Prince Andrew Loses Military Titles
Gentleman Aviator
rattman
Of course. Even better as that would confirm time and date - even if the CP paid for it. (To be reimbursed of course.....)
Or a bank card statement, cant imagine he would be the kind of person to carry cash around
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or a bank card statement, cant imagine he would be the kind of person to carry cash around
There will be many information streams available that will enable those currently with access and an interest, to check Andrew’s version of events. Her Majesty will be one such party. Travel and medical records, plus the records of Andrew’s close protection officers being just a few examples. It seems possible to presume the Queen has acted on the basis of such information.
I believe the next stage in the legal process will be disclosure? In which each party must respond to requests for information from the other. At that point it should be relatively straightforward to determine whether the case is vexatious, or whether it might justify closer scrutiny?
I think the Queen’s actions, and those of Andrew’s legal team thus far, might suggest that, on the basis of what can already be determined, the allegations are not easily dismissed?
I rather suspect Andrew is in a situation that makes it difficult to disprove/discredit what is being alleged. I imagine there’s a chance he might not even try?
I believe the next stage in the legal process will be disclosure? In which each party must respond to requests for information from the other. At that point it should be relatively straightforward to determine whether the case is vexatious, or whether it might justify closer scrutiny?
I think the Queen’s actions, and those of Andrew’s legal team thus far, might suggest that, on the basis of what can already be determined, the allegations are not easily dismissed?
I rather suspect Andrew is in a situation that makes it difficult to disprove/discredit what is being alleged. I imagine there’s a chance he might not even try?
Jack
'[QUOTE=Just This Once...;11169555] Innocent, to a lower burden of proof in a civil court, whilst actively evading the courts, disclosure process, actually being 'served', using the Met Police as a shield and actually played 'the card' written by a convicted and deceased co-conspirator and claimed that it was effectively a get-out-of-jail for such an obvious defendant such as he, until proven liable for his acts.'
In an criminal court the conviction must be that the evidence points towards 'Beyond all reasonable doubt'. In a civil court, which I understand this trial will be, the evidence only has to go so far as 'On the balance of probabilities' Make your own mind up when you hear the evidence.
In an criminal court the conviction must be that the evidence points towards 'Beyond all reasonable doubt'. In a civil court, which I understand this trial will be, the evidence only has to go so far as 'On the balance of probabilities' Make your own mind up when you hear the evidence.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 61
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No sweat
I am not defending what he may or may not have done, but I will defend his statement about an inability to sweat - I have an inability to do so owing to a condition called Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris (other illnesses are available). It's bloody awful, you can't keep warm enough or cool enough. People who laughed that off are understandably ignorant as it affects only about one in half a million, but it's a little known medical condition that the Doc's are still trying to make sense of, with that in mind, that element of his argument may well be true. I agree that he has handled himself very poorly considering his position though.
Made be chuckle.
I do wonder if Her Majesty's recent decision is based on content of a Mummy/Son private chat? I cannot see her taking action if she was convinced of his innocence in all this.
Having watched the Emily Maitlis interview again, in light of the Epstein and Maxwell events, and the pending release of the list of sealed names... things really are not looking good for him.
I do wonder if Her Majesty's recent decision is based on content of a Mummy/Son private chat? I cannot see her taking action if she was convinced of his innocence in all this.
Having watched the Emily Maitlis interview again, in light of the Epstein and Maxwell events, and the pending release of the list of sealed names... things really are not looking good for him.
I am entirely ambivalent about his plight, but I am confused about what he's in trouble for - is bedding a girl who was 17 at the time and therefore old enough to make her own mind up, who subsequently boasted to her friends about bedding a prince, some sort of offence? I'm not talking about the moral aspect here, but it strikes me that it wasn't against her will and it wasn't in way illegal - What's the problem?
Drain Bamaged
I am entirely ambivalent about his plight, but I am confused about what he's in trouble for - is bedding a girl who was 17 at the time and therefore old enough to make her own mind up, who subsequently boasted to her friends about bedding a prince, some sort of offence? I'm not talking about the moral aspect here, but it strikes me that it wasn't against her will and it wasn't in way illegal - What's the problem?
I aught to be a lawyer ;-).
From what I gather, the liaison in question occured in the UK, to which the alleged victim travelled voluntarily. Whilst the whole thing is morally extremely grubby, I really don't see what 'offence' has been committed. If Andrew turns round and say, "Yes alright, I did s**g her, I knew she was 17, but she was keen," what does that mean as far as the law is concerned? Nothing as far as I know.
From what I gather, the liaison in question occured in the UK, to which the alleged victim travelled voluntarily. Whilst the whole thing is morally extremely grubby, I really don't see what 'offence' has been committed. If Andrew turns round and say, "Yes alright, I did s**g her, I knew she was 17, but she was keen," what does that mean as far as the law is concerned? Nothing as far as I know.
I aught to be a lawyer ;-).
From what I gather, the liaison in question occured in the UK, to which the alleged victim travelled voluntarily. Whilst the whole thing is morally extremely grubby, I really don't see what 'offence' has been committed. If Andrew turns round and say, "Yes alright, I did s**g her, I knew she was 17, but she was keen," what does that mean as far as the law is concerned? Nothing as far as I know.
From what I gather, the liaison in question occured in the UK, to which the alleged victim travelled voluntarily. Whilst the whole thing is morally extremely grubby, I really don't see what 'offence' has been committed. If Andrew turns round and say, "Yes alright, I did s**g her, I knew she was 17, but she was keen," what does that mean as far as the law is concerned? Nothing as far as I know.
- States where the age of consent is 16 : Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,[a]Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,[b]Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.
- States where the age of consent is 17 : Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, and Wyoming.
- States where the age of consent is 18): Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas,[c]Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,911 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
I’m surprised he hasn’t tried the diplomatic immunity route, he has tried everything else, I’m also surprised he hasn’t brought up the mowing down of the lad on a bike and the US’s complicity in evading justice as a distraction.
I do wonder who else is in the wings awaiting for their turn, and who else may end up in the dock.
I do wonder who else is in the wings awaiting for their turn, and who else may end up in the dock.
His continued friendship with Epstein and Maxwell doesn't do him a lot of good either.
From what I gather, the liaison in question occured in the UK, to which the alleged victim travelled voluntarily. Whilst the whole thing is morally extremely grubby, I really don't see what 'offence' has been committed. If Andrew turns round and say, "Yes alright, I did s**g her, I knew she was 17, but she was keen," what does that mean as far as the law is concerned? Nothing as far as I know.
I don't think it is an "age of consent" issue but one of "she didn't willingly consent" issue. Trafficked by Maxwell and Epstein for the pleasure of their rich and influential friends.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,911 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
They’re after his Dukedom now as well, I do hope it’s catching and they strip the bearded wonder of his as well.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-59987648
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-59987648