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

[Wilf]

Unless you get one of thise juries with members of the public on it.

Not sure why, but that brought to mind the Jeffrey Archer libel trial:

In his summing-up, the judge, Mr Justice Caulfield, told the jury: "Remember Mary Archer in the witness box. Your vision of her probably will never disappear. Has she elegance? Has she fragrance?
"Has she had a happy married life? Has she been able to enjoy, rather than endure, her husband Jeffrey? Is he in need of cold, unloving, rubber-insulated sex?"

 

[youngian]

Unless you get one of thise juries with members of the public on it.

In a US context that's true but a lawyer for a defendent organising sympathetic PR press interviews and releases while a trial is pending or taking place will find themselves in hot water. See also coppers whispering in journalists' ears to stitch up defendants as with Christopher Jeffries.

The various lefty/anarcho/anti-royalist posters have been making assumptions about windsor on the basis of his past behaviour, links with epstein and the general doings of wealth and power.

Is challenging wealth and power on the basis of decadent behaviour and debauched cabals really a left wing analysis?

 

[DotCommunist]

has she fragrance? creepy judge is creepy

 

[Treacle Toes]

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.

So was this a bollocks post too?

Clearly it was.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes you're 100% right, the whole post was a load of assumptions and prejudices based on unproven allegations for a trial that hasn't taken place. You are of course correct to point out that is a fatuous thing to do. But it appears Prince Andrew is a member of the establishment lizard men paedophile ring so is not entitled to the presumption of innocence. And from reading the online legal experts on this thread I am supposed to conclude that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and shake my pitchfork. As its a US trial pending we're all entitled to our opinion, in this country we quite rightly are not as its contempt of court.

Anyone can defend the right to the presumption of innocence if its a boy scout or school girl, the question is are you prepared to defend that principle when it is someone as odious as Prince Andrew. By the looks of this thread evidently not. That's why I wrote such a daft post, to see who would move from Kelvin McKenzie to Helena Kennedy in one easy move.

Self-justification much?
And a pretty pathetic post-realisation of what a twat you are edit, too.

 

[youngian]

So was this a bollocks post too?

Clearly it was.

Caught me out there, I do in fact know everything about the motives of all of the individuals in this case

 

[Treacle Toes]

Caught me out there, I do in fact know everything about the motives of all of the individuals in this case

No, but you are being a twat for trolling this thread.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well spotted its speculating and therefore worthless tittle-tattle. A bit like excellent public relations operations which are also worthless when trials are concerned.

Of course they are. it's absolutely impossible to influence a nation of prospective jury members by playing, for example, the "Andrew is a bit of a thicko who is easily taken-advantage-of" card? The one that's been played on his behalf to excuse indiscretions for most of his adult life?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not sure you've got the right to claim the moral highground after some of the assumptions you made about the alleged victim and her motives. You are though right on one thing, as Citizen66 said, we should at the very least be observing the 'alleged' convention and limiting our speculation (something I've been guilty of certainly).

There's a difference though. The various lefty/anarcho/anti-royalist posters have been making assumptions about windsor on the basis of his past behaviour, links with epstein and the general doings of wealth and power. Yes, we perhaps shouldn't be translating that into an assumption about guilt in this particular case. However you have no reason whatsover to start maligning the alleged victim.

With regard to "past behaviour", many of the national dailies have a safe containing stories that they've been "requested" (outside of the usual Notice system) to not publish. Even when I worked at the Express 30 years ago, there were plenty of them, and these weren't stories where the paper's lawyers had blue-penciled them because they couldn't be stood up by "credible" witnesses. This was stuff "The Establishment" didn't want out in the wild. Even on topics where there was plenty of public speculation (the sexual preferences of Andrew Windsor's younger brother, for example), most papers either didn't run stories that had legs, or ran redacted versions attributed to "disgruntled ex-employees" etc.
The editors and (most of all) the proprietors know what serves them best, and what serves them best is serving "The Establishment", and only rocking the boat gently.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Unless you get one of thise juries with members of the public on it.

Now now. youngian shows a fine and nuanced understanding of how public relations works. Edward Bernays would be proud of him.

 

[youngian]

Of course they are. it's absolutely impossible to influence a nation of prospective jury members by playing, for example, the "Andrew is a bit of a thicko who is easily taken-advantage-of" card? The one that's been played on his behalf to excuse indiscretions for most of his adult life?

I wouldn't underestimate the ability of a court and a jury to start from year zero but your point's well made though and the reality is worse than that, the ability to just make trials go away so they never happen in the first place. And you can do that if you're a celebrity let alone royals. I was a court reporter many years ago and developed a respect for the process and the quality of some of the barristers and judges. At the same time the respect for the reliability of police evidence and eye witness statements plummeted.

Edward Bernays would be proud of him.

Damn sauce

 

[brogdale]

The editors and (most of all) the proprietors know what serves them best, and what serves them best is serving "The Establishment", and only rocking the boat gently.

Yep, but Dacre's apparent willingness to 'push the envelope' on this story is interesting.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yep, but Dacre's apparent willingness to 'push the envelope' on this story is interesting.

I think he's somewhat playing his last hurrah, before mandatory retirement, and doesn't much care of a peerage doesn't come his way. I'm sure he and his predecessor both sat on plenty of stories about royals, and he sees this as a way to go out with a bang and promote his own ideas on press regulation, i.e. "we wouldn't have been able to publish this with a state-regulated media".

 

[laptop]

I think he's somewhat playing his last hurrah, before mandatory retirement, and doesn't much care of a peerage doesn't come his way. I'm sure he and his predecessor both sat on plenty of stories about royals, and he sees this as a way to go out with a bang and promote his own ideas on press regulation, i.e. "we wouldn't have been able to publish this with a state-regulated media".

See also Private Eye (passim ad nauseam) on the hate-filled rivalry between the Mail and Mail on Sunday.

I note that today's Mail (edited by Dacre) isn't very big on Da Prince. Yesterday's paper (edited by Geordie Greig) was.

Today's paper has, however, gone big online on photos of a 14-year-old who's gone into modelling

 

[Zabo]

A little dig from the Torygraph. More here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-controversies-in-pictures.html?frame=3154204

 

[tony heath]

This evening the Palace and the BBC are taking a similar line, the BBC report that the Palace is sending a message of business as usual, presumably from Meryll Walters their newish crisis management expert. At the same time the BBC is saying this has happened before and it's pretty much business as usual for the Palace. You know, the normal business.

 

[brogdale]

The Duchess, 55, has remained in Verbier in the Swiss Alps, where she gave her ex-husband her unequivocal support as she headed off for a mountain walk today.

Asked if she was sticking by her ex-husband, she told reporters: “The York family is a tight unit. We’ve always been a tight unit.

"He is the greatest man there is. It was the finest moment of my life in 1986 when I married him. He is a great man, the best in the world."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Prince-Andrew-and-gives-her-full-support.html

 

[Pickman's model]

a tight unit: with him in london and her in switzerland. and they've always been a tight unit which is undoubtedly why they're divorced.

 

[brogdale]

a tight unit: with him in london and her in switzerland. and they've always been a tight unit which is undoubtedly why they're divorced.

Indeed. That's some claim she makes..

He is a great man, the best in the world."

 

[Pickman's model]

Indeed. That's some claim she makes..

i've been in the presence of greatness - some people i remember out of the anti-poll tax movement, the anti-facist movement, the republican movement are great people. prince andrew? scum.

 

[tony heath]

Indeed. That's some claim she makes..

The York's are certainly tight

 

[brogdale]

So fucking tacky...

The Duchess was herself caught up in the fall-out from the Duke’s friendship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein when it emerged in 2011 that Epstein had paid of a £15,000 debt for her the previous year.

She described accepting the payment to her former personal assistant Johnny O’Sullivan as “a gigantic error of judgement” and said that “whenever I can I will repay the money and will have nothing ever to do with Jeffrey Epstein ever again”.

Asked whether she had since repaid the money, her spokesman declined to answer.

 

[brogdale]

Speaking from the family ski holiday at a £22,000-a-week chalet in Verbier in the Swiss Alps, The Duchess, 55, has.....

That we fucking pay for, now she can't ponce off her ex's paedo pal.

 

[brogdale]

In the circumstances, that's quite a disturbing picture...

Prince Andrew left the resort yesterday, bound for Britain and talks with the Queen, senior aides and lawyers

 

[TopCat]

i've been in the presence of greatness - some people i remember out of the anti-poll tax movement, the anti-facist movement, the republican movement are great people. prince andrew? scum.

Nail on head.

 

[TopCat]

I think he's somewhat playing his last hurrah, before mandatory retirement, and doesn't much care of a peerage doesn't come his way. I'm sure he and his predecessor both sat on plenty of stories about royals, and he sees this as a way to go out with a bang and promote his own ideas on press regulation, i.e. "we wouldn't have been able to publish this with a state-regulated media".

I think Dacre is wedded to certain values and these do not include covering up for establishment figures who want to rape children.

 

[brogdale]

Meanwhile....

Dershowitz has received a formal request from Roberts’ lawyers to be subject on 19 January to a deposition. The letter asks Dershowitz to bring passport pages reflecting his travel over the last decade and “all photographs taken while you were a traveling companion or house guest of Jeffrey Epstein’s”.

Her lawyers said they would “welcome the same cooperation from Prince Andrew should he choose to avail himself of the same opportunity”.

Dershowitz, who spoke to Epstein over the weekend, said the multi-millionaire was incensed by the the Florida court motion. “He is furious that they’re picking on me and the Prince,” he said. “He says there’s no truth to any of it. So he’s very angry and he thinks this is a tactic to try to get at him.”

What an utter piece of shit.

 

[danny la rouge]

Meanwhile....



What an utter piece of shit.

I read that last paragraph in the original and couldn't work out who the "he" refers to in the reported speech.

Is it a real quote?

 

[brogdale]

I read that last paragraph in the original and couldn't work out who the "he" refers to in the reported speech.

Is it a real quote?

I'm assuming the he is Epstein.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm assuming the he is Epstein.

Yes, so Dershowitz is saying Epstein is furious because Dershowitz and Andrew are being used to get to Epstein. Epstein is furthermore saying the allegations are untrue. And that's why Epstein is furious. That's what I read it as.

So, we're being asked to accept the (second hand) word of a convicted sex offender that Andrew and Dershowitz are innocent? Nice character witness! And the motivation for bringing Andrew and Dershowitz into it? That's the best way to get at a convicted sex offender.