Prince Andrew, the pedo and corroborated allegations

13»

Comments

  • Isn't PA of the type to have Downton Abbey style country house parties and shooting parties at places owned by people more friends if 3 friends?

    Whatever the situation is there's an allegation that's been denied. Without investigation there's no criminally, legal case possible. This trial by media is a sick modern era problem imho. I think instead of media interviews this should be dealt with by the relevant law and order authorities.

    If there's a criminal investigation into these allegations and PA is considered a potential witness then there's always a mechanism for carrying out an interview. Most likely with US investigators coming over here to conduct it.

    Right now what have we got? Trial by media. Imho that's wrong. As far as I'm concerned he's not guilty of any crime until proven. If he's arrested, charged and extradited for trial I'll probably make an ill- informed judgement on his guilt then. Right now I think it's a bit too early days for that.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498

    John has form on topics like this.

    He's also of the 'if you wear a skirt and are out on your own you're asking for it' genre of men.

    There are plenty of men like that .... wearing a skirt and out on their own - don't fancy John's chances mind ;)
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965

    Isn't PA of the type to have Downton Abbey style country house parties and shooting parties at places owned by people more friends if 3 friends?

    Whatever the situation is there's an allegation that's been denied. Without investigation there's no criminally, legal case possible. This trial by media is a sick modern era problem imho. I think instead of media interviews this should be dealt with by the relevant law and order authorities.

    If there's a criminal investigation into these allegations and PA is considered a potential witness then there's always a mechanism for carrying out an interview. Most likely with US investigators coming over here to conduct it.

    Right now what have we got? Trial by media. Imho that's wrong. As far as I'm concerned he's not guilty of any crime until proven. If he's arrested, charged and extradited for trial I'll probably make an ill- informed judgement on his guilt then. Right now I think it's a bit too early days for that.

    You need to fit in more by stating that there is no smoke without fire and that you would never under no circumstances meet, speak to or subsequently admit that you knew a person who has been convicted and then served their sentence exists. Good news for many on this topic is that Epstein is pushing up daisies so they cannot fall foul of their high principles. Still need to hang Andrew though because he did not follow this sage advice.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965

    John has form on topics like this.

    He's also of the 'if you wear a skirt and are out on your own you're asking for it' genre of men.

    Sorry Rick i should have just believed every word a victim says as per your lead. When you were presented with evidence of a number of cases where women were found to have not been entirely truthful of their account you still preferred trial by media. Thankfully we still have a functioning police and criminal courts system to counteract your wishes.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965

    Maybe I'm wrong but I thought at least one woman has alleged she was coerced into having sex with Andrew in the UK?

    In any case this is a bit more than him using his wealth and status to pull much younger women - that's how some of you are presenting it. Epstein has been convicted of some serious offences and there are plenty saying that was the tip of the ice berg. Andrew has been accused of being party to that and I think any neutral would look at the evidence and conclude it's likely she's telling the truth. Why else would he have stayed at the house, he claims not to have been a great friend, this "too honourable" excuse is utterly unconvincing, I mean come on it may not be beyond reasonable doubt but it looks extremely suspicious and his tv interview only made it appear more so.

    Thankfully courts are looking for a bit more than your gut feel based on limited information.
  • tonysj
    tonysj Posts: 391
    Coming from a Law and police background i know how difficult it is to get people before a court to answer charges. Through my work experience I have to say with the allegations and his obvious knowledge of Epstein then there is a case that he should be interviewed to clarify his involvement. Do I think this is ever likely to happen. No it won't as he's a member of the Royal family and has to many connections so eventually this little "inconvenience" will go away.
    I was once asked if I had any faith in our police. I answered that if I had my house burgled I had faith it would be recorded correctly. But I had no faith in it being investigated properly.
    That unfortunately is where we are in this country at this time. Very sad!!!
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    Not sure what your point is John, as you point out, this isn't a court so Andrew coming across as extremely dodgy doesn't mean he will be convicted. All that has happened so far is someone has alleged they were forced to sleep with him and he said it couldn't possibly have been him. If he has committed a crime then we have to trust law enforcement to do something about it.

    Whether I think he is a sex offender or not is pretty irrelevant to the legal case, but that doesn't stop people discussing the publicly held information on internet forums. A lot of people find it unpalatable that Andrew was friends with someone so brazenly involved in trafficking underage girls for sex, perfectly understandable whether you agree or not.

    It's pretty hypocritical to say people aren't allowed to speculate and to wait for some sort of criminal case, then also advocate Isis bride never being allowed back to face any sort of justice or trial because public opinion says no.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,615
    john80 said:

    John has form on topics like this.

    He's also of the 'if you wear a skirt and are out on your own you're asking for it' genre of men.

    Sorry Rick i should have just believed every word a victim says as per your lead. When you were presented with evidence of a number of cases where women were found to have not been entirely truthful of their account you still preferred trial by media. Thankfully we still have a functioning police and criminal courts system to counteract your wishes.
    Always willing to give the (alleged) male perpetrator the benefit of the doubt but never the (alleged) female victim.

    I don't think I've ever seen you do it the other way around.
  • Is that a fair way around though?

    Court process is innocent until proven guilty. I believe the general public should follow that. This doesn't mean you can't believe the accuser just that they have the burden of proof on their side not the accused side.

    Unfortunately court of public opinion never works like that. On first accusation there's a tendency to believe the accuser over the accused even without a trace of real evidence or corroboration. It's the human prejudice I guess.

    My tendency is to rebel against mainstream public opinion in such cases. I dislike attempts by accusers or their representatives to court public sympathy. If you've been a victim why go public? Why not put all that energy and fight into helping the legal system go after your alleged abuser? I'm not saying her allegations aren't true just her methods aren't right imho.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,615

    Is that a fair way around though?

    Why not put all that energy and fight into helping the legal system go after your alleged abuser? I'm not saying her allegations aren't true just her methods aren't right imho.

    Well given the amount of abuse accusers get, it's usually a last resort.

    So, when it is public, you might want to wonder why that may be. Take a look at prosecution rates and stats around how many go to court in the first place (and what happens to women who do) and you should, if you're not a misogynist, re-think your position.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498


    My tendency is to rebel against mainstream public opinion in such cases. I dislike attempts by accusers or their representatives to court public sympathy.

    I tend to do similar.

    If you've been a victim why go public? Why not put all that energy and fight into helping the legal system go after your alleged abuser? I'm not saying her allegations aren't true just her methods aren't right imho.

    IIRC - she'd reported the alleged incident correctly years ago - but nothing happened? These days, it's much easier to "Go Public" and "Me Too" movement has the effect of enabling those who (feel they may) have been abused to come forward.

    Personally my view is that this should've been pushed back to the police in the first instance, but, we've read on here about police unwilling to follow up on crimes even with all the evidence handed to them on a plate (granted, a lot less serious) - so it doesn't surprise me that these things end up in the media seemingly first.

    If PA knowingly participated in such events (not the dancing with extreme sweat - unpleasant it may be, but illegal it isn't AFAIK) - then he should take the flak - but, with PA's denials, it's up to the prosecution to prove the case - or up to his family/advisers to get him to come clean (if the allegations are true of course.) Unfortunately, all this media coverage just tarnishes him, regardless of the actual facts.

  • Is that a fair way around though?

    Why not put all that energy and fight into helping the legal system go after your alleged abuser? I'm not saying her allegations aren't true just her methods aren't right imho.

    Well given the amount of abuse accusers get, it's usually a last resort.

    So, when it is public, you might want to wonder why that may be. Take a look at prosecution rates and stats around how many go to court in the first place (and what happens to women who do) and you should, if you're not a misogynist, re-think your position.
    Oh I know the UK figures over rape convictions running at 3%. Compare with India's 27% conviction rate. Aiui those figures come from sources like amnesty international or rape or other human rights organisations.

    I also read that the police looked into her allegations and didn't find enough evidence to proceed.

    I'm not disputing abuse cases or alleged abuse cases aren't difficult. The me too campaign is helping. Cases like him Saville helped victims get heard and cases investigated with child abuse. I believe me too is doing the same positive work. But everything needs to be investigated and to go through due process unfortunately that will lead to cases getting dropped due to lack of a good case or even innocence of the accused. It's a process that needs improving but you have to balance rights. Get it wrong either way and miscarriages can happen. Public vilification of people isn't going to improve the situation over rape and abuse investigation.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,490
    john80 said:

    Good news for many on this topic is that Epstein is pushing up daisies so they cannot fall foul of their high principles.

    Why would they fall foul of their high principles of he were still alive? He was convicted of the crimes people are talking about.

    Whilst I hate the whole trial by media / social media epidemic you seem to be missing the point that Roberts did report the alleged offences to the police originally.

  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    What's the alternative? Why shouldn't Roberts be allowed to speak?

    On balance I'd prefer these sorts of stories to be reported on (with some sort of journalistic due diligence) than not. It might not be a pretty sight but in some circumstances it is of public interest.

    Elton John's case is an interesting one, I don't know the ins and outs but he apparently wasn't guilty of anything, successfully cleared his name and sued the sh*t out of them. I don't think many people think less of him these days?

    The public are perfectly within their rights to listen to both parties speak and decide who is telling the truth even if there isn't enough evidence for a conviction.

    If I or someone I know was a victim of a crime and the police didn't take it seriously I'd be more than happy to put my side of the story in the public domain.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    haydenm said:

    Elton John's case is an interesting one, I don't know the ins and outs but he apparently wasn't guilty of anything, successfully cleared his name and sued the sh*t out of them. I don't think many people think less of him these days?

    Yer - but he writes and performs a pretty good tune ...
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965

    john80 said:

    John has form on topics like this.

    He's also of the 'if you wear a skirt and are out on your own you're asking for it' genre of men.

    Sorry Rick i should have just believed every word a victim says as per your lead. When you were presented with evidence of a number of cases where women were found to have not been entirely truthful of their account you still preferred trial by media. Thankfully we still have a functioning police and criminal courts system to counteract your wishes.
    Always willing to give the (alleged) male perpetrator the benefit of the doubt but never the (alleged) female victim.

    I don't think I've ever seen you do it the other way around.
    Whilst I am sure there are a lot of men claiming to have been raped by women in your imaginary world unfortunately the stats do not back this up. Given that rape is defined as the penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth using their you guessed it penis it is pretty much impossible for a female to rape a man. It is therefore hard to offer any benefit of the doubt to females under this scenario. I have not seen many cases of sexual assault carried out my females against males to get all frothing at the mouth about either. Maybe you can find some examples of this burning injustice in your spare time.

    You will find there is a common theme in that I give the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt until someone proves something in a court of law. This admittedly is not in the spirit of Bikeradar where any victim was definitely telling the truth regardless of how little evidence is provided.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    Pross said:

    john80 said:

    Good news for many on this topic is that Epstein is pushing up daisies so they cannot fall foul of their high principles.

    Why would they fall foul of their high principles of he were still alive? He was convicted of the crimes people are talking about.

    Whilst I hate the whole trial by media / social media epidemic you seem to be missing the point that Roberts did report the alleged offences to the police originally.

    They might have had a mundane interaction with Epstein and by the logic of this forum they would be as guilty as he is. It is logic of Bikeradar. Question the logic at your peril. I stayed at a sailing event recently in dorm rooms with people that I only knew through a shared interest. I am currently praying that none of them have a prior conviction or do anything in future or I will have to defend ever spending time in their company when completely unaware of their entire life history or inner thoughts.
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    john80 said:

    Good news for many on this topic is that Epstein is pushing up daisies so they cannot fall foul of their high principles.

    Why would they fall foul of their high principles of he were still alive? He was convicted of the crimes people are talking about.

    Whilst I hate the whole trial by media / social media epidemic you seem to be missing the point that Roberts did report the alleged offences to the police originally.

    They might have had a mundane interaction with Epstein and by the logic of this forum they would be as guilty as he is. It is logic of Bikeradar. Question the logic at your peril. I stayed at a sailing event recently in dorm rooms with people that I only knew through a shared interest. I am currently praying that none of them have a prior conviction or do anything in future or I will have to defend ever spending time in their company when completely unaware of their entire life history or inner thoughts.
    Lets hope you didn't fly on their private jet on multiple occasions to stay in their house where they systematically abused kids for 20 years hey.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    haydenm said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    john80 said:

    Good news for many on this topic is that Epstein is pushing up daisies so they cannot fall foul of their high principles.

    Why would they fall foul of their high principles of he were still alive? He was convicted of the crimes people are talking about.

    Whilst I hate the whole trial by media / social media epidemic you seem to be missing the point that Roberts did report the alleged offences to the police originally.

    They might have had a mundane interaction with Epstein and by the logic of this forum they would be as guilty as he is. It is logic of Bikeradar. Question the logic at your peril. I stayed at a sailing event recently in dorm rooms with people that I only knew through a shared interest. I am currently praying that none of them have a prior conviction or do anything in future or I will have to defend ever spending time in their company when completely unaware of their entire life history or inner thoughts.
    Lets hope you didn't fly on their private jet on multiple occasions to stay in their house where they systematically abused kids for 20 years hey.
    Its a sailing event where contrary to popular belief none of us have a private jet. Disapointing i know.
  • slowmart
    slowmart Posts: 4,480
    Let’s hope the Judge hearing the case on Monday finds the court papers have been served.

    Regardless of your individual legal rights would not a reasonable person have assisted law enforcement in a matter as serious as trafficking minors for sex?

    Mind you his older brother was apparently unaware of gifts of £1.5 million to his various pet projects wasn’t a quid pro quo for honours? Seems like the met are dragging their feet on this potential breach of law.

    “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”

    Desmond Tutu
  • slowmart said:

    Let’s hope the Judge hearing the case on Monday finds the court papers have been served.

    Regardless of your individual legal rights would not a reasonable person have assisted law enforcement in a matter as serious as trafficking minors for sex?

    Mind you his older brother was apparently unaware of gifts of £1.5 million to his various pet projects wasn’t a quid pro quo for honours? Seems like the met are dragging their feet on this potential breach of law.

    It can not possibly be illegal to give or accept bungs for honours.
  • slowmart
    slowmart Posts: 4,480



    It can not possibly be illegal to give or accept bungs for honours.

    Are you a Prince of the realm?

    There appears to be prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act




    “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”

    Desmond Tutu
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,490
    edited September 2021
    slowmart said:

    It can not possibly be illegal to give or accept bungs for honours.

    Are you a Prince of the realm?

    There appears to be prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act

    I assume SC's point is that a huge number of honours are handed out via Government recommendation to people who have done something for the Party in power and no-one ever gets arrested for it?
  • Pross said:

    slowmart said:


    It can not possibly be illegal to give or accept bungs for honours.
    Are you a Prince of the realm?

    There appears to be prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act






    I assume SC's point is that a huge number of honours are handed out via Government recommendation to people who have done something for the Party in power and no-one ever gets arrested for it?

    Exactly, it would be like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500
  • Pross said:

    slowmart said:


    It can not possibly be illegal to give or accept bungs for honours.
    Are you a Prince of the realm?

    There appears to be prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act




    I assume SC's point is that a huge number of honours are handed out via Government recommendation to people who have done something for the Party in power and no-one ever gets arrested for it?

    Exactly, it would be like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500

    He (Andrew) joined the forces..... and after that, his ideas, became, unsound....
  • Pross said:

    slowmart said:


    It can not possibly be illegal to give or accept bungs for honours.
    Are you a Prince of the realm?

    There appears to be prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act




    I assume SC's point is that a huge number of honours are handed out via Government recommendation to people who have done something for the Party in power and no-one ever gets arrested for it?
    Exactly, it would be like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500

    He (Andrew) joined the forces..... and after that, his ideas, became, unsound....

    very good
  • Pross said:

    slowmart said:


    It can not possibly be illegal to give or accept bungs for honours.
    Are you a Prince of the realm?

    There appears to be prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act




    I assume SC's point is that a huge number of honours are handed out via Government recommendation to people who have done something for the Party in power and no-one ever gets arrested for it?
    Exactly, it would be like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500
    He (Andrew) joined the forces..... and after that, his ideas, became, unsound....

    very good

    Never get out of the boat.
  • Pross said:

    slowmart said:


    It can not possibly be illegal to give or accept bungs for honours.
    Are you a Prince of the realm?

    There appears to be prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act




    I assume SC's point is that a huge number of honours are handed out via Government recommendation to people who have done something for the Party in power and no-one ever gets arrested for it?
    Exactly, it would be like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500
    He (Andrew) joined the forces..... and after that, his ideas, became, unsound....
    very good

    Never get out of the boat.

    even better