shaming every day, for as long as the public can stomach it. He should die with the shame squarely on his mind.

There's something called trust, and the girls and their parents trusted a rich woman from England that their daughters were beautiful and would gain modelling jobs if they travelled with her.
I'm not saying I'd do that, but it isn't their fault that Gislaine was an evil lying snake in the grass

At best the Queen thought Giuffre was a vicious little money-grabbing slut spreading salacious rumours and lies to cause trouble and milk hush-money from the Crown. At worst the Queen knew she was a damaged, vulnerable young girl who had been tangled up with some horrific sex criminals and her son not only knew about it but enjoyed participating in ways too dark to contemplate. Either way, the Crown behaved appallingly.

Because two wrongs make a right.

From a purely legal point of view, if the evidence that was referenced but not detailed in Entitled was cast iron, wouldn't Lownie have listed it in full? My understanding is that sometimes authors can't use information because they can't back it up legally. I haven't read the book so happy to be corrected but I wondered if that was happening here.

Andrew’s defenders won’t accept this no matter how many times it’s pointed out. So annoying.

Yes, and sometimes it's what's not said that is glaringly obvious. Because I've seen it on Andrew threads before.
Virginia Guiffre has been maligned on here in the past. But today, there is cast iron proof the photo is real, for instance.
How dare Andrew rubbish it repeatedly in that interview.

'No recollection of that photo being taken'

followed by a load of bullshit about it
Not my hand
I always wear a suit and tie
I have never been upstairs in Ghislaine's property
I am not one to hug or do public displays of affection
I don't believe that photo has been taken in the way it has been suggested
I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened.

We now know how much he lied in that interview. Public knowledge.

I think the law changed and it wasn't at the time. I don't know if it's true but I read it somewhere. Someone might know.

It's upthread from @Serenster

In relation to Virginia Giuffre, Sections 57-59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced offences around trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation. I bolded 2003 because the date is important here: that was after Virginia alleged Andrew and she had sex. So this matter would be looked at based on the law as it was before the Sexual Offences 2003 was enacted. Before 2003, the impact of trafficking on consent was not considered, and it is not retrospective.

Another point to note is that prior to 2003 there was a defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant - that has now been abolished. But that is relevant to assessing whether you could successfully prosecute Andrew for a sexual offence that occurred in 2001 with a 17 year old. I think the CPS and the Police would consider that to be a case that has a lot of uncertainty.

I not sure. I assume that Lownie has information that he was happy to put in the book because he had researched it thoroughly but, the info having been assessed by lawyers, his publishers weren’t willing to take the same risk. For example, I believe Lownie had information on Mandelsohn that has now come in to the public domain and he can include in the paperback if he deems it relevant. I imagine he has similar information on AMW.

Maybe he was happy but the publishers didn't want to take the risk? That makes sense to me. They can't have predicted the timing of the book and then the files being released. If he has further evidence though I hope he gives it to the police.

Agreed. Hence why I said I can’t imagine a jury would give him any benefit of the doubt now. They are almost certain to believe he and Virginia met and had sex. But because this happened in 2001, the fact that she was trafficked isn’t relevant. The key fact will be whether Andrew believed she had consented. At the time his belief could have been mistaken, and objectively unreasonable, but if he had believed Virginia consented to sex, he has a defence.

Here’s what Virginia herself said:

In the years since, I’ve thought a lot about how he behaved. He was friendly enough, but still entitled – as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright. I drew him a hot bath. We disrobed and got in the tub, but didn’t stay there long because the prince was eager to get to the bed. He was particularly attentive to my feet, caressing my toes and licking my arches. That was a first for me, and it tickled. I was nervous he would want me to do the same to him. But I needn’t have worried. He seemed in a rush to have intercourse. Afterward, he said thank you in his clipped British accent. In my memory, the whole thing lasted less than half an hour.

I think it very likely Andrew would be found to have mistakenly believed Virginia consented on that account, and she was over the age of consent, and under UK law at the time was considered capable of consenting.

The doen’t mean any of this is right. Look at the photos taken of Virginia at the time - she looks like a young teenager. She is clearly not an adult. She says Andrew established she was about the same age as his daughters. But there is an always has been a distance between what is morally acceptable behaviour, and what is illegal behaviour. This is shown here.

It’s been said upthread by me and others, but you are wrong about this.

(I am not an Andrew defender by the way, but getting the legal position correct matters)

Beautifully put, but then the "all" very likely explains why so much about Andrew is still being withheld - doubly so if other members of the RF are involved

As far as I understand it, Lownie has offered, and is still offering, this information to the police, but no one is taking!

What? Sorry but.... The police isn't taking any info? What?

I have lost count of the amount of times I’ve read ‘I’m not and Andrew defender’ before or after the person defends Andrew.

And who actually defends Andrew? What sane person spends their energy justifying a man who has no charm, no important public service record, and is featured in a three-million-page Epstein file? It’s not like they’re protecting a beloved national icon; they’re defending a man who was literally seen being driven away from Windsor under the cover of darkness this week because he’s a liability. Starting a post with "I'm not a defender" while proceeding to do exactly that just shows they know it’s indefensible. If you have to disclaim your own argument before you even make it, you already know you’ve lost the moral high ground. Why the spin? It's just bizarre.

Serenster is giving the legal position, which is relevant.

I suspect she hates Andrew as much as the rest of us!

And who actually defends Andrew? What sane person spends their energy justifying a man who has no charm, no important public service record, and is featured in a three-million-page Epstein file?

@Musicalchef I don’t know.
Where have you seen this? On this thread?

I wonder - seriously - whether " my mum said I could/ told me to" would be a defense, where, for " mum", substitute " The Head of State".