The Royals
Comments
-
I don't think that is specific to the potential perpetrators being royal. You'll be aware of the rape conviction rate. Rotherham also springs to mind.rick_chasey said:
I think a lack of willingness to investigate on part of the authorities and substantial additional pressure and scrutiny on any witnesses or defendantsrjsterry said:
So you say, I'm just asking what you are basing that on beyond deeper pockets. It's not as though it comes up very often.rick_chasey said:
If you think it is as easy to prosecute a British royal as it is a normal British citizens then you're being quite naïve.rjsterry said:
I'm not sure what evidence you have to support this. If you just mean that wealthy people can afford better lawyers, then sure.rick_chasey said:Anyway, the issue isn't so much the ins and outs of the technicalities of the evidence, the issue is more because of his (unearned) status there is a higher bar to clear to get someone like him convicted for things like this.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition2 -
That's not the legal test of guilt (in a criminal case).rick_chasey said:
He's not a nonce because I say he is. I'm saying he's a nonce because he most likely is. Comprende?TheBigBean said:
How does it compare with Rick says he is, so he is?rick_chasey said:Lol ok mate. Would suggest this not being a hill to die on.
*he's not in prison so he's not a nonce* is not the great argument you think it is.0 -
Sorry I meant aside from Maxwell and Epstein.rjsterry said:
Ghislaine Maxwell is facing criminal charges (again). Epstein was actually convicted. Those are both greater 'comeuppance' than reaching a civil settlement.Jezyboy said:How many people have been brought down by Epstein? Given he was seemingly operating a ring for lots of high profile people, it seems that only Prince Andrew has (so far) faced any kind of comeuppance.
The only way he could have cleared his name in the court of public opinion was to get this case in court and clear his name. He's clearly decided that the case wasn't strong enough, regardless of whether the original photo is lost or not.
0 -
Good job it's a forum and not a court thenPross said:
That's not the legal test of guilt (in a criminal case).rick_chasey said:
He's not a nonce because I say he is. I'm saying he's a nonce because he most likely is. Comprende?TheBigBean said:
How does it compare with Rick says he is, so he is?rick_chasey said:Lol ok mate. Would suggest this not being a hill to die on.
*he's not in prison so he's not a nonce* is not the great argument you think it is.
I like how some people get all uppity because they want to pretend we're all in court. As if people behave the same regardless of context.0 -
It's how civilised countries operate.rick_chasey said:
Good job it's a forum and not a court thenPross said:
That's not the legal test of guilt (in a criminal case).rick_chasey said:
He's not a nonce because I say he is. I'm saying he's a nonce because he most likely is. Comprende?TheBigBean said:
How does it compare with Rick says he is, so he is?rick_chasey said:Lol ok mate. Would suggest this not being a hill to die on.
*he's not in prison so he's not a nonce* is not the great argument you think it is.
I like how some people get all uppity because they want to pretend we're all in court. As if people behave the same regardless of context.0 -
I don't get why people even think the photo is that damning. How many hundreds / thousands of people would he have met and had his photo taken with over the years and would he be expected to remember them all? What I don't get is why he didn't say 'the photo appears to show that I did meet her but I can't recall it and I certainly never has sex with her'.
To join Rick's game of guessing guilt from media reports I would say on the balance of probability he had sex with her but may or may not have known she was under age (in the US) and / or trafficked or doing so in any way against her will. However, from the information I've seen / read I don't think I could find guilty beyond reasonable doubt that would be required for a criminal conviction.
I would echo what most others seem to have said, the guy is a complete sleaze and shouldbe removed permanently from public life and any public funding so I certainly don't have any sympathy for him. His attempts at a defence show how divorced he is from reality.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Good job it's a forum and not a court thenPross said:
That's not the legal test of guilt (in a criminal case).rick_chasey said:
He's not a nonce because I say he is. I'm saying he's a nonce because he most likely is. Comprende?TheBigBean said:
How does it compare with Rick says he is, so he is?rick_chasey said:Lol ok mate. Would suggest this not being a hill to die on.
*he's not in prison so he's not a nonce* is not the great argument you think it is.
I like how some people get all uppity because they want to pretend we're all in court. As if people behave the same regardless of context.
Nobody is getting uppity. We're just asking for something more persuasive than 'well obviously he is, coz, y'know? Stands to reason dunnit?'.rick_chasey said:
Good job it's a forum and not a court thenPross said:
That's not the legal test of guilt (in a criminal case).rick_chasey said:
He's not a nonce because I say he is. I'm saying he's a nonce because he most likely is. Comprende?TheBigBean said:
How does it compare with Rick says he is, so he is?rick_chasey said:Lol ok mate. Would suggest this not being a hill to die on.
*he's not in prison so he's not a nonce* is not the great argument you think it is.
I like how some people get all uppity because they want to pretend we're all in court. As if people behave the same regardless of context.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition2 -
Yes, but I doubt a wealthy private individual would have settled.mrb123 said:
If he'd been some average Joe without large financial resources it probably wouldn't have been worth her while even pursuing the civil case.TheBigBean said:
I doubt a private individual would have settled the case with her.rick_chasey said:Anyway, the issue isn't so much the ins and outs of the technicalities of the evidence, the issue is more because of his (unearned) status there is a higher bar to clear to get someone like him convicted for things like this.
0 -
Perhaps not publicly, but if they have half a brain they would have settled long before the matter became public.TheBigBean said:
Yes, but I doubt a wealthy private individual would have settled.mrb123 said:
If he'd been some average Joe without large financial resources it probably wouldn't have been worth her while even pursuing the civil case.TheBigBean said:
I doubt a private individual would have settled the case with her.rick_chasey said:Anyway, the issue isn't so much the ins and outs of the technicalities of the evidence, the issue is more because of his (unearned) status there is a higher bar to clear to get someone like him convicted for things like this.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You were stating he was a nonce as fact rather than saying it was your opinion. You then downgraded that to 'because he most likely is'. Maybe word your posts better?rick_chasey said:
Good job it's a forum and not a court thenPross said:
That's not the legal test of guilt (in a criminal case).rick_chasey said:
He's not a nonce because I say he is. I'm saying he's a nonce because he most likely is. Comprende?TheBigBean said:
How does it compare with Rick says he is, so he is?rick_chasey said:Lol ok mate. Would suggest this not being a hill to die on.
*he's not in prison so he's not a nonce* is not the great argument you think it is.
I like how some people get all uppity because they want to pretend we're all in court. As if people behave the same regardless of context.0 -
The grand Old Duke of York
He had 12 million quid
He gave it to someone he never met
For something he never did
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!4 -
And when he was hot he was hot
but sweat he did not he did not
but when it was time for an alibi
Pizza Express was the best he got2 -
Your first paragraph mirrors what I’ve previously said here. Completely agree that he’s no doubt been photographed with thousands of people over the years and he cannot possibly be expected to remember each and every person.Pross said:I don't get why people even think the photo is that damning. How many hundreds / thousands of people would he have met and had his photo taken with over the years and would he be expected to remember them all? What I don't get is why he didn't say 'the photo appears to show that I did meet her but I can't recall it and I certainly never has sex with her'.
To join Rick's game of guessing guilt from media reports I would say on the balance of probability he had sex with her but may or may not have known she was under age (in the US) and / or trafficked or doing so in any way against her will. However, from the information I've seen / read I don't think I could find guilty beyond reasonable doubt that would be required for a criminal conviction.
I would echo what most others seem to have said, the guy is a complete sleaze and shouldbe removed permanently from public life and any public funding so I certainly don't have any sympathy for him. His attempts at a defence show how divorced he is from reality.
I also believe he probably did have sex with her, but she was over the age of consent in the UK so no issue UNLESS it was against her will and/or she was being sex trafficked. I don’t know what actual evidence there is of her being sex trafficked tbh.
He is definitely a complete sleaze, who has a hugely inflated view of his own importance, so seeing him brought down to size and have him humiliated is good to see.0 -
kingstonian said:
Your first paragraph mirrors what I’ve previously said here. Completely agree that he’s no doubt been photographed with thousands of people over the years and he cannot possibly be expected to remember each and every person.Pross said:I don't get why people even think the photo is that damning. How many hundreds / thousands of people would he have met and had his photo taken with over the years and would he be expected to remember them all? What I don't get is why he didn't say 'the photo appears to show that I did meet her but I can't recall it and I certainly never has sex with her'.
To join Rick's game of guessing guilt from media reports I would say on the balance of probability he had sex with her but may or may not have known she was under age (in the US) and / or trafficked or doing so in any way against her will. However, from the information I've seen / read I don't think I could find guilty beyond reasonable doubt that would be required for a criminal conviction.
I would echo what most others seem to have said, the guy is a complete sleaze and shouldbe removed permanently from public life and any public funding so I certainly don't have any sympathy for him. His attempts at a defence show how divorced he is from reality.
I also believe he probably did have sex with her, but she was over the age of consent in the UK so no issue UNLESS it was against her will and/or she was being sex trafficked. I don’t know what actual evidence there is of her being sex trafficked tbh.
He is definitely a complete sleaze, who has a hugely inflated view of his own importance, so seeing him brought down to size and have him humiliated is good to see.
This is the fundamental issue with this case. She was over 16 and therefore it is not statutory rape for the London case. We then move onto was it consensual. In my view it would have appeared so to him as this was not this girls first rodeo. So then we move onto whether he knew she was sex trafficked. His defence would be that she came onto him and he had no idea as to her back story. This would likely be more plausible to a jury than her story that would be heavily biassed towards rape and known sex trafficking if she wanted to secure some cash. He has folded like a cheap suit and she has made her sex worker money retrospectively with interest so kudos to her.kingstonian said:
Your first paragraph mirrors what I’ve previously said here. Completely agree that he’s no doubt been photographed with thousands of people over the years and he cannot possibly be expected to remember each and every person.Pross said:I don't get why people even think the photo is that damning. How many hundreds / thousands of people would he have met and had his photo taken with over the years and would he be expected to remember them all? What I don't get is why he didn't say 'the photo appears to show that I did meet her but I can't recall it and I certainly never has sex with her'.
To join Rick's game of guessing guilt from media reports I would say on the balance of probability he had sex with her but may or may not have known she was under age (in the US) and / or trafficked or doing so in any way against her will. However, from the information I've seen / read I don't think I could find guilty beyond reasonable doubt that would be required for a criminal conviction.
I would echo what most others seem to have said, the guy is a complete sleaze and shouldbe removed permanently from public life and any public funding so I certainly don't have any sympathy for him. His attempts at a defence show how divorced he is from reality.
I also believe he probably did have sex with her, but she was over the age of consent in the UK so no issue UNLESS it was against her will and/or she was being sex trafficked. I don’t know what actual evidence there is of her being sex trafficked tbh.
He is definitely a complete sleaze, who has a hugely inflated view of his own importance, so seeing him brought down to size and have him humiliated is good to see.0 -
You appear to be suggesting that she may have been a sex worker. So do you really believe that any female sex worker is choosing that occupation without any influence from anyone else.john80 said:kingstonian said:
Your first paragraph mirrors what I’ve previously said here. Completely agree that he’s no doubt been photographed with thousands of people over the years and he cannot possibly be expected to remember each and every person.Pross said:I don't get why people even think the photo is that damning. How many hundreds / thousands of people would he have met and had his photo taken with over the years and would he be expected to remember them all? What I don't get is why he didn't say 'the photo appears to show that I did meet her but I can't recall it and I certainly never has sex with her'.
To join Rick's game of guessing guilt from media reports I would say on the balance of probability he had sex with her but may or may not have known she was under age (in the US) and / or trafficked or doing so in any way against her will. However, from the information I've seen / read I don't think I could find guilty beyond reasonable doubt that would be required for a criminal conviction.
I would echo what most others seem to have said, the guy is a complete sleaze and shouldbe removed permanently from public life and any public funding so I certainly don't have any sympathy for him. His attempts at a defence show how divorced he is from reality.
I also believe he probably did have sex with her, but she was over the age of consent in the UK so no issue UNLESS it was against her will and/or she was being sex trafficked. I don’t know what actual evidence there is of her being sex trafficked tbh.
He is definitely a complete sleaze, who has a hugely inflated view of his own importance, so seeing him brought down to size and have him humiliated is good to see.
This is the fundamental issue with this case. She was over 16 and therefore it is not statutory rape for the London case. We then move onto was it consensual. In my view it would have appeared so to him as this was not this girls first rodeo. So then we move onto whether he knew she was sex trafficked. His defence would be that she came onto him and he had no idea as to her back story. This would likely be more plausible to a jury than her story that would be heavily biassed towards rape and known sex trafficking if she wanted to secure some cash. He has folded like a cheap suit and she has made her sex worker money retrospectively with interest so kudos to her.kingstonian said:
Your first paragraph mirrors what I’ve previously said here. Completely agree that he’s no doubt been photographed with thousands of people over the years and he cannot possibly be expected to remember each and every person.Pross said:I don't get why people even think the photo is that damning. How many hundreds / thousands of people would he have met and had his photo taken with over the years and would he be expected to remember them all? What I don't get is why he didn't say 'the photo appears to show that I did meet her but I can't recall it and I certainly never has sex with her'.
To join Rick's game of guessing guilt from media reports I would say on the balance of probability he had sex with her but may or may not have known she was under age (in the US) and / or trafficked or doing so in any way against her will. However, from the information I've seen / read I don't think I could find guilty beyond reasonable doubt that would be required for a criminal conviction.
I would echo what most others seem to have said, the guy is a complete sleaze and shouldbe removed permanently from public life and any public funding so I certainly don't have any sympathy for him. His attempts at a defence show how divorced he is from reality.
I also believe he probably did have sex with her, but she was over the age of consent in the UK so no issue UNLESS it was against her will and/or she was being sex trafficked. I don’t know what actual evidence there is of her being sex trafficked tbh.
He is definitely a complete sleaze, who has a hugely inflated view of his own importance, so seeing him brought down to size and have him humiliated is good to see.
But then again I guess most of your conversations with sex workers have been” How much Luv”0 -
I think if a family can afford a $12m donation, they probably don't need to be on benefits.1
-
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
'Randy Andy' is not a random assignation. As I typed somewhere before, there is a whole cadre of flying personnel of dUK military who know real stuff.
Now, how do I trans that into a NFT to rip some £/$/€ from mug punters?0 -
-
Not really Charles directly, in this case. Someone acted against his knowledge0
-
Never let the truth get in the way of a forum post.shirley_basso said:Not really Charles directly, in this case. Someone acted against his knowledge
2 -
Seems the investigation is more focused on the guy who ran his foundation rather than Charles himself. Following a complaint from an anti-royal pressure group.rick_chasey said:Charles being investigated for corruption today too.
Ah the royals. Can’t help themselves.
Must say I am exhausted by the number of people apparently only just realising that the Windsors are very wealthy.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Andrew apparently not so.rjsterry said:
Seems the investigation is more focused on the guy who ran his foundation rather than Charles himself. Following a complaint from an anti-royal pressure group.rick_chasey said:Charles being investigated for corruption today too.
Ah the royals. Can’t help themselves.
Must say I am exhausted by the number of people apparently only just realising that the Windsors are very wealthy.
Article on BBC contemplating where the money will actually come from.
Some understandably wary of it effectively coming from the public purse.0 -
TheBigBean said:
Never let the truth get in the way of a forum post.shirley_basso said:Not really Charles directly, in this case. Someone acted against his knowledge
It's almost as if "they can't help themselves"1 -
I think everyone suspected it, despite protestations to the contrary from those who support their benefit claim.rjsterry said:
Must say I am exhausted by the number of people apparently only just realising that the Windsors are very wealthy.0 -
It was the photo of breakfast from tupperware that did it. All that space but no money.kingstongraham said:
I think everyone suspected it, despite protestations to the contrary from those who support their benefit claim.rjsterry said:
Must say I am exhausted by the number of people apparently only just realising that the Windsors are very wealthy.0 -
That we shouldn't have a hereditary head of state is a valid position. That an elected presidency would somehow save the country money or insulate us from people like the Duke of York... well there's ample evidence to the contrary.kingstongraham said:
I think everyone suspected it, despite protestations to the contrary from those who support their benefit claim.rjsterry said:
Must say I am exhausted by the number of people apparently only just realising that the Windsors are very wealthy.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition2 -
How much does the Irish president cost?1
-
I am sure that if this bankrupted the creepy prince the public would love to fund a wealth lifestyle for him through crowndfunding
0 -
Spoof one was on FB on Monday.vincesummerskRoxcBTr said:I am sure that if this bankrupted the creepy prince the public would love to fund a wealth lifestyle for him through crowndfunding
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
