[News] Prince Andrew interviewed about allegations

[Gwylan]

Good King Wenceslas?

Who was actually a Duke. But that doesn't have the same ring to it

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

She has put on a bit of weight and aged a bit since that picture with Andrew. Might as well go for it now and get the publicity and money I guess.
I suspect she knew what was happening at the time, and was happy to go along with it.

That may or may not be true, but she was under age (in the US). If you are under age then it is not consent. Not ever. It is rape. Social attitudes and the laws have moved on.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Good King Wenceslas?

Who was actually a Duke. But that doesn't have the same ring to it

I was originally just going to say Davy Propper but wasn't sure who would get it!

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

That may or may not be true, but she was under age (in the US). If you are under age then it is not consent. Not ever. It is rape. Social attitudes and the laws have moved on.

Isn’t it dependent on state law? (Genuine question).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Isn’t it dependent on state law? (Genuine question).

Don't know. Whatever state Andrew was in when he did it (allegedly) means that he's in a pickle either way.

 

[clapham_gull]

You're both wrong imho !!.

It hasnt been pulled to bits at all CG, they are one of the worlds leading independent brand valuers, respected and trusted, they have gone into this without bias imho and they in their report and I also both state that what may or may not be without a sitting head of state is an unknown and unquantifiable. obvs the assets of properties wouldnt change.

Versailles in France is no way indicative of the financial merits or otherwise of toursit/coat of arms, endorsements, souvenir shopping in this country as attendances at the Park de Princes are relevant to ours at the Amex or our club shop. A lot of people and especially some Asian and Americans love the pagentry of sitting head of state.

Highflyer it was pretty obvs you are broadly anti royalist by ignoring a perfectly valid report from an independent and respected authority (which does cite fairly many of things you suggest about unknowns) and yet advance what is clearly an anti royalist PR piece. I am most certainly using my brain critically and obectively. As a centrist, maybe more right than left I still read the Guardian . im very open to listening to both sides without dismissng that that doesnt fit my own preconceptions.

And Im not even a royalist at all...... i dont think it comes down to simply monetary terms, at all, its a much broader issue but that is often the thing thats used as a reason to disband the royal family and rightly or wrongly tear up hundreds of years of history.

I am fully content on that most basic question that returns to the treasury through multiple avenues and back to us as tax payers per annum exceed the sovereign grant paid for by taxpayers per annum. To suggest otherwise is disingenous. So the royal family are not a net financial burden to the taxpayer, and much is funded by the Duchy from its own business.

All other things are entirely different arguments mostly moral or political, but this issue of disbanding due cost doesnt hold water. Would we get the same money, more or less if we did disbanded it all? who knows and the report says this too, a lot if things changed is unquantifiable, but right now there isnt a net cost to taxpayers of the sovereign grant.

Personally, I could be pursuaded on rational/evidentual arguments both ways but not just emotive preferences. I dont personally like the clingers on at all, the Prince Michael of Kents who looks like he's got a broom handle up his arse, all the second cousins etc. They should be removed from the soverign grant imho, they offer no value. It should be at a minimum the direct family and heirs, Queen, Charles, William, George and the others should fund themselves. But thats just my opinion and in the country at large you wont find many who share the majority concencus on NSC, and you certainly won't in Westminster. Nobody will have the guts to do what you would hope for.

back to Randy Andy, dont like him one bit, he's a playboy/sponger that embodies all that is morally bad and detestable about the royal family.

A brand valuer trying to grace favour with the establishment that's all. I'm not particularly anti-royal or pro-republican. But to try and defend an unelected hereditary Head of State (and everything and everyone that goes with it) by distilling it to a money making brand is simply the endeavour of those who have run out of ideas.

You might as well defend the regime in China for all the money it makes. It's effectively McDonalds or the fodder of Hello Magazine.

Weird.

You can't rip up history by the way, you are confusing it with the present.

 

[Gwylan]

As far as I can see, Andy has several choices.

He can ignore the case and do the royal equivalent of going to the Winchester and wait for it to blow over. The problem with that is that it could go ahead anyway and it won't look good that he ignored it.

He can pay her off. It's the least embarrassing option but he'd have the stigma of being a self-confessed nonce (and the Royal Family will be tainted by association).

He can claim immunity as he was acting on behalf of the head of state. A dodgy move as it would give any royal carte blanche to do what he or she liked.

He can fight to get the case brought to the UK. An even dodgier move: the Americans chucked half a ton of PG Tips into the briny rather than be ruled by the Brits. Besides, how can the case be judged fairly in Mummy's court.

He can actually go to the US and fight the case. If he wins, he won't have to pay anything and he'd be in the clear .... if.

Or he can wait until his accuser is discoved after committing suicide by shooting herself five times or by locking herself in a suitcase and walk away without a stain on his reputation.

It's a tough call ...

 

[Pavilionaire]

If the guy is innocent and can afford the best lawyers money can buy then why doesn't he go to the USA, slug it out, clear his ñame and clear the Royal Family of the smear?

 

[jcdenton08]

If the guy is innocent and can afford the best lawyers money can buy then why doesn't he go to the USA, slug it out, clear his ñame and clear the Royal Family of the smear?

It's lose lose, isn't it. If he goes out there and wins, the mud has already stuck and everyone will say "well he just has the most expensive lawyers" or whatever reason suits their narrative.

Seems to me the public have made up their minds, and the shocking interview cemented that.

Consider Kevin Spacey, who has never been charged with anything, nobody will touch him with a barge pole.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Isn’t it dependent on state law? (Genuine question).

Yes. Georgia was still 14 until the 90s when it was raised to 16, & Hawaii only changed to 16 after 2000.

 

[peterward]

Yes. Georgia was still 14 until the 90s when it was raised to 16, & Hawaii only changed to 16 after 2000.

With getting into a hornets nest, I fully appreciate there are laws that govern minimum legal ages for sex, but Andrew was a 40 year old bloke at the time and whether a girl is 15, 16, 17 its still morally reprehensible.

Youre a middle aged man of wealth with a teenager of school age. If that doesnt feel wrong or stop you, you're sick imho and already too far gone.

 

[rogersix]

As far as I can see, Andy has several choices.

He can ignore the case and do the royal equivalent of going to the Winchester and wait for it to blow over. The problem with that is that it could go ahead anyway and it won't look good that he ignored it.

He can pay her off. It's the least embarrassing option but he'd have the stigma of being a self-confessed nonce (and the Royal Family will be tainted by association).

He can claim immunity as he was acting on behalf of the head of state. A dodgy move as it would give any royal carte blanche to do what he or she liked.

He can fight to get the case brought to the UK. An even dodgier move: the Americans chucked half a ton of PG Tips into the briny rather than be ruled by the Brits. Besides, how can the case be judged fairly in Mummy's court.

He can actually go to the US and fight the case. If he wins, he won't have to pay anything and he'd be in the clear .... if.

Or he can wait until his accuser is discoved after committing suicide by shooting herself five times or by locking herself in a suitcase and walk away without a stain on his reputation.

It's a tough call ...

of those bleak choices; a penny to a pound, it will be the last one, do nothing

 

[m@goo]

You couldn't be more wrong, the Monarchy is hugely popular, and is excellent value for money.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/poll-finds-popularity-monarchy-remains-stable-among-britons

That's a shame. I still think that morally there is an argument to downsize it. I don't think some almost anonymous people should have a life privilege because they had the fortune to be born into the right family.

 

[The Clamp]

Apropos of nothing, I heard his ex, Fergie interviewed on the radio the other day. Absolute head-case. I feel sorry for B and E growing up around an alleged paedophile and a Mum with a very feeble grasp on reality. I genuinely hope they have come out of it okay.

 

[Icy Gull]

of those bleak choices; a penny to a pound, it will be the last one, do nothing

Given his Mum has the reputation, with family matters, of doing nothing and waiting for it to go away, I suggest that is exactly what he’ll do by choice. Will he get a choice though?

 

[The Clamp]

Given his Mum has the reputation, with family matters, of doing nothing and waiting for it to go away, I suggest that is exactly what he’ll do by choice. Will he get a choice though?

Highly unlikely he will be extradited. My bet is he’ll do **** all and hide behind the palace walls. A guilty judgment will be passed in absentia. It’s a civil case so I’m guessing that means fines/compensation and not prison? In which case he’ll either pay the fine secretly and be done with it or ignore the ruling altogether. And that will be the end of it unless a criminal prosecution is then set in motion. Even if that happens I very much doubt he’ll be extradited to the US. In fact there’s no way he would be. So again he’ll ignore the case, a judgment will be passed. If it’s guilty then he faces arrest if he enters the U.S.
a ruling he can ignore by citing security procedures and slip in and out of the U.S via Royal jet anytime he fancies.
If paying her off before all this occurs was an option he’d do that. To summarise. He’ll ignore the whole thing and it will go away. Because that’s what happens for members of the elite. Even alleged sex cases.

 

[rogersix]

Given his Mum has the reputation, with family matters, of doing nothing and waiting for it to go away, I suggest that is exactly what he’ll do by choice. Will he get a choice though?

is he legally obliged to do something, anything? he is a life long blagger, he'll just be hidden in gentleman's clubs

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Highly unlikely he will be extradited. My bet is he’ll do **** all and hide behind the palace walls. A guilty judgment will be passed in absentia. It’s a civil case so I’m guessing that means fines/compensation and not prison? In which case he’ll either pay the fine secretly and be done with it or ignore the ruling altogether. And that will be the end of it unless a criminal prosecution is then set in motion. Even if that happens I very much doubt he’ll be extradited to the US. In fact there’s no way he would be. So again he’ll ignore the case, a judgment will be passed. If it’s guilty then he faces arrest if he enters the U.S.
a ruling he can ignore by citing security procedures and slip in and out of the U.S via Royal jet anytime he fancies.
If paying her off before all this occurs was an option he’d do that. To summarise. He’ll ignore the whole thing and it will go away. Because that’s what happens for members of the elite. Even alleged sex cases.

This.

A lot of people would like to see this arrogant and entitled individual extradited and stand trial in a court in New York. It will never happen.

In a somewhat similar case the British authorities have been trying for nearly two years to extradite Anne Sacoolas from the States in the case of the death of Harry Dunn, so far they have had no luck.

In fact Andrew's legal team, if they ever deign to reply, could use a similar argument for not allowing him to be extradited as Sacoolas' barrister used saying because of the amount of media coverage he would never receive a fair trial. In both cases the individuals involved know they are safe and need do nothing.

It is possible he could pay an amount of compensation, but that would probably be without any admission of guilt, similar to the Michael Jackson case, and involve all parties signing non disclosure agreements.

It is wrong and it is infuriating, but unfortunately as things stand it is the way of the world

 

[Clive Walker]

Highly unlikely he will be extradited. My bet is he’ll do **** all and hide behind the palace walls. A guilty judgment will be passed in absentia. It’s a civil case so I’m guessing that means fines/compensation and not prison? In which case he’ll either pay the fine secretly and be done with it or ignore the ruling altogether. And that will be the end of it unless a criminal prosecution is then set in motion. Even if that happens I very much doubt he’ll be extradited to the US. In fact there’s no way he would be. So again he’ll ignore the case, a judgment will be passed. If it’s guilty then he faces arrest if he enters the U.S.
a ruling he can ignore by citing security procedures and slip in and out of the U.S via Royal jet anytime he fancies.
If paying her off before all this occurs was an option he’d do that. To summarise. He’ll ignore the whole thing and it will go away. Because that’s what happens for members of the elite. Even alleged sex cases.

How will he afford to pay such fine?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

With getting into a hornets nest, I fully appreciate there are laws that govern minimum legal ages for sex, but Andrew was a 40 year old bloke at the time and whether a girl is 15, 16, 17 its still morally reprehensible.

Youre a middle aged man of wealth with a teenager of school age. If that doesnt feel wrong or stop you, you're sick imho and already too far gone.

My post was a fact about state law, not referring to this case.
I was thinking more about Chuck Berry & Jerry Lee Lewis in the 1950s.