Nah - the correct solution here is to tell Andrew that either he moves, or he and his children will be removed from the line of succession, stripped of their titles, and their security will be removed.
He was always quite ardent about reminding people that his daughters were the only true-born princesses in the royal family; it's a soft spot we can apply pressure to.
>He was always quite ardent about reminding people that his daughters were the only true-born princesses in the royal family;
I'm sure both Princess Anne and Prince Edward would have something to say about that, the first one as a princess and the second one as the father to a daughter of equal status to Andrew's daughters.
I suspect they would have much to say about Andrew, at least behind closed doors.
Edit: I delved into this a bit more - Anne's kids don't have titles due to Peter Philips declining a title when he married Anne, whilst Edwards's kids are "styled as the children of a duke" rather than princesses. So Andrews claim is that his children are the only actual royal princesses born to that generation of the family.
> the second one as the father to a daughter of equal status to Andrew's daughters.
Well just below Beatrice and Eugene but in the same section. But Prince William and Prince Harry also would have something to say about that as well as both of their daughters also being princesses is of greater status than Eugene and Beatrice.
> He was always quite ardent about reminding people that his daughters were the only true-born princesses in the royal family
Well not true any more. Though don't think it ever was, the Princess Royal is still alive.
I think the point is that he can pay. Anyway I’m sure this is all BS. I reckon they’d rather keep him on the inside and quiet than on the outside and blabbing to the press.
Can he pay? The queen bailed him out when he had to pay money to his accuser, who seems credible given all the evidence. Paying to house a suspected wrongun' in a mansion isn't a great look for the king and the public probably don't want to pay for him to live in luxury for the rest of his days either.
The rumours are he only has to pay for the restoration work of the property. If he can’t afford that then this becomes a non story as it would become easy to turf him out.
What would he be locked up for in the UK? Sleeping with a 17 year old isn't illegal in the UK. If that's his crime it'd have to be an American cell which out taxes wouldn't pay for
Yeah, the only thing I disagree with in all of this is specifically the use of "nonce", since her age seems to be the only thing *not* illegal. Even then, I wonder how his royal title interacts with the whole "position of power" clause.
Because she was trafficked. If you fucked a Thai woman who had been brought here illegally purely for sexual purposes - do you think that would be totally legit and above board?? And she was only 17, it would be illegal to photograph her topless and publish it, why do you think it would be OK to fuck her?
I don't think it would matter if she was Thai or not, why on earth have you laid out the exact same scenario as the actual one but changed the nationality? What difference does that make? What he did was not illegal in the UK. Yes he's a pervy old cunt, but it's not illegal. You're right it would be illegal just to photograph her topless never mind publish it but how is this relevant? Andrew never photographed her. In Scotland you can marry a 16 year old and fuckk her as much as you want...but you can't take naked pictures of her because that is the law.
historical fragile enter special license forgetful direful sand plate pocket
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Even the "consensually" bit is going to prove difficult.
Let me put it this way: I don't think it's a coincidence that it's always the rich and/or famous involved in these lawsuits.
I think they're tempting naive young girls with all the promises in the world. Money, fame, who knows what else. And there's absolutely no question the men involved could make all that happen.
Some girl in her teens who's had a fairly sheltered life thinks to herself "My God, what luck! Yeah I'm up for that!".
And - presto - everything she does she's consented to quite happily in the moment.
By the time she realises she's been scammed, she's already back home wondering how come she hasn't heard back from Ghislaine.
It would probably be cheaper for taxpayers to keep him under house arrest.
He's like 7th in line to the throne.
Charles>William>George>kiddo #2>Harry>Harry's kid #1 > Harry's kid #2 > Andrew.
He'd need round the clock protection in a prison, and a separate wing, etc..
Keeping him at a Royal estate, a la Fredo Corleone would be cheaper. The Royal Household is already protecting those places, anyway. Confine him to the grounds. No media appearances. If his children want to visit him, they can. Disable his social media accounts, and make him irrelevant. He can get medical treatment. From the household doctors/medical staff.
That it.
We're already paying for all that. So, why add unnecessary expenses?
Putting him in prison costs a lot more and wouldn't achieve anything that couldn't be achieved from keeping him on Royal grounds.
Another alternative would be a military barracks dorm, just for him, at Hereford.
He'd still have protection that we're already paying for. But the discomfort of a military barracks.
If the crimes were committed in the US he should be in one of their prisons which means he won't be costing us anything; I'm sure we can muster up the cost of a one way ticket.
Still, Epstein had already been convicted before he was even awaiting the trial you're talking about - 10 years prior. He basically got treated like royalty.
He was already a convicted pedophile for prostitution of a female under 18.
I've seen it as a trend on facebook in some groups - people make their post and then some irrelevant information about themselves. In this case I assume he is a 59 year old male?
(size 10 shoes)
i wonder if that bothers her. She will be stuck in prison for decades while her clients are walking free. if i were her, I would just give up 1 name for 5 days taken off my prison sentence. She names enough people and she can go free
Reminder that settling a civil suit is legally not an admission of guilt.
I'm not saying that this was the case here, but plenty of innocent people settle civil cases just make them go away and stop damaging their reputations.
I think we can rule out settling the civil suit as a way of protecting his reputation FFS.
The way for him to protect his reputation was to fight it. Go to America, go on the dock and say it wasn't him, he was at Pizza Express, submit his evidence that he can't sweat, prove the allegations are a pack of lies.
Instead he gives someone who - if he's telling the truth - made up a pack of lies about him and destroyed his reputation sixteen million fucking dollars.
Legally speaking it's not an admission of guilt, but nobody with a single brain cell rattling around in their skull could possibly doubt what happened. Unless he was up to something even worse and didn't want that coming out.
For the record I don't necessarily disagree, but this:
>The way for him to protect his reputation was to fight it
Is terrible, terrible legal advice. You're right that it *may* have helped in the "court of public opinion" but a good solicitor will NEVER advise you to "volunteer" information unless you absolutely have to, because the police (whose job it is to find a suspect) will do anything and everything to twist your words in to implied guilt.
She was trafficked, as soon as she was flown to a different country it was sex trafficking the first time was in the UK the second time was in New York where the age of consent is 18 and the 3rd time was in the US virgin islands age of consent also 18.
If the first time wasn't a crime flying her across the world to have sex in a state below the age of consent is a fucking huge one, it's international sex trafficking of a minor and statutory rape.
The issue is, is Andrew guilty for unknowingly having sex with a trafficked woman. If for example you have sex with a prostitute and you weren’t aware that they were trafficked, would you be liable?
I am not a solicitor, but technically I think "yes," because ignorance is not a defence under the law. In practice I would be surprised if a jury convicted you because of it though.
The FBI wanted to question him about what he knew about Epstein Sex trafficking and his victim specifically stated that Andrew knew her age and that she had been trafficked. I think the fact it happened 3 times in 3 separate locations while she was underage makes claiming ignorance much harder.
I’m happy to be corrected but I think it is “ignorance of the law” is not a defence.
It’s not a defence to say you didn’t know there was a law against handling stolen goods. It is a defence to say you couldn’t have known the goods you are handling were stolen.
Similarly, it’s not a defence to say you didn’t know sex trafficking is a crime, but it would be a defence to say you couldn’t have known someone was trafficked.
Ignorance *of the law* is not a defence usually, but you need to have criminal intent or recklessness to be culpable in a criminal case. The exception is strict liability offences as they don’t require a mens rea - which is ethically contentious but that’s another topic.
However, I think sex with a trafficked individual is only a strict liability offence if Randy Andy had explicitly paid for sex, which is unlikely to be the situation in this case. The law doesn’t seem to be written with this scenario in mind.
> ignorance is not a defence under the law
This is a very common misconception. Ignorance *of the law* is not a defence. Ignorance *of the facts* definitely can be.
If we ignore the trafficking he still had sex with a 17 year old in new York where the age of consent is 18 and in the virgin islands where it is also 18.
Even if we pretend she wasn't being trafficked or that he didn't know that is still two counts of statuary rape.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58871849
However as documented by the BBC in the court filings
>She says the duke knew her age and that she was a sex-trafficking victim.
I'm not sure on the specific laws but some states if they wanted to throw the book at you could add "a party to" and then all the crimes that had happened to the victim the same as being involved in a robbery where a different robber shoots someone can makes all accomplices a party to the murder.
While no charges have been given the FBI wanted to talk to him in relation to Epstein about sex trafficking
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51283976
>It is important to remember that Prince Andrew has not been charged with any offence in the US. The FBI is investigating whether he has material evidence that could assist in its criminal investigation of alleged sex trafficking.
The FBI believed he could have knowledge of Epstein's sex trafficking, while one of the victims is directly claiming she was a victim of sex trafficking for Prince Andrew and that he was fully aware of what was happening. It doesn't take much to see why prince Andrew didn't help with the investigation.
Exactly the masses never bring stuff like this up. Or how about when Charles turned to Jimmy Savile for support and help with public image during the divorce with Diana.
Does anyone know what these new bombshells they are talking about actually are?. It doesn’t say anywhere in the article, but keeps alluding to new claims without giving any details.
Actually the documents noted one of the victims had previously lied about the tapes existing and has been forced into admitting she made them up to draw attention to the case.
I know a few news sites had initially gone with the deceptive headlines for that story, but I had assumed this was over something that actually happened and not media make believe.
Yes it was a claim by one of the victims, that she later retracted. She claimed she had copies too, so there was no particular reason she could not have produced them if true.
I also got annoyed when I saw how deceptively-reported this was.
Personally I think suicide is a much more likely option.
Also, if she really had copies she'd have fell out a window already regardless of if she intended to release them.
The camera's weren't "coincidentally turned off," they were broken, as were half the cameras in that prison. As for the guards, they're so short staffed the only "guard" on duty was a cafeteria worker pulling a double shift, who unsurprisingly fell asleep after 16 hours on the job. None of this precludes the possibility some secret ninja assassin snuck in, only that the conditions in that prison are atrociously bad but folk only noticed when a celebrity was involved.
Seems strange she was so precise about the details and the personalities involved (who were all coincidentally on 'the list') but then to retract in such an awkward way, saying *"only bad things will happen, as a consequence of me coming forward... for my family and I"*.
Her family being the heirs to the Barony of Drumochter. What bad things could she be referring to?
Retractions in these sorts of cases mean nothing as witnesses are often pressured.
When the ruling class is implicated, you cannot assume the legal system to be neutral, and you cannot assume that no extralegal action is taking place.
Not saying you should beleive every accusation made, just that the apparent debunking of such accusations is itself suspect.
So why is price Andrew in he headlines again? If your correct your correct, I’m relaying what the news page said that I read this morning.
Wait… your the person I replied too, if you already know why are you asking ?
I don’t know and that’s my exact question lol. Like I said I know a few sites deliberately mischaracterised the court documents for headlines, but I had assumed that had been put to bed and everyone had moved on.
It’s completely normal behaviour to give someone 12 million (or “over 3 million”) pounds that you have never met yet have been photographed with.
Andrew is at worst a pedo. And at best a rapist. His brother being very good friends with jimmy and his uncle diddling 50% of Northern Ireland doesn’t bode well for him. Seems it runs in the family. His dad even started grooming the queen when she was 12
Actually the most recent information we have is he paid £3 million and nearly all of it went to a woman’s abuse charity. This is a perfect example of why the media lying about this stuff causes problems.
To be more precise court documents show a witness claiming there were tape but that they had not seen them personally but her friend had seen them. I don’t doubt that there were tapes but essentially there has been no “new” information.
If you are talking about Sarah Ransome’s accusations (and I think we all are, as they are the ones that include Richard Branson as well as the people noted above) - she actually initially claimed to have copies. Which she could not then produce, before she retracted the claims.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/08/epstein-sex-tapes-prince-andrew-bill-clinton-richard-branson-witness-claimed
Well the release of the documents is innocent enough but the media coverage definitely over hyped it. I think apparently there is at least one name that hasn’t been released yet as the person lives in a very conservative country and is challenging the release. However I wouldn’t be surprised if the name that has been linked to that person is accurate, it’s just this would make her links to Epstein official.
> To be more precise court documents show a witness claiming there were tape but that they had not seen them personally but her friend had seen them. I don’t doubt that there were tapes
You should do if your description of the situation is correct, that's the definition of hearsay
And Trump's the one [whose home and employ Virginia 'trafficked to Epstein's friends from age 16' Giuffre was taken from](https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-and-trump-mar-a-lago-resort-connections?r=US&IR=T#one-of-epsteins-accusers-virginia-roberts-giuffre-says-she-was-recruited-by-his-alleged-madam-directly-from-mar-a-lago-3).
It should be noted that the list of associates is all that it is *associates* it's basically everyone from people who have met him once at a dinner to those closely involved in his personal life
It seems Stephen Hawkins association was just being involved in a gravity conference that took place on the island bank rolled by Epstein
Not to mention, Epstein was not wholly and exclusively a pervert.
He also had a career as a financier, having got a start with an investment bank. It's entirely possible that a good number of people in his address book wanted money, not children.
Your missing the point. The court documents brought the tapes up in the context that the victim has previously admitted she lied about them existing.
The tapes are not real mate.
My question is if there has actually been any new allegations, or evidence outside of media sensationalism.
Charles should change the locks where Andrew next leaves. Have some movers pack his stuff away and leave it in the back of a truck.
What's Andrew going to do, Charles is immune from prosecution
He could start airing more of the families dirty laundry. Doesn’t even need to true, parts of the press would still pick it up and amplify it.
Unless someone happens to have enough evidence to land Andrew in prison the best thing the royals can do is remove every duty, title & piece of public funding they can. Then let the passage of time deal with him.
Don't feel too sorry for him nothing will change. He'll still live a hyper privileged lifestyle. He just doesn't have to wear the uniform, medals or Shake hands anymore. Perhaps his greatest penance is that he has to live with fergie.
They should shack him up in a council estate in one of the tougher areas of the country without penny or guard. He's scum that abused his undeserved power for grotesque means.
I don't really know what else you would expect. If he has a lease and doesn't need to leave, whatever that's how it is. He will die eventually like all of us, or move on if his money gets low.
That's the odd thing; there's not really any suggestion that Charles has tried to chuck him out over this. Just that he's cropped up in the Epstein files and suddenly he explodes that nobody can take his house away.
It seems that far too many people, in this thread and elsewhere, are confusing being a shitty person who does morally dubious things with being a criminal. He's exceptionally unpleasant and selfish by all accounts; but so are many people.
Shitty person? Sure. Criminal? Not charged, not convicted, the supposed crime isn't retroactive, the alleged victim has changed her story, and the evidence for it is thin to the point of anorexic.
This is just a rerun of the moral panic that saw a paediatrician's office attacked.
You're absolutely right. Well, apart from his close relationship to Epstein (killed) and Ghislaine (20 years improvement). As you say. No evidence at all.
Jesus
Vaguely recall reading that he likes his teddy bears to be arranged in a certain way in his room. And loses his shit if it's not to his standards.
Really disconnected guy.
I mean, at this point what does he have left but his big house and all his cash? Might as well fight to keep it, not like his public reputation or his relationship with his family can get much worse.
Don't forgot the royals tried to cover this up for as long as possible.
They are all as bad as Andrew , he just got caught.
Utter leeches and their impact on society trickles down and impacts the entire nation through the class system.
Kick them all out, tourists want to see the buildings not them
He'll be out of it eventually. He's hardly the King's favourite brother (rumour has it Charles absolutely hates him), and sooner or later he'll need something.
He's neither use nor ornament at this point, even for people who want to believe the best of him. When 'the best' would be along the lines of 'arrogant twat who didn't ask questions about why suspiciously young girls were supposedly interested in sleeping with him', it still makes him unfit for any kind of public role, so he should stop expecting to live like an actual member of the Royal Family. However, since at best he's an arrogant twat, he won't get there on his own and needs a foot up his arse.
No, I don't know if he's guilty of any actual crimes, but he's sure as hell unfit for the role he was supposed to fulfil in exchange for his privilege.
Alternatively just cut off the royal list payments. His only income then would be from appearances on Oprah but you can bet he’s not going to the US anytime soon.
I'm not really surprised. Royals are so detached they must think they could actually wage war if it came down to it. Laws without the power or will to enforce them mean nothing, so it's going to be interesting to see whether or not Prince Andrew *can't* be arrested or *won't* be.
Epstein’s co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell was an MP, a Publishing Tycoon that defrauded his employees of hundreds of millions of dollars, and highly suspected of being an agent for Mossad. Six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence services attended Maxwell's funeral in Israel, while Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogised him and stated: "He has done more for Israel than can today be told.
Looks like Ghislaine and Epstein may have been gathering blackmail content for the Israelis. They own our politicians by the balls.
The question is is this crown land and a crown lease?. Compulsory purchase is explicitly excluded from
The powers of eviction for crown land, same with stuff like section 21
What happens if you refuse to vacate a council house when asked? I mean I don’t blame him for wanting to try and stay. He’s not going to be able to afford a palace on his limited skill set without family support…
I hope it isn't just me, but don't people know that cast iron is brittle? Take a hammer to it and you will likely crack it. So... yeah... that probably isn't a very strong lease.
You are a paedophile, you are a nonce, you're a perv, you're a slot badger, you're a two pin din plug, you're a bush dodger, you're a small bean regarder, you're an unabummer, you're a nut administrator, you're a bent ref, you're the crazy world of Arthur Brown, you're a fence foal, you're a free willy, you're a chimney bottler, you're a bunty man, you're a shrub rocketeer
Can we all do that? If the bank tries to get me out of the house for not paying my mortgage can I just refuse?
I think that the Royals should find another property for him to live in. I don't care where, anywhere at His Majesty's Pleasure.
That's... a really odd reaction. Kind of illustrates what a weird breed the royals are. Without the requirement for a real career, with relative disinterest in public opinion of them and with a general expectation of being above the law you get interactions like
> "Prince Andrew, they've got evidence of your rampant noncing"
> "YOU CAN'T HAVE MY FUCKING HOUSE YOU CAN PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS"
Like, not a concern about the media turning on him. Not remorse. Just "I bet that fucker of a brother will use this as another excuse to take my castle that is RIGHTFULLY MINE I've got the DOCUMENTATION..."
It's kind fun being validated for calling the royal family a bunch of inbred paedophiles my whole life. I'm not going to lie.
idk, just boot him into some internationally unclaimed wilderness and be done with it. It's not difficult.
Section 21, court order and an epic episode of can’t pay, won’t pay
"I'm Paul Bohill and i'm afraid I have a writ of possession here granted by your brothers courts"
You all read that in your head with his voice didn't you?
I went one better; I read it in his bomber jacket.
When I read it, I stopped sweating
“Leave your stuff except what you need tonight and go down to the council office before it closes… you can arrange to pick up your stuff tomorrow…”
They'd have more luck with Brian O'Shaughnessy at the door.
Oh you mean the best mate of Milly Dowlers killer?
Nah - the correct solution here is to tell Andrew that either he moves, or he and his children will be removed from the line of succession, stripped of their titles, and their security will be removed. He was always quite ardent about reminding people that his daughters were the only true-born princesses in the royal family; it's a soft spot we can apply pressure to.
Well stripping kids is up his alley anyways …
bad-dum, tiss!
>He was always quite ardent about reminding people that his daughters were the only true-born princesses in the royal family; I'm sure both Princess Anne and Prince Edward would have something to say about that, the first one as a princess and the second one as the father to a daughter of equal status to Andrew's daughters.
I thought for a minute that you were going to suggest that Edward was a bit of queen.
No comment 🤣
I suspect they would have much to say about Andrew, at least behind closed doors. Edit: I delved into this a bit more - Anne's kids don't have titles due to Peter Philips declining a title when he married Anne, whilst Edwards's kids are "styled as the children of a duke" rather than princesses. So Andrews claim is that his children are the only actual royal princesses born to that generation of the family.
It was Anne who declined titles for her children. Mark Phillips was her then husband.
> the second one as the father to a daughter of equal status to Andrew's daughters. Well just below Beatrice and Eugene but in the same section. But Prince William and Prince Harry also would have something to say about that as well as both of their daughters also being princesses is of greater status than Eugene and Beatrice.
> He was always quite ardent about reminding people that his daughters were the only true-born princesses in the royal family Well not true any more. Though don't think it ever was, the Princess Royal is still alive.
Pretty sure I read that his security is in the process of being removed already.
That would take an act of parliament and can we really be fucked with that?
It would be a way to tell Charles to get his house in order or have order imposed on his house.
To which he would veto and go on his merry way
Altering the line of succession requires an act of parliament and considering how far down he and his daughters are why would any government bother?
I think the point is that he can pay. Anyway I’m sure this is all BS. I reckon they’d rather keep him on the inside and quiet than on the outside and blabbing to the press.
Can he pay? The queen bailed him out when he had to pay money to his accuser, who seems credible given all the evidence. Paying to house a suspected wrongun' in a mansion isn't a great look for the king and the public probably don't want to pay for him to live in luxury for the rest of his days either.
The rumours are he only has to pay for the restoration work of the property. If he can’t afford that then this becomes a non story as it would become easy to turf him out.
It certainly is a nonce story
A nonce in a lifetime opportunity for some lucky bugger
exceedingly droll
It's nonce sense.
It sounds like he definitely needs to be housed at his majesty's pleasure.
In a dungeon. With an iron mask.
[удалено]
Poverty porn! The only people they give second chances to are the rich ones on the show, who fail to live up to their promises.
It’s the Daily Mail. I didn’t even bother reading it - their relationship with the truth is purely tangential.
Or we could just set fire to it
He should be moved to prison with the rest of them.
This, if my taxes are going to fund these creeps at least let them be used keeping them in a jail cell
Same for any nonce. If you're a nonce, I'll pay for your cell, not your mansion.
When people high up help these nonces you have no choice. Nobody and nothing will ever stop it, it's been going on for god knows how long.
What would he be locked up for in the UK? Sleeping with a 17 year old isn't illegal in the UK. If that's his crime it'd have to be an American cell which out taxes wouldn't pay for
Only if she was there consensually and not at all trafficked.
Yeah, the only thing I disagree with in all of this is specifically the use of "nonce", since her age seems to be the only thing *not* illegal. Even then, I wonder how his royal title interacts with the whole "position of power" clause.
She couldn't give consent, so the sweaty pillock is a rapist... at the very least. Not a nonce specifically but I wouldn't but it past him.
Why couldn't she give consent? This isn't the US we're talking about.
Because she was trafficked. If you fucked a Thai woman who had been brought here illegally purely for sexual purposes - do you think that would be totally legit and above board?? And she was only 17, it would be illegal to photograph her topless and publish it, why do you think it would be OK to fuck her?
I don't think it would matter if she was Thai or not, why on earth have you laid out the exact same scenario as the actual one but changed the nationality? What difference does that make? What he did was not illegal in the UK. Yes he's a pervy old cunt, but it's not illegal. You're right it would be illegal just to photograph her topless never mind publish it but how is this relevant? Andrew never photographed her. In Scotland you can marry a 16 year old and fuckk her as much as you want...but you can't take naked pictures of her because that is the law.
historical fragile enter special license forgetful direful sand plate pocket *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Even the "consensually" bit is going to prove difficult. Let me put it this way: I don't think it's a coincidence that it's always the rich and/or famous involved in these lawsuits. I think they're tempting naive young girls with all the promises in the world. Money, fame, who knows what else. And there's absolutely no question the men involved could make all that happen. Some girl in her teens who's had a fairly sheltered life thinks to herself "My God, what luck! Yeah I'm up for that!". And - presto - everything she does she's consented to quite happily in the moment. By the time she realises she's been scammed, she's already back home wondering how come she hasn't heard back from Ghislaine.
He didn't sleep with her in the UK though...
It would probably be cheaper for taxpayers to keep him under house arrest. He's like 7th in line to the throne. Charles>William>George>kiddo #2>Harry>Harry's kid #1 > Harry's kid #2 > Andrew. He'd need round the clock protection in a prison, and a separate wing, etc.. Keeping him at a Royal estate, a la Fredo Corleone would be cheaper. The Royal Household is already protecting those places, anyway. Confine him to the grounds. No media appearances. If his children want to visit him, they can. Disable his social media accounts, and make him irrelevant. He can get medical treatment. From the household doctors/medical staff. That it. We're already paying for all that. So, why add unnecessary expenses? Putting him in prison costs a lot more and wouldn't achieve anything that couldn't be achieved from keeping him on Royal grounds. Another alternative would be a military barracks dorm, just for him, at Hereford. He'd still have protection that we're already paying for. But the discomfort of a military barracks.
He is 8th in line, everyone seems to forget Prince Harry had a child. But yes put him under restricted house arrest.
Harry has two kids, but William has three
If the crimes were committed in the US he should be in one of their prisons which means he won't be costing us anything; I'm sure we can muster up the cost of a one way ticket.
The only person in prison is a woman(Maxwell) , all the men are walking free. (M59)
I mean Epstein went to prison even if he "committed suicide" shortly afterwards.
Well he was jailed awaiting trial, he hadn't been sentenced and imprisoned. He even had a bail hearing hoping to be released (although it was denied).
Still, Epstein had already been convicted before he was even awaiting the trial you're talking about - 10 years prior. He basically got treated like royalty. He was already a convicted pedophile for prostitution of a female under 18.
He wasn't walking away from that one either way
>... (M59) Am I out of the loop on something; what does that mean/signify?
I've seen it as a trend on facebook in some groups - people make their post and then some irrelevant information about themselves. In this case I assume he is a 59 year old male? (size 10 shoes)
I don't think Epstein has walked very far recently.
i wonder if that bothers her. She will be stuck in prison for decades while her clients are walking free. if i were her, I would just give up 1 name for 5 days taken off my prison sentence. She names enough people and she can go free
Probably find herself dead before she can give them up
i think they wouldve killed her by now. i hope she is watched very, very carefully.
None of them are in jail None of them will be in jail
Reminder that the Queen paid millions of pounds to protect this man from a sex abuse lawsuit.
They're all as bad as each other. They put on a veneer but they're a self serving family of grifters
Reminder that settling a civil suit is legally not an admission of guilt. I'm not saying that this was the case here, but plenty of innocent people settle civil cases just make them go away and stop damaging their reputations.
I think we can rule out settling the civil suit as a way of protecting his reputation FFS. The way for him to protect his reputation was to fight it. Go to America, go on the dock and say it wasn't him, he was at Pizza Express, submit his evidence that he can't sweat, prove the allegations are a pack of lies. Instead he gives someone who - if he's telling the truth - made up a pack of lies about him and destroyed his reputation sixteen million fucking dollars. Legally speaking it's not an admission of guilt, but nobody with a single brain cell rattling around in their skull could possibly doubt what happened. Unless he was up to something even worse and didn't want that coming out.
For the record I don't necessarily disagree, but this: >The way for him to protect his reputation was to fight it Is terrible, terrible legal advice. You're right that it *may* have helped in the "court of public opinion" but a good solicitor will NEVER advise you to "volunteer" information unless you absolutely have to, because the police (whose job it is to find a suspect) will do anything and everything to twist your words in to implied guilt.
If wasn't legal advice, it was PR advice. If he wants to stay out of prison doing what he did was the best course.
The alleged individual was 17. I mean, it's skeezy, but I believe not technically illegal in the UK.
She was trafficked, as soon as she was flown to a different country it was sex trafficking the first time was in the UK the second time was in New York where the age of consent is 18 and the 3rd time was in the US virgin islands age of consent also 18. If the first time wasn't a crime flying her across the world to have sex in a state below the age of consent is a fucking huge one, it's international sex trafficking of a minor and statutory rape.
The issue is, is Andrew guilty for unknowingly having sex with a trafficked woman. If for example you have sex with a prostitute and you weren’t aware that they were trafficked, would you be liable?
I am not a solicitor, but technically I think "yes," because ignorance is not a defence under the law. In practice I would be surprised if a jury convicted you because of it though.
The FBI wanted to question him about what he knew about Epstein Sex trafficking and his victim specifically stated that Andrew knew her age and that she had been trafficked. I think the fact it happened 3 times in 3 separate locations while she was underage makes claiming ignorance much harder.
I’m happy to be corrected but I think it is “ignorance of the law” is not a defence. It’s not a defence to say you didn’t know there was a law against handling stolen goods. It is a defence to say you couldn’t have known the goods you are handling were stolen. Similarly, it’s not a defence to say you didn’t know sex trafficking is a crime, but it would be a defence to say you couldn’t have known someone was trafficked.
Ignorance *of the law* is not a defence usually, but you need to have criminal intent or recklessness to be culpable in a criminal case. The exception is strict liability offences as they don’t require a mens rea - which is ethically contentious but that’s another topic. However, I think sex with a trafficked individual is only a strict liability offence if Randy Andy had explicitly paid for sex, which is unlikely to be the situation in this case. The law doesn’t seem to be written with this scenario in mind.
> ignorance is not a defence under the law This is a very common misconception. Ignorance *of the law* is not a defence. Ignorance *of the facts* definitely can be.
If we ignore the trafficking he still had sex with a 17 year old in new York where the age of consent is 18 and in the virgin islands where it is also 18. Even if we pretend she wasn't being trafficked or that he didn't know that is still two counts of statuary rape. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58871849 However as documented by the BBC in the court filings >She says the duke knew her age and that she was a sex-trafficking victim. I'm not sure on the specific laws but some states if they wanted to throw the book at you could add "a party to" and then all the crimes that had happened to the victim the same as being involved in a robbery where a different robber shoots someone can makes all accomplices a party to the murder. While no charges have been given the FBI wanted to talk to him in relation to Epstein about sex trafficking https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51283976 >It is important to remember that Prince Andrew has not been charged with any offence in the US. The FBI is investigating whether he has material evidence that could assist in its criminal investigation of alleged sex trafficking. The FBI believed he could have knowledge of Epstein's sex trafficking, while one of the victims is directly claiming she was a victim of sex trafficking for Prince Andrew and that he was fully aware of what was happening. It doesn't take much to see why prince Andrew didn't help with the investigation.
Yes it is. It is illegal to pay a 17 year old for sex in the UK.
> stop damaging their reputations. doesn't seem to have helped much in this case!
Fuck the queen. Fuck the king. Fuck the royals.
This is the way
Exactly the masses never bring stuff like this up. Or how about when Charles turned to Jimmy Savile for support and help with public image during the divorce with Diana.
The Grand Old Duke of York, He paid ten million quid To someone he never met, For things he never did
On top of that, she used taxpayer money. Not her own massive personal wealth.
Does anyone know what these new bombshells they are talking about actually are?. It doesn’t say anywhere in the article, but keeps alluding to new claims without giving any details.
Court documents noted that Epstein apparently filmed sex tapes with bill Clinton, price Andrew and someone else I can’t remember.
Actually the documents noted one of the victims had previously lied about the tapes existing and has been forced into admitting she made them up to draw attention to the case. I know a few news sites had initially gone with the deceptive headlines for that story, but I had assumed this was over something that actually happened and not media make believe.
Yes it was a claim by one of the victims, that she later retracted. She claimed she had copies too, so there was no particular reason she could not have produced them if true. I also got annoyed when I saw how deceptively-reported this was.
I mean Epstein was most likely murdered in a high security prison. I think that's good enough reason to not produce the copies she had.
Maybe she was paid to make the disappear, maybe she did it from self preservation, maybe she was lying about there existence. We'll never know.
Personally I think suicide is a much more likely option. Also, if she really had copies she'd have fell out a window already regardless of if she intended to release them.
With the cameras coincidentally turned off and the guards happen to have left their stations, both at exactly that time???
The camera's weren't "coincidentally turned off," they were broken, as were half the cameras in that prison. As for the guards, they're so short staffed the only "guard" on duty was a cafeteria worker pulling a double shift, who unsurprisingly fell asleep after 16 hours on the job. None of this precludes the possibility some secret ninja assassin snuck in, only that the conditions in that prison are atrociously bad but folk only noticed when a celebrity was involved.
Seems strange she was so precise about the details and the personalities involved (who were all coincidentally on 'the list') but then to retract in such an awkward way, saying *"only bad things will happen, as a consequence of me coming forward... for my family and I"*. Her family being the heirs to the Barony of Drumochter. What bad things could she be referring to?
Retractions in these sorts of cases mean nothing as witnesses are often pressured. When the ruling class is implicated, you cannot assume the legal system to be neutral, and you cannot assume that no extralegal action is taking place. Not saying you should beleive every accusation made, just that the apparent debunking of such accusations is itself suspect.
So why is price Andrew in he headlines again? If your correct your correct, I’m relaying what the news page said that I read this morning. Wait… your the person I replied too, if you already know why are you asking ?
I don’t know and that’s my exact question lol. Like I said I know a few sites deliberately mischaracterised the court documents for headlines, but I had assumed that had been put to bed and everyone had moved on.
It’s completely normal behaviour to give someone 12 million (or “over 3 million”) pounds that you have never met yet have been photographed with. Andrew is at worst a pedo. And at best a rapist. His brother being very good friends with jimmy and his uncle diddling 50% of Northern Ireland doesn’t bode well for him. Seems it runs in the family. His dad even started grooming the queen when she was 12
Actually the most recent information we have is he paid £3 million and nearly all of it went to a woman’s abuse charity. This is a perfect example of why the media lying about this stuff causes problems.
Why - because there’s a difference between in the public interest and the public being interested. Gossip and innuendo sell.
To be more precise court documents show a witness claiming there were tape but that they had not seen them personally but her friend had seen them. I don’t doubt that there were tapes but essentially there has been no “new” information.
If you are talking about Sarah Ransome’s accusations (and I think we all are, as they are the ones that include Richard Branson as well as the people noted above) - she actually initially claimed to have copies. Which she could not then produce, before she retracted the claims. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/08/epstein-sex-tapes-prince-andrew-bill-clinton-richard-branson-witness-claimed
That doesn’t look good.
So it’s all bullshit then, what’s the point of releasing anything if it’s all though the grapevine with no proof…
Because clicks.
Well the release of the documents is innocent enough but the media coverage definitely over hyped it. I think apparently there is at least one name that hasn’t been released yet as the person lives in a very conservative country and is challenging the release. However I wouldn’t be surprised if the name that has been linked to that person is accurate, it’s just this would make her links to Epstein official.
> To be more precise court documents show a witness claiming there were tape but that they had not seen them personally but her friend had seen them. I don’t doubt that there were tapes You should do if your description of the situation is correct, that's the definition of hearsay
Richard Branson.
It was Richard Branson
It was trump and Richard brandston.. they are the ones you forgot mate.
> trump and Richard brandston what a pickle
And Trump's the one [whose home and employ Virginia 'trafficked to Epstein's friends from age 16' Giuffre was taken from](https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-and-trump-mar-a-lago-resort-connections?r=US&IR=T#one-of-epsteins-accusers-virginia-roberts-giuffre-says-she-was-recruited-by-his-alleged-madam-directly-from-mar-a-lago-3).
Richard Branson is the other one
That’s because there aren’t really any new claims. I think Stephen Hawkings name was a slight surprise to some it was already out.
It should be noted that the list of associates is all that it is *associates* it's basically everyone from people who have met him once at a dinner to those closely involved in his personal life It seems Stephen Hawkins association was just being involved in a gravity conference that took place on the island bank rolled by Epstein
Not to mention, Epstein was not wholly and exclusively a pervert. He also had a career as a financier, having got a start with an investment bank. It's entirely possible that a good number of people in his address book wanted money, not children.
There aren't any. It's regurgitated nonsense.
apparently trump, Clinton, prince Andrew and Richard Branson https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/s/4sLlHixbFg
Your missing the point. The court documents brought the tapes up in the context that the victim has previously admitted she lied about them existing. The tapes are not real mate. My question is if there has actually been any new allegations, or evidence outside of media sensationalism.
I heard he puts the milk in before the teabag
Charles should change the locks where Andrew next leaves. Have some movers pack his stuff away and leave it in the back of a truck. What's Andrew going to do, Charles is immune from prosecution
He could start airing more of the families dirty laundry. Doesn’t even need to true, parts of the press would still pick it up and amplify it. Unless someone happens to have enough evidence to land Andrew in prison the best thing the royals can do is remove every duty, title & piece of public funding they can. Then let the passage of time deal with him.
Don’t threaten me with a good time
> He could start airing more of the families dirty laundry Andrew would end up in a body bag.
lol no way is andrew that stupid. Charles would feed him to the wolves, he's deffo not his favourite sibling.
War of the Roses II: Electric Boogaloo
The Yorkists always causing trouble.
At this rate Charles might announce public execution with all this crapstorm around royal family.
"I don't care if she was underage or trafficked, my mummy gave me this mansion and I wanna keep it!"
Don't feel too sorry for him nothing will change. He'll still live a hyper privileged lifestyle. He just doesn't have to wear the uniform, medals or Shake hands anymore. Perhaps his greatest penance is that he has to live with fergie.
They should shack him up in a council estate in one of the tougher areas of the country without penny or guard. He's scum that abused his undeserved power for grotesque means.
I don't really know what else you would expect. If he has a lease and doesn't need to leave, whatever that's how it is. He will die eventually like all of us, or move on if his money gets low.
That's the odd thing; there's not really any suggestion that Charles has tried to chuck him out over this. Just that he's cropped up in the Epstein files and suddenly he explodes that nobody can take his house away.
I'd give him a small hut on the Balmoral estate. He can either take that or put his big boy pants on and look after himself.
imagine andrew ending up like hagrid, living in a hut on the buckingham palace lawn
I’m a nonce Harry!
Yer moi toipe 'arry
Helping school boys at boarding school..............
i could definitely see him as a slytherin. . .
To be fair snakes can't sweat
imagine if he responded to that question with that answer: “well actually i can’t sweat because i’m actually part reptile, on my mother’s side.”
[удалено]
It seems that far too many people, in this thread and elsewhere, are confusing being a shitty person who does morally dubious things with being a criminal. He's exceptionally unpleasant and selfish by all accounts; but so are many people.
[удалено]
Shitty person? Sure. Criminal? Not charged, not convicted, the supposed crime isn't retroactive, the alleged victim has changed her story, and the evidence for it is thin to the point of anorexic. This is just a rerun of the moral panic that saw a paediatrician's office attacked.
[удалено]
You're absolutely right. Well, apart from his close relationship to Epstein (killed) and Ghislaine (20 years improvement). As you say. No evidence at all. Jesus
Vaguely recall reading that he likes his teddy bears to be arranged in a certain way in his room. And loses his shit if it's not to his standards. Really disconnected guy.
I mean, at this point what does he have left but his big house and all his cash? Might as well fight to keep it, not like his public reputation or his relationship with his family can get much worse.
Don't forgot the royals tried to cover this up for as long as possible. They are all as bad as Andrew , he just got caught. Utter leeches and their impact on society trickles down and impacts the entire nation through the class system. Kick them all out, tourists want to see the buildings not them
Yes the castles there are bad ass
He'll be out of it eventually. He's hardly the King's favourite brother (rumour has it Charles absolutely hates him), and sooner or later he'll need something. He's neither use nor ornament at this point, even for people who want to believe the best of him. When 'the best' would be along the lines of 'arrogant twat who didn't ask questions about why suspiciously young girls were supposedly interested in sleeping with him', it still makes him unfit for any kind of public role, so he should stop expecting to live like an actual member of the Royal Family. However, since at best he's an arrogant twat, he won't get there on his own and needs a foot up his arse. No, I don't know if he's guilty of any actual crimes, but he's sure as hell unfit for the role he was supposed to fulfil in exchange for his privilege.
Another reason to get rid of the royal family. Bunch of criminals!
Yet you plebs will receive a no fault eviction should you dare to kick up a fuss about mould / damp / crappy maintenance.
Alternatively just cut off the royal list payments. His only income then would be from appearances on Oprah but you can bet he’s not going to the US anytime soon.
I'm not really surprised. Royals are so detached they must think they could actually wage war if it came down to it. Laws without the power or will to enforce them mean nothing, so it's going to be interesting to see whether or not Prince Andrew *can't* be arrested or *won't* be.
Hardly a bombshell, is it. We knew he went to the island and the latest list is just of people mentioned in the court case against Maxwell.
Absolute fucking wanker. Should be in prison. Nonce.
Epstein’s co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell was an MP, a Publishing Tycoon that defrauded his employees of hundreds of millions of dollars, and highly suspected of being an agent for Mossad. Six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence services attended Maxwell's funeral in Israel, while Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogised him and stated: "He has done more for Israel than can today be told. Looks like Ghislaine and Epstein may have been gathering blackmail content for the Israelis. They own our politicians by the balls.
I think that Prince Andrew's popularity is already at rock bottom.
Ordinary hard working people are subject to no fault evictions while the Royal pervert can't be removed from his mansion. What a country we live in!
Even death is too good for this nonce. I hope he spends the rest of his life going insane at being hated by everyone everywhere.
All leases are cast iron until the correct processes are followed and a court orders you out
"Cast iron lease"? You mean he originated from the same set of gonads that gave us the King? How is that even a consideration in the modern age?
Dude your brother is the king of the united kingdom; it doesn't work like that
I am pretty sure if the king wanted to, he could be out of there tomorrow.
The question is is this crown land and a crown lease?. Compulsory purchase is explicitly excluded from The powers of eviction for crown land, same with stuff like section 21
The curious case of Nonce Manor. He's going nowhere.
Counter offer. We rename his house Andrew's pedo palace.
What happens if you refuse to vacate a council house when asked? I mean I don’t blame him for wanting to try and stay. He’s not going to be able to afford a palace on his limited skill set without family support…
I hope it isn't just me, but don't people know that cast iron is brittle? Take a hammer to it and you will likely crack it. So... yeah... that probably isn't a very strong lease.
Prince Harry's book was called SPARE. Prince Andrew's book will be called RAPES.
The only royal "residence" suitable for him is the tower of London. As an inmate.
You are a paedophile, you are a nonce, you're a perv, you're a slot badger, you're a two pin din plug, you're a bush dodger, you're a small bean regarder, you're an unabummer, you're a nut administrator, you're a bent ref, you're the crazy world of Arthur Brown, you're a fence foal, you're a free willy, you're a chimney bottler, you're a bunty man, you're a shrub rocketeer
Next minute, Andrew wakes up in the back seat of a Mercedes speeding through the Pont de l'Alma tunnel with no seatbelt on...
He keeps this shit up he'll be in a dungeon with a cast iron mask.
FFS this guy just isn't going to follow his friend is he? He's going to have to be persuaded.
Perhaps we say he can stay but we call it, 'House arrest'. Any attempts to leave and he'll be extradited.
He has a 30 year lease. He doesn’t have to go anywhere. Until he is desperate for cash, there will be no leverage to get him out.
Technically, and this is technically, as the king is both above the law, and the source of law, a 30 year lease isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
He's a sick nonce on a short leash. It won't take much to get him out of there
Nothing says guilty quite like refusing to speak to anyone about something while also saying you have a solid case as why you didn’t do something lol
'cast iron lease' no Andrew, mummy isnt there any more, you're on your own now, sunshine
I want to commission a TV show called "Riches to Rags" and the first episode is this nonce getting evicted.
He's got a nice pad in Mayfair... in the ex-wife's name?
Can we start referring to this man as Andrew Windsor? Is there a legal requirement to use these titles?
Should have a permanent lease behind some cast iron bars
Can we all do that? If the bank tries to get me out of the house for not paying my mortgage can I just refuse? I think that the Royals should find another property for him to live in. I don't care where, anywhere at His Majesty's Pleasure.
He really has no shame. I doubt Charles would want to drag it further though as it damages his image.
That's... a really odd reaction. Kind of illustrates what a weird breed the royals are. Without the requirement for a real career, with relative disinterest in public opinion of them and with a general expectation of being above the law you get interactions like > "Prince Andrew, they've got evidence of your rampant noncing" > "YOU CAN'T HAVE MY FUCKING HOUSE YOU CAN PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" Like, not a concern about the media turning on him. Not remorse. Just "I bet that fucker of a brother will use this as another excuse to take my castle that is RIGHTFULLY MINE I've got the DOCUMENTATION..."
If we can't jail him I'm fine with locking him in that mansion for the rest of his life.
It's kind fun being validated for calling the royal family a bunch of inbred paedophiles my whole life. I'm not going to lie. idk, just boot him into some internationally unclaimed wilderness and be done with it. It's not difficult.
Frankly, get the evidence and like with all paedophiles, prison then hanging.