Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Bahnhof Strasse said:
Wayne Couzens' employer dropping a rape case having spoken with the accused's lawyers, odd one...

From the Scum:
And his friends last night brazenly said it was “no surprise” the Met had dropped its review into sex abuse allegations for a third time.

Cops contacted Andrew’s £1,000-an-hour legal team after Met chief Dame Cressida Dick asked officers to review the case in August.

It is not known if they spoke to Andrew. But The Sun understands the Met did not quiz 38-year-old Ms Giuffre, now living in Australia.
Click to expand...

That is odd given the other arm of Murdoch's UK press, The Times, claims they did speak to her. Pretty shocking if they didn't, and surprising given their keenness to appear to take such issues seriously in the immediate aftermath of the Sarah Everard case.
 
JoeyBoy said:
Wouldn't they have to go to Oz to interview her then? I don't think the cops are very interested in trying to pin anything on him and are just going through the motions but is it worth sending a couple of them to Oz on a jolly when everyone knows nothing is going to come of it?
Click to expand...
They could at least have spoken to her over the phone (which is what The Times claims happened).
 
Athos said:
That is odd given the other arm of Murdoch's UK press, The Times, claims they did speak to her. Pretty shocking if they didn't, and surprising given their keenness to appear to take such issues seriously in the immediate aftermath of the Sarah Everard case.
Click to expand...

The Times did, after that the Sunday Times claimed they didn't, which is where the scum got it from.
 
Athos said:
They could at least have spoken to her over the phone (which is what The Times claims happened).
Click to expand...
I know I'm not in the same social class as Andrew but don't have they to speak to him with lawyers present rather than just speak to his lawyers? What if they want to ask him questions his lawyers don't know the answer to?
When I was arrested the cops made me come to the nick and wait whilst they dragged the duty brief out of his bed. I'm starting to think rich people get special treatment.
 
Bahnhof Strasse said:
Turns out the filth didn’t speak with her, the only people they spoke with was Andrew’s lawyers.
Click to expand...
So to paraphrase Spymaster in his post #4443:

The Met: Some girl has accused your client HRH Sweaty Noncy of raping her, what's the score?

HRH Sweaty Noncy's brief: All lies, she's just making it up for fame and dosh

The Met: Alright then, cheers, sorry to have wasted your time
🤬
 
JoeyBoy said:
I know I'm not in the same social class as Andrew but don't have they to speak to him with lawyers present rather than just speak to his lawyers? What if they want to ask him questions his lawyers don't know the answer to?
When I was arrested the cops made me come to the nick and wait whilst they dragged the duty brief out of his bed. I'm starting to think rich people get special treatment.
Click to expand...
Most likely, yes. Though I expect they'd claim there wasn't enough evidence to arrest him, but that they'd have liked him to come in for a voluntary interview, which would be arranged through his lawyers.
 
Last edited:
Athos said:
I get the feeling they're all just speculating. Hope she confirms if they NFAd it without even speaking to her.
Click to expand...

Seem to be a fair few Old Bill who are quite pissed off about the whole thing, (and who can blame them, being asked to cover for such a blatant nonce), the rags' sources have been fairly reliable so far...
 
scalyboy said:
So to paraphrase Spymaster in his post #4443:

The Met: Some girl has accused your client HRH Sweaty Noncy of raping her, what's the score?

HRH Sweaty Noncy's brief: All lies, she's just making it up for fame and dosh

The Met: Alright then, cheers, sorry to have wasted your time
🤬
Click to expand...
Entirely correct, though at £1000 an hour I doubt they were too fussed about having their time wasted.
 
Most papers suggesting they didn't speak to Virginia Giuffre which, if true, makes the process an insult rather than a botched job.

Already seemed a bit odd as a process. It was trailed as Cressida Dick calling for a 'review' of the previous decision, in light of evidence revealed in the American civil action (I think). Not sure if it was intended to be an administrative review, essentially whether the paper clips in the right place in the file, or an investigation? Speaking to the nonce's solicitors but not the victim's seems to be neither of the above. Anyway, it's exactly what it is, a defence of privilege and a bit of juggling by the met to repackage their inaction.
 
Last edited:
I won't link to the mail, particularly as there's a picture of the nonce grinning away after the met decision. Anyway, here's a quote from the met:

Met spokesman said last night: 'As a matter of procedure, MPS officers reviewed a document released in August 2021 as part of a US civil action. This review has concluded and we are taking no further action.'
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but the scope of the 'review' seems to have narrowed since Dick announced it, with references to nobody being 'above the law'. Now it's 'we had a quick sken at some document'.
 
Wilf said:
I won't link to the mail, particularly as there's a picture of the nonce grinning away after the met decision. Anyway, here's a quote from the met:


Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but the scope of the 'review' seems to have narrowed since Dick announced it, with references to nobody being 'above the law'. Now it's 'we had a quick sken at some document'.
Click to expand...
Assuming they found the documents in the first place. I doubt they even poked never mind read them.
 
If there is/was to be a genuine reopening of the case and/or review, I'm not sure when the optimum time for that would be (when new evidence emerges? when there's evidence the original was badly conducted?). In theory, the epstein agreement and things that might come out in the American civil action might provide grounds for further investigations over here. There's a genuine element of dammed if you reopen it now, dammed if you leave it till after the US civil case. But having said this, my guess is that the results of this latest 'review' will be used to justify further inaction regardless of what emerges in the US. Holding the review was a cynical response to the Sarah Everard murder by one of their own, but timed to take place before further evidence is likely to come out.
 
I once gave a witness statement to an assault as did my neighbour at the time. Obviously we both have our contact details. The copper either lost or wrote it down incorrectly because when they wanted to speak to her they would call my phone, even when she gave them her number again.

The whole thing was farcical - and that was something relatively minor.
 
Last edited:
The most annoying thing was never dealing with the same person twice. I think out of all the police I spoke to, whether in person or on the phone, there was only one person who seemed to be competent.

The detective I spoke to several weeks after the initial incident certainly was not the sharpest tool, he repeated what the first person had told me then made he'd solved a one woman crime wave (she'd stolen a couple of wallets along the way to the assault) when the initial PC I had spoken to had collated all the information.

My unimpressedness did not go down well with him
 
Talking of coppers fucking up.

My ex b-i-l was copper. In the early days of his career he was on duty one Xmas when a bloke came in and confessed to a murder. He was sent away, repeatedly. A few days later the body was found.

A woman I know was arrested for possession. As she was being taken to the cells a packet of heroin fell onto the floor. For some reason they didn't notice it, and later where unable to tie it directly to her. She was set free.
 
His plan to get it dismissed on a technicality doesn't seem to be working, he is going to have to go there and face it and risk losing or just flatly ignore it and presumably lose it by default. Even though I think there is zero risk if jail time, either of these are disastrous for his image and his chances of returning to public life.
 
MickiQ said:
His plan to get it dismissed on a technicality doesn't seem to be working, he is going to have to go there and face it and risk losing or just flatly ignore it and presumably lose it by default. Even though I think there is zero risk if jail time, either of these are disastrous for his image and his chances of returning to public life.
Click to expand...
What if he "wins?" I don't think he can escape with an untarnished reputation whatever the outcome. (I think, on the balance of probabilities, he did it.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Humberto
British Empire and Slave Trade Reparations
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
155
Views
6K
shambler
shambler
tony.c
Major suspect named in Stephen Lawrence murder by BBC
Replies
23
Views
2K
Saul Goodman
Saul Goodman
Elpenor
Prince William’s many good deeds
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
176
Views
10K
Petcha
P
BristolEcho
Modern Slavery at TN Trawlers
Replies
5
Views
588
CNT36
C
friedaweed
Gwynedd council calls for abolition of title Prince of Wales
Replies
2
Views
412
Serene
Serene
Back
Top Bottom