Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit

[Fez909]

It was a disgusting post. To be honest youngian I read your post and thought I'd got it wrong. Seems not though, you really did come out with that shit.

I re-read it a few times, too, just to make sure it wasn't sarcasm or I was misreading.

 

[Wilf]

Smart enough to get paid?

/vomits

Gold diggers everywhere in your world right?

Indeed. I'll admit I've not read anything beyond the general reporting of this story, but I've not seen anything seriously questioning the woman's claim that she was pimped out from the age of 15 by Epstein. Whatever the level of coercion and force - and however much knowledge Windsor had of her age - she certainly appears to have been raped by his clients (and Epstein himself) from the age of 15. For youngian to assume she is a liar and only after money is just scummy. Should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Wilf]

I re-read it a few times, too, just to make sure it wasn't sarcasm or I was misreading.

Yep, youngian I'll be happy to apologise if you want to clarify what you meant.

 

[youngian]

Yes hands up I was being facetious, I know jackshit about the motives of any of individuals in this case. The first sentence isn't wide of the mark though, we're a nation bowers and scrapers.

 

[free spirit]

Anyone unfortunate enough to observe the obsequious fawning of people around the rich, powerful and famous will know that a prince can get shagged and their cocked sucked for free even from their male grovellers. At least the 'sex slave' was smart enough to get paid for it. It looks like she's going for double bubble and I'd be surprised if they nail Alan Dershowitz who could spot an ambulance chasing chancer lawyer a mile off.

That could potentially apply to the 18 year old in the article I linked to up thread, but not to someone who was hired as a live in masseuse at the age of 15.

 

[youngian]

For youngian to assume she is a liar and only after money is just scummy.

You're absolutely correct I was making unfounded assumptions based on limited information of a pending court case.

 

[laptop]

When considering agenda etc, keep in mind that the Fail have been interested in this story before, they covered it in 2011 and probably even earlier. Not got link handy, but I posted it earlier in the thread.

Now, thanks to the court documents Miss Roberts lodged in Florida last week, The Mail on Sunday can publish...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895735/The-account-masseuse-centre-explosive-Prince-Andrew-sex-slave-drama-telling-truth.html

They've been sitting on these interviews for three years or more. Now the lawyers will let them publish more...

Also, I suspect, a chance to outdo the real enemy of the MoS - the Daily Fail.

 

[Idris2002]

Suppose for the sake of argument that he doesn't get away with what he allegedly did. What will the likely broader consequences be? Lasting damage to the monarchy?

 

[Wilf]

Suppose for the sake of argument that he doesn't get away with what he allegedly did. What will the likely broader consequences be? Lasting damage to the monarchy?

Would certainly do some damage if he ended up having to reach a financial settlement (unlikely as that is). The chance of him seeing the inside of a U.S or U.K prison is so remote I can't play along with that even as a thought experiment!

 

[laptop]

Suppose for the sake of argument that he doesn't get away with what he allegedly did. What will the likely broader consequences be? Lasting damage to the monarchy?

It's not clear to me that any of his alleged actions would have been an offence under UK law. As noted above, extradition is unlikely.

If that's true, much of the damage has already taken place. This may be the worst for the Saxe-Coburg Gothas:

He was the most hideous dancer I had ever seen. He was grabbing my hips and he was pouring with perspiration and he had this cheesy smile.

On the other hand, if photos emerge...

 

[ruffneck23]

I would imagine there would be shit loads of evidence about to come out or would ALL the papers dare to report this ?

admittedly they all say ' allegedly ' , but would all the papers take the risk ?

 

[Wilf]

I would imagine there would be shit loads of evidence about to come out or would ALL the papers dare to report this ?

admittedly they all say ' allegedly ' , but would all the papers take the risk ?

I'm sure his bodyguards/royal protection officers have enough to finish him off, but they'll have signed the official secrets act.

 

[Fez909]

It's not clear to me that any of his alleged actions would have been an offence under UK law.

Prostitution laws, maybe?

Paying for sexual services of a child

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person (B),

(b)before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for those services to B or a third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment, and

(c)either—

(i)B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

(ii)B is under 13.

If it happened as she said, then just because he never paid her personally, it doesn't mean she wasn't a prostitute and/or that he wasn't soliciting her. He knew she was 17, too, which puts it squarely in illegal territory.

The bit in bold is the wiggle room. Did he know she had been paid for this? Of course he would say no. But it is plainly obvious that she must have been.

 

[Mation]

Suppose for the sake of argument that he doesn't get away with what he allegedly did. What will the likely broader consequences be? Lasting damage to the monarchy?

I don't know what 'damage to the monarchy' means. The only meaningful damage that could be done imo (though likely not by this, I'm very sad to think) is that they lose their position (ie stop being the monarchy) and/or their money. They might profess to care about their reputation, but ultimately, why would they really give a fuck unless it means they can't live their profligate sponging lifestyle?

 

[laptop]

Prostitution laws, maybe?

If it happened as she said, then just because he never paid her personally, it doesn't mean she wasn't a prostitute and/or that he wasn't soliciting her. He knew she was 17, too, which puts it squarely in illegal territory.

The bit in bold is the wiggle room. Did he know she had been paid for this? Of course he would say no. But it is plainly obvious that she must have been.

You're right - I'd forgotten the split age of consent.

That could apply if he knew of photos being taken, too?

Whip-round for a private prosecution?

 

[Zabo]

Torygraph

"The Duke of York could face a Scotland Yard investigation into Virginia Roberts’s claims if she makes a formal complaint against him, police sources have confirmed.

Despite the fact that all criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the Queen, members of the Royal family are not immune from the law. The Princess Royal became the first senior member of the Royal family to receive a criminal record when she was fined £500 in 2002 after admitting having a dog dangerously out of control.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said of Miss Robert’s claims that she was “sexually abused” by the Duke: “We have not received any allegations at this stage. If we did receive a complaint we would investigate it.”

On Saturday the Duke instructed his lawyers, Harbottle & Lewis, to write to media organisations reminding them of his denials and urging caution in reporting Miss Roberts’s claims"

In full

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...n-over-Virginia-Roberts-sex-abuse-claims.html

 

[elbows]

I would imagine there would be shit loads of evidence about to come out or would ALL the papers dare to report this ?

admittedly they all say ' allegedly ' , but would all the papers take the risk ?

They aren't taking much of a risk in most instances. The fact this story has emerged in several goes over a good number of years gives further clues about their non-risk taking methods: Reporting of things other people have said in connection with specific legal actions. There are some exceptions to this, often involving the tabloid version of the more scandalous details, but they are taking the same sort of risks they've done on a calculated basis many times before, and they probably have additional confidence due to Epsteins reputation already being undeniably tarnished by prior conviction.

Its entirely unclear to me whether they think more is about to come out that will allow the story to run and run. The post-Savile attitudes towards abuse can give the story momentum that it lacked in, for example, 2011, and there is always a chance that they hope if any of the alleged offenders were serial offenders, more victims might be prompted to speak out. But there is nothing in particular that gives me any inkling on those fronts with this story.

 

[Zabo]

As they say, if it lasts for more than a week it will last a long time. I wonder if the Press will follow him around and ask him for example: 'Have you anything to say about these allegations?'

Thank goodness for the non castrated press outwith these Isles.

 

[brogdale]

It's not clear to me that any of his alleged actions would have been an offence under UK law.
On the other hand, if photos emerge...

What? Photos of 'actions' you don't regard as criminal?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

What? Photos of 'actions' you don't regard as criminal?

Depends how grotesque his dancing was ...

 

[Pickman's model]

Depends how grotesque his dancing was ...

put them in front of the jury - len goodman, darcey bussell, craig revell-horwood and bruno tonioli

 

[Pickman's model]

Torygraph

"The Duke of York could face a Scotland Yard investigation into Virginia Roberts’s claims if she makes a formal complaint against him, police sources have confirmed.

Despite the fact that all criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the Queen, members of the Royal family are not immune from the law. The Princess Royal became the first senior member of the Royal family to receive a criminal record when she was fined £500 in 2002 after admitting having a dog dangerously out of control.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said of Miss Robert’s claims that she was “sexually abused” by the Duke: “We have not received any allegations at this stage. If we did receive a complaint we would investigate it.”

On Saturday the Duke instructed his lawyers, Harbottle & Lewis, to write to media organisations reminding them of his denials and urging caution in reporting Miss Roberts’s claims"

In full

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...n-over-Virginia-Roberts-sex-abuse-claims.html

i can't help thinking yer prince will be instructing his lawyers for something else in the not too distant future.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't know what 'damage to the monarchy' means. The only meaningful damage that could be done imo (though likely not by this, I'm very sad to think) is that they lose their position (ie stop being the monarchy) and/or their money. They might profess to care about their reputation, but ultimately, why would they really give a fuck unless it means they can't live their profligate sponging lifestyle?

because they want to be met by an adoring publick, not a baying mob.

 

[brogdale]

Depends how grotesque his dancing was ...

Could have been of Astaire-like quality tbh, but for such a powerful adult to leer at, grab and sweatily dance over a young girl just 3 years older than his own daughter, sounds pretty grotesque to me.

 

[laptop]

What? Photos of 'actions' you don't regard as criminal?

Can happen.

It's illegal to make an indecent photo of someone under 18 (unless you're married to them).

Even if nothing happening in front of the lens was illegal.

And "make" is interpreted very widely - including copying a computer file. So it could include knowingly appearing in such a photo. (I don't have the stomach right now to go through the 2003 Act to check for specific offences involved in appearing in indecent photos with a person under 18.)

 

[brogdale]

Torygraph

"The Duke of York could face a Scotland Yard investigation into Virginia Roberts’s claims if she makes a formal complaint against him, police sources have confirmed.

Despite the fact that all criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the Queen, members of the Royal family are not immune from the law. The Princess Royal became the first senior member of the Royal family to receive a criminal record when she was fined £500 in 2002 after admitting having a dog dangerously out of control.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said of Miss Robert’s claims that she was “sexually abused” by the Duke: “We have not received any allegations at this stage. If we did receive a complaint we would investigate it.”

On Saturday the Duke instructed his lawyers, Harbottle & Lewis, to write to media organisations reminding them of his denials and urging caution in reporting Miss Roberts’s claims"

In full

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...n-over-Virginia-Roberts-sex-abuse-claims.html

Let's hope Ms Roberts does go ahead and make a formal complaint to the UK authorities. From what the Guardian has said about the details of Epstein's plea-deal it would appear that Windsor would already enjoy immunity in the US even if, at some future point, he were to be cited as a co-conspiritator...

The Guardian understands the plea deal states: “If Epstein successfully fulfils all the terms of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein including but not limited to [four named individuals not including Prince Andrew or Dershowitz].”

It could mean that if Prince Andrew is ever considered a “co-conspirator” with Epstein, he could be prevented from facing criminal charges.

As well as seeking some justice for his alleged victims, it would be good to see the on-going reputational damage for a member of the Mountbatten-Windsor family that a 'Yewtree'-style enquiry would effect.

 

[brogdale]

Can happen.

It's illegal to make an indecent photo of someone under 18 (unless you're married to them).

Even if nothing happening in front of the lens was illegal.

And "make" is interpreted very widely - including copying a computer file. So it could include knowingly appearing in such a photo. (I don't have the stomach right now to go through the 2003 Act to check for specific offences involved in appearing in indecent photos with a person under 18.)

Oh, I see what you mean.
Even if not in UK?

 

[laptop]

Even if not in UK?

Don't know for sure about that. But the allegations include events in the UK...

 

[Espresso]

Could have been of Astaire-like quality tbh, but for such a powerful adult to leer at, grab and sweatily dance over a young girl just 3 years older than his own daughter, sounds pretty grotesque to me.

Anyone who's ever been to an office Christmas party any time in the last...well forever, really, will more than likely have seen that, to be right.
It is grotesque; of course it is. But it's hardly something that's unique to parties where your host is a millionaire pimp.

 

[hot air baboon]

The Windsors have a far more sophiscated PR and press operation than anything Clifford could provide. That's why they're still around.

...I see this evenings BBC2 tv schedule has been subject to some hasty cosmetic surgery....the 9pm slot now playing host to Racing Legends : Graham Hill was formerly occupied by :

Reinventing the Royals : Steve Hewlett tells the inside story of the relationship between the monarchy & the media during the past 20 years...

...oops...Mr Hewlett may have to add a hasty new chapter to that one...