The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2481  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:31 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,548
Wow, she forgot Trump, Bill Gates, a "mystery" Nobel Laureate, etc. Et sl. Like "The Palace" would threaten the giant ABC and let the BBC, et al go for it in 2011.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2482  
Old 11-05-2019, 01:35 PM
Empress Merel's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 2,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Wow, the things that allegedly went down to help cover up the Epstein and Prince Andrew story is unbelievable.
Trying to kill the right to free press.. Nice! It's no wonder his hired PR man quit because there is no saving this big ol' mess. And I hope he isn't saved.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2483  
Old 11-05-2019, 07:28 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,832
The allegation over Buckingham Palace threatening the anchor is serious, although you wouldn’t think any of this is serious by the way the British press is ignoring the case and story. Sad.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #2484  
Old 11-05-2019, 08:04 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
The allegation over Buckingham Palace threatening the anchor is serious, although you wouldn’t think any of this is serious by the way the British press is ignoring the case and story. Sad.
That is serious and, had it been proved true, I would be angry that the Palace, and for Palace read HM the Queen, would ever authorise, let alone allow it to happen.

These allegations have no grounding, not with the state police, the FBI nor the Metropolitan police. The police in the UK have no problem charging members of the royal family. Princess Anne was charged when one of her dogs was off-lead and bit someone. Hardly the same as the allegations, yet these are just that, allegations with no evidence to support any criminal or civil action.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2485  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:57 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,232
We have no idea what they did or did not do. We just have a woman on record saying what happened to her. If she is lying than the Palace can very easily take action. Though if she is not I would imagine they wouldn't want that on record either.

Robert Jobson was on an Australian show earlier and said that while surprised about the comments that he knows the palace can have some influence when they want it it. But he hadn't had that experience himself.

Time will tell as always but no one can claim they did or did not do anything. We have zero knowledge of what transpired 3 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #2486  
Old 11-05-2019, 11:27 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,407
The first thing that came to mind is that perhaps that anchorwoman didn't know the *full* details of what happened that quashed that story. It could be possible that the news station was threatened with a defamation lawsuit should they air Ms. Giuffre's allegations in an interview. Perhaps it wasn't a cover up but rather a warning.

Airing something like this that names names (especially Andrew in this case) and accusations on a major TV station could easily be said to cause harm to a person's reputation. As Marg has pointed out, these allegations against Andrew have nothing concrete to point to the allegations being true other than Ms. Giuffre's word. This is as valid today as it was three years ago and back in 2008 or any other time Andrew has been connected with this.

Even if that interview was aired tomorrow, there is still no real backing to the claims against Andrew. Epstein, yes. Maxwell, perhaps and Andrew, no.

The time for a major news channel to air something like this would be *after* its been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrew actually did what Ms. Giuffre is alleging that he did. News channels are there to report the facts and not a venue for rumor, hearsay or allegations without something to back them up.

This is how I see it anyways.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2487  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:05 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,832
One of the main reasons why these ladies stories were stifled in the press because of the threats that went out to journalists, reporters and news agencies. Amy Robach ain’t lying about the threats.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-u...mpression=true
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #2488  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:31 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,548
ABC said it did not meet the required standard of evidence for its 20/20 program. The reporter said she was caught venting and the "million reasons" not to Air I am guessing, all had $ signs on front of them.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2489  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:41 AM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,742
I don't know which is worse - BP threatening ABC or ABC caving. These are allegations but they still look bad.
Reply With Quote
  #2490  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:37 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,407
The statement "we were threatened by the Palace a million different ways" is, to me, quite vague. The investigative journalist in me wants to find out just who at what palace made said threats. Was it the public relations department? Was it the Palace's own legal team? Was it the second undersecretary to the housekeeping department? It does seem logical that the Palace is Buckingham Palace as Andrew's office and staff are located there. We shouldn't assume that this has the mark of the Queen on it.

Why were said threats made and what were those actual threats consisting of? If and when such threats were made, who was contacted with them and just how were these threats delivered? Was it the owner of the news channel? Was it the public relations department of the news channel or its legal department? Did the anchorwoman get an anonymous email warning her to back of and signed with a skull and crossbones?

The biggest question though to me is in the why said threats were issued. There, to my my thinking, would have to be a very valid reason for the Palace to react at the news of this interview being aired . I'm sure that this anchorwoman believes she was told to not air this because of "threats" but she does leave a lot open to interpretation on just why there were threats in the first place and underlying reasons and ramifications for them. If I had to make an educated guess, it would be that Andrew's office threatened a defamation of character lawsuit should this interview be aired. Again, that's *my* supposition in the matter and not credible facts.

Lotsa questions remain. Probable a million of them.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2491  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:20 AM
Debbies's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Milano, Italy
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Actually it is. Every ctominal court case is brought by the Crown Prosecution Service. Since the statement was made by a Met Police Spokesperson it seems to suggest there was either no evidence, or insufficient evidence to even send to CPS.

In short, there was no case to answer.
As a matter of fact, the age for legal consent to sex is 16 in the UK and 18 in the US. If an adult has sex overseas with an US citizen who is below 18, this adult can be prosecuted back in the US. So grounds for legal action against Prince Andrew in US and no grounds in UK. Virginia Roberts was 17 when she claims having had sex with Prince Andrew in London.

Very interesting and clear podcast on the legal circumstances re. PA, Virginia Roberts and Epstein, from minute 13
https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aH...nRZY2Jkcm93ZE0
Reply With Quote
  #2492  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:32 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debbies View Post
As a matter of fact, the age for legal consent to sex is 16 in the UK and 18 in the US. If an adult has sex overseas with an US citizen who is below 18, this adult can be prosecuted back in the US. So grounds for legal action against Prince Andrew in US and no grounds in UK. Virginia Roberts was 17 when she claims having had sex with Prince Andrew in London.
Doesn't that depend on the state where the alleged intercourse happened? AFAIK 18 is not the age of consent in all US states.
Reply With Quote
  #2493  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:49 AM
Debbies's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Milano, Italy
Posts: 205
It is a Federal case now. The podcast I posted above is quite clear. Speakers come from FBI and Scotland Yard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Doesn't that depend on the state where the alleged intercourse happened? AFAIK 18 is not the age of consent in all US states.
Reply With Quote
  #2494  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:03 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debbies View Post
It is a Federal case now. The podcast I posted above is quite clear. Speakers come from FBI and Scotland Yard.
Does it being a federal case means that the age of consent is 18 even though the state it happened in has a lower age of consent?
Reply With Quote
  #2495  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:15 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,407
Hope this explains it further.

Federal law makes it criminal to engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you. Each state takes a different approach as the age of consent has ranged from 10 to 18.

To be prosecuted for statutory rape of an underage girl, Andrew would have had to have sex with a girl aged 16 or younger and in the US by Federal definition.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2496  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:33 AM
Debbies's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Milano, Italy
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Does it being a federal case means that the age of consent is 18 even though the state it happened in has a lower age of consent?
It refers to sex having taken place in London with a minor US citizen, younger of 18. Please read again my first message. The age of consent for the US federal Law is 18 according to the Fbi and Scotland yard panellists of the podcast.
Reply With Quote
  #2497  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:48 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,407
I think the gist of it being a federal case rather than a state case indicates that should Andrew have had sex with an underage girl, regardless of which state the sex took place in, the Feds could nab Andrew anywhere Andrew would choose to step on US soil.

We saw this happen with the arrest of Epstein last summer. The Feds were there and waiting for him in New Jersey, arrested him and transported him to be held in Manhattan.

Extradition of Andrew from the UK to the US to face charges won't work in this case either (Ms. Giuffre). The US cannot extradite Andrew as the extradition treaty between the US and the UK is a “dual criminality” treaty. No one can be extradited by either country unless the offense is a crime in both countries and carries a prison sentence of at least one year.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2498  
Old 11-08-2019, 09:00 AM
Debbies's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Milano, Italy
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I think the gist of it being a federal case rather than a state case indicates that should Andrew have had sex with an underage girl, regardless of which state the sex took place in, the Feds could nab Andrew anywhere Andrew would choose to step on US soil.

We saw this happen with the arrest of Epstein last summer. The Feds were there and waiting for him in New Jersey, arrested him and transported him to be held in Manhattan.

Extradition of Andrew from the UK to the US to face charges won't work in this case either (Ms. Giuffre). The US cannot extradite Andrew as the extradition treaty between the US and the UK is a “dual criminality” treaty. No one can be extradited by either country unless the offense is a crime in both countries and carries a prison sentence of at least one year.
This jumps forward. The point they make so far is that for the US Federal Law there is the basis to investigate PA as sex offender and possibly sex trafficker, as the US Federal legislation covers US minors overseas.
Reply With Quote
  #2499  
Old 11-12-2019, 05:47 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,548
The bottom line here is that there is no credible evidence that PA committed any crime. The fact that this woman and others are talking about things in interviews by the media just muddies the water and makes any further criminal action impossible.

I believe the legal advisers to those who have been victimised would be doing their clients more good working on suing Epstein's estate for damages or recompense. This is merely money for jam and how to elevate their legal profile.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2500  
Old 11-12-2019, 06:02 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,407
Other than the victims of Epstein filing civil law suits against his estate (which, from what I understand, Epstein locked up $577 million in trust funds days before he died), the only other criminal proceedings I see happening, if ever, is if they find and arrest anyone that can be proven to be a co-conspirator with Epstein in actually running the sex trafficking business and to me, there is nothing that points to Andrew at all.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
abdication althorp anastasia anastasia once upon a time baby names bangladesh bridal gown chittagong cht clarence house diana princess of wales dragons dubai duke of cambridge earl of snowdon facts future general news thread hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill historical drama history hochberg imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery jumma languages list of rulers mail mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten nepalese royal jewels northern ireland norway norway history palestine pless prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri princess chulabhorn walailak princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange princess ribha queen louise queen mathilde random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family settings snowdon spencer family thailand thai royal family tracts uae customs united states of america wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:07 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×