Andrew's future outside of the working BRF

[Roslyn]

Not only has Andrew never been convicted of a serious offence, he has never been charged with one. Allegations have been made against him, and civil proceedings for damages have been commenced against him, but no criminal proceedings have been brought. It seems clear to me that he is guilty of arrogance and poor judgment, but he has not been convicted of any crime or, so far, of any civil wrong. He has been stood down from royal duties and that seems enough to me. I see no reason why he should have to leave Royal Lodge.

 

[Leopoldine]

I want to apologize for my rude and ill-advised post.

I had just recently re-watched his Maitlis interview and was not feeling charitable towards him as I found his responses confounding.

 

[Osipi]

I want to apologize for my rude and ill-advised post.

I had just recently re-watched his Maitlis interview and was not feeling charitable towards him as I found his responses confounding.

I don't think there's anyone here that watched that interview and didn't come away from it really wondering just what kind of a man Andrew is and I don't think any of us felt too charitable towards him either. I still don't. I think he's the kind of man that mothers warn their daughters about.

I just feel that Andrew has had enough repercussions come at him from what's happened and he *has* lost a lot because of it. However, it'd be quite a cruel world if we kept getting punished for the mistakes we make for the rest of our lives. Sometimes huge mistakes like this are the best teachers to tell us just where we're going wrong. Sometimes we see the light. Sometimes we don't.

 

[Curryong]

I don’t feel think that Andrew is the sort of person who learns from his mistakes Osipi, I just don’t.

The same characteristics noticed in the boy and youth have recurred in the adult Andrew throughout his life. Arrogance, rudeness towards those who felt he could push around, check, boorishness and crudity as a young man, check, and other unpleasant features, corruptive tendencies, greed, that came to the fore later, check.

There’s no real evidence that he’s learned anything from his behaviour even now. That was seen when he ignored the plight of Epstein’s victims throughout the BBC interview and stated that he met ‘interesting people’ at Epstein’s house. Really?

There just seems to have been a blind spot born of entitlement for almost all his 60+ years, IMO.

 

[royal-blue]

Andrew needs to go to the US to help draw a line under this saga once and for all, while his mother is still alive ideally.

 

[Denville]

Why would he do that? If he is not compelled to do so, the best thing is to keep silent and eventaully the story will die

 

[Iluvbertie]

Andrew needs to go to the US to help draw a line under this saga once and for all, while his mother is still alive ideally.

Under the UK and US legal systems the concept used to be INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. I do realise that in both countries that concept has been thrown away sadly.

It isn't up to Andrew to prove anything. It is up to the complainant, in a civil trial, or the prosecution in a criminal trial, to prove the guilt.

Even answering questions by US officials isn't up to Andrew to go to the US to clear things up but for the FBI to follow the standard international protocol - to go to the UK, interview him in the offices of his lawyers under the UK's interview protocols - PACE rules, which give a lot of protections to the questions that can be asked as well as the methods that can be used and all interviews have to be recorded. The FBI don't want to do that however, or else they would have done so.

 

[Osipi]

Andrew needs to go to the US to help draw a line under this saga once and for all, while his mother is still alive ideally.

That would be the worst possible thing Andrew could do. He couldn't even muster an interview that made him look good. Iluvbertie just listed the reasons why Andrew wouldn't go to the US.

To be honest here, I believe that if we hear of Andrew making a deposition and/or answering questions, it will be in relation to his friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell who still has to face criminal charges in court. I would expect Andrew (on his team of lawyer's advice) to not say a word.

 

[royal-blue]

Under the UK and US legal systems the concept used to be INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. I do realise that in both countries that concept has been thrown away sadly.

Of course, but this doesn't stop an innocent person from proving/attempting to prove their innocence if they so wish.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They can't prove their innocence until they are charged with a crime however. Andrew hasn't been charged with any crime. The Metropolitan police have actually carried out three investigations into Virginia's allegations and have come to the conclusion that there isn't any crime in the UK.

 

[victor1319]

Under the UK and US legal systems the concept used to be INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.

Well, within the same breath could be said, that you must to be granted equal rights, well, equal!

So Prince Andrew here: How equal is he to the other suspected perps?

We had once the discussion here in the forums, if he enjoys some form of legal immunity as a birthright as a Prince. This discussion led to nothing and is still to be answered...

The whole investigation of the Metropolitan Poice for example: Was it thorough or was it just closed with the "expected/demanded" result", so that no damage would be done to the Crown, the Monarchy, the State?

If one tells me Prince Andrew is in reality just citizen Andrew with a funny name, then I say, Yeah. soon!

 

[Lilyflo]

The Metropolitan police have actually carried out three investigations into Virginia's allegations and have come to the conclusion that there isn't any crime in the UK.

I don't think the Met have said that there was no crime committed. They just said they'll be taking no further action, which could mean they don't have enough evidence to pursue the claims further.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don't think the Met have said that there was no crime committed. They just said they'll be taking no further action, which could mean they don't have enough evidence to pursue the claims further.

So there is no crime committed. The principle is that it is brought to Justice. But if three investigations do not enable the prosecution to assemble a convincing and coherent dossier and therefore there is no case, you can not imply there was a crime but they could not prove it.

It is the same as the late Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath, the former Chief of the General Staff Lord Bramall, the former Home Secretary Lord Brittan, former MI6 director Sir Maurice Oldfield but also Sir Cliff Richard and others were faced with accusations of child abuse, exploitation, whatever. All these claims were proven untrue, products of fantasts. But in the meantime lives and reputations have been destroyed.

When Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police can not assemble a case which stands scrutiny and can not be brought before Justice, the conclusion can never be: "There was a crime, they just can not prove it". Otherwise we are no ounce better than the fantasts accusing Sir Cliff Richard or whatever.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think the Met have said that there was no crime committed. They just said they'll be taking no further action, which could mean they don't have enough evidence to pursue the claims further.

In the UK the age of consent is 16. She was 17 therefore no crime was committed.

 

[victor1319]

In the UK the age of consent is 16. She was 17 therefore no crime was committed.

Is the age from where on prostitution is allowed 16 too? I don't think so...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Is the age from where on prostitution is allowed 16 too? I don't think so...

Prostitution needs a transaction: I give you my services and you pay me for it.
Up to Ms Giuffre to prove that the Duke sought her services.

In the mantime another alleged victim of Mr Epstein, Ms Rita Or, nlamed Ms Giuffre to have been Mr Epstein's girlfried, actively roamed girls to - alike herself - join Mr Epstein's circle and discover life of luxury, fun and hedonistic pleasure.

 

[Denville]

As far as I know prostitution isn't illegal per se... but many activities around it are. Trafficking is illegal

 

[victor1319]

Prostitution needs a transaction: I give you my services and you pay me for it.
Up to Ms Giuffre to prove that the Duke sought her services.

That is the difference between us: I think it is up to Prince Charles to decide... The Queen, Her Majesty, is unwilling to do so. So, it might be up to the next generaion to decide Prince Andrew's fate...

Sweaty, "randy" Andy might be in a sea of troubles - and it has nothing to do with the Giuffre case...

 

[Denville]

That is the difference between us: I think it is up to Prince Charles to decide... The Queen, Her Majesty, is unwilling to do so. So, it might be up to the next generaion to decide Prince Andrew's fate...

Sweaty, "randy" Andy might be in a sea of troubles - and it has nothing to do with the Giuffre case...

what has Charles to do with it? Andrew has had to give up his public life and live quietly. He will never be a working royal again. he hasn't been convicted of a crime...so I dont know what Charles is supposed to do.

 

[victor1319]

what has Charles to do with it? Andrew has had to give up his public life and live quietly. He will never be a working royal again. he hasn't been convicted of a crime...so I dont know what Charles is supposed to do.

Well, Andrew is still around guns blazing: "Prince Andrew Accuses Virginia Giuffre Of Procuring 'Slutty Underage Girls' For Epstein"
https://www.zerohedge.com/political...uffre-procuring-slutty-underage-girls-epstein

From that: "Alleged Royal pedophile Prince Andrew is looking to turn the tables on his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, who he says was involved in the "wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse," according to the Sunday Times, citing a late Friday court filing."

The Queen has been looking rather passive on this. What makes me wonder, what Charles wil do about it....

 

[Osipi]

"Alleged Royal pedophile Prince Andrew is looking to turn the tables on his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, who he says was involved in the "wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse,"

Someone please tell me this is a made up story for entertainment purposes only put out by the Sunday Times. (How reputable is zerohedge?) If this is a reality, Andrew just stepped in a huge cow patty of a mess for himself. It says in clear and precise language that Andrew *knew* girls were being procured and trafficked for sex and that he not only knew Giuffre but also knew what she was up to.

Was Andrew getting ready to go fishing and inadvertently opened the wrong can of worms? Ghislaine? Are you listening? Did Andrew put his foot in his mouth again? Stay tuned as the Amorous Adventures of Andy gets even more convoluted.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Norwhere is Andrew putting his foot in his own mouth. The only two things which happened last week were:

1.
The Duke's legal team filed court documents, including a copy of the agreement formerly made by Ms Giuffre, with arguments explaining why the legal team thinks Justice should end the case.

2.
Another alleged victim has accused Ms Giuffre exactly to have been groomed girls for ("her boyfriend") Mr Epstein, slamming her with a lawsuit for 20 million US Dollars in damages.

What was the foot that was put into the Dukes mouth, as you claimed? His legal team most likely has not been sitting like lame ducks but have been very active, digging into Ms Giuffre's accusations and into her credentials. Everything they have found which undermines her accusation of course will be used.

 

[Somebody]

Well, within the same breath could be said, that you must to be granted equal rights, well, equal!

So Prince Andrew here: How equal is he to the other suspected perps?

We had once the discussion here in the forums, if he enjoys some form of legal immunity as a birthright as a Prince. This discussion led to nothing and is still to be answered...

The whole investigation of the Metropolitan Poice for example: Was it thorough or was it just closed with the "expected/demanded" result", so that no damage would be done to the Crown, the Monarchy, the State?

If one tells me Prince Andrew is in reality just citizen Andrew with a funny name, then I say, Yeah. soon!

If he would be equal to others, why is he the only one of the many men in Epstein's surroundings that has experienced such repercussions? In practice, I would see he has not been treated equal (but to his disadvantage and not to his advantage as you seem to imply) as he is targeted precisely because he is a prince.

 

[Osipi]

Norwhere is Andrew putting his foot in his own mouth. The only two things which happened last week were:

1.
The Duke's legal team filed court documents, including a copy of the agreement formerly made by Ms Giuffre, with arguments explaining why the legal team thinks Justice should end the case.

2.
Another alleged victim has accused Ms Giuffre exactly to have been groomed girls for ("her boyfriend") Mr Epstein

What was the foot that was put into the Dukes mouth, as you claimed?

I was just going by the report that victor posted that gave reference to an article in zerohedge that an article in the Sunday Times reported that Andrew is looking to "turn the tables on Giuffre" by stating "Alleged Royal pedophile Prince Andrew is looking to turn the tables on his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, who he says was involved in the "wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse,"

That's why I asked if this is a joke or made up or wishful thinking of something to create clickbait. What has been quoted alludes to the fact that with pointing the finger back at Giuffre, Andrew not only knew her but knew her enough to know what she was up to and in stating that Giuffre, herself, procured underage girls, and blows Andrew's denials that he's stuck with for so long, out of the water onto dry land to flounder like a fish.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I was just going by the report that victor posted that gave reference to an article in zerohedge that an article in the Sunday Times reported that Andrew is looking to "turn the tables on Giuffre" by stating "Alleged Royal pedophile Prince Andrew is looking to turn the tables on his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, who he says was involved in the "wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse,"

That's why I asked if this is a joke or made up or wishful thinking of something to create clickbait. What has been quoted alludes to the fact that with pointing the finger back at Giuffre, Andrew not only knew her but knew her enough to know what she was up to and in stating that Giuffre, herself, procured underage girls, and blows Andrew's denials that he's stuck with for so long, out of the water onto dry land to flounder like a fish.

It is very well possible that the legal team has found evidence and witnesses of activities which are not working in favour of Ms Giuffre. This not necessarily means Andrew himself knew she was recruiting and trafficking. His legal team has ears and eyes too. See the another alleged victim whom slammed Ms Giuffre with a lawsuit, demanding 20 million US Dollars, exactly claiming the same what Andrew's legal team seems to claim.

 

[Osipi]

If he would be equal to others, why is he the only one of the many men in Epstein's surroundings that has experienced such repercussions? In practice, I would see he has not been treated equal (but to his disadvantage and not to his advantage as you seem to imply) as he is targeted precisely because he is a prince.

Targeting Andrew comes with one specific things most people don't have. Richard Moneypockets may be rich and powerful and totally and completely morally bankrupt but he lacks the public draw. Mention Prince Andrew and it hits the tabloids and the news channels the next day. The BRF and their every move is a target for public consumption and always has been for decades now. Richard Moneypockets is virtually unknown outside of his circle and no one will click on his name.

One way to keep your claims alive is to have people talking about it. Andrew does that just because of who he is. It's not fair or equal. Just the way things are.

 

[Osipi]

It is very well possible that the legal team has found evidence and witnesses of activities which are not working in favour of Ms Giuffre. This not necessarily means Andrew himself knew she was recruiting and trafficking. His legal team has ears and eyes too. See the another alleged victim whom slammed Ms Giuffre with a lawsuit, demanding 20 million US Dollars, exactly claiming the same what Andrew's legal team seems to claim.

Then I wish that "article" (which by the way, I have not clicked on and read) had stated it the way you did and not as if it had come from Andrew's mouth.

 

[Susan D]

The Maxwell trial makes Prince Andrew look even sleazier than he looked before; I hope he never is allowed back into official life.

 

[Denville]

The Maxwell trial makes Prince Andrew look even sleazier than he looked before; I hope he never is allowed back into official life.

Its most unlikely that he will be so I wouldnt worry

 

[Alison H]

I doubt he will be. He's becoming old news now - the emergence of the Omicron variant is dominating newspapers and news bulletins to the extent that relatively little attention's being paid to the trial. Having said which, all that's been said so far is that he travelled on Epstein's private jet - but the same's been said about Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Kevin Spacey.