Hard to shed a tear for them (scum dead and less taxpayers money paying for their board) but it's another person with a potential tale to tell on the Prince Andrew saga who has met an abrupt end. I'm typically dismissive of conspiracy theories (Diana, 9/11, Covid etc) but this is one area where it genuinely wouldn't surprise me if people are getting bumped off. Aside from anything else he probably has enough [ex]military contacts to execute such a thing (no pun intended).
Prince Andrew not served papers as they were handed to his police security.
- Thread starter Tefal
- Start date
Soldato
One of the biggest covers ups in history
Commissario
Would this be the same Andrew who took extreme measures to avoid any chance of it going to court or even giving a preliminary deposition, then when they all failed "welcomed his day in court".
People pay out of court all the time. Not worth the risk to your reputation (lol), family (the "firm"), or business interests. He'd be terrible on the stand.
Civil suits like this, particularly in the USA and here where there is limited evidence in either direction, come down to who has the best story to tell and frankly given Andrew’s performance on News Night, it wasn’t him.
Even if he has a cast iron whiteness to him being else where at the time of the alleged incident, I don’t think he would have won this civil case.
Even if he has a cast iron whiteness to him being else where at the time of the alleged incident, I don’t think he would have won this civil case.
Jesus Christ. That’s the law. Trafficked victims literally can not give consent which is the literal definition of rape. I can’t believe you are trying to suggest otherwise.
Let me spell it out, if someone is trafficked then they have lost their ability to consent. Having sex with someone without their consent is rape.
Soldato
You are assuming he knew she was trafficked (assuming also she is telling the truth and they had sex - that's not been proven). If he didn't know, then he couldn't know she couldn't consent, which would be strong mitigating circumstances.
Permabanned
Man of Honour
Having consensual sex with someone who you knew travelled in from another country shouldn't be illegal in itself. Maybe it is nowadays, but it shouldn't be. That should require knowing that their consent was invalid for some reason. If he had sex with her at all, of course. Not even that has been proven.
Man of Honour
People have pled guilty to crimes they knew they were innocent of and chosen to go to jail for crimes they knew they were innocent of, let alone paid someone off. It's silly to pretend otherwise. Of course people who are innocent settle civil cases out of court. Civil cases are a popularity contest. They're about social status, media coverage, screen presence and ability in what is effectively an interview (as are criminal case, but to a lesser degree). Prince Andrew scores very badly on all counts. In his position, I'd have paid her off even if I really had never met her at all, anywhere, ever.
Incidentally, the actual settlement figure is unknown. The £12M is just made up.
Dismissing being sex trafficked as simply “travelled from another country” is fairly sick of you.
Actually, I don't think it is - if he simply had sex with her and didn't know similarly, if say some 19-year-old guy hooked up with a girl he met in say a club (a place for over 18s) and/or she claimed she was 18 but then turned out to be 15 that could be a defence, he had a reasonable belief that she was over 16 because he believed she was 18. Strict liability applies under 13.
Details here: https://www.suttondefencelawyers.co.uk/articles/consent-reasonable-belief-law-sexual-offences.html
I could find that there was a strict liability proposal made re: trafficking victims in 2008 under labour which implies there was previously a similar defence of not knowing:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/nov/19/prostitution-law-trafficked-women-smith
But the allegation re: Andrew took place before 2008, also even if it had occured later it isn't alleged that Andrew paid for sex AFAIK (Jeffry allegedly did and Virginia was under instructions allegedly from Maxwell to do for Andrew what she does for Jeffry) so it isn't clear that he'd have been charged under those guidelines either.
Of course, if he'd known she'd been trafficked then that would be super dodgy and very much a criminal offence.
To be fair it's not like she's some poor Eastern European chick who thinks she's going to the West to work as a nanny etc.. then gets her passport confiscated and threats to tell her family etc..
This is someone who willingly did this for money and allegedly recruited other girls to do so too - she was both a victim at one point because of her age and allegedly a willing coconspirator and trafficker herself when she turned 18.
Man of Honour
Have you ever accused anyone of anything they actually did? All the accusations I see from you are either lies or delusions. I know you're a troll, but you're getting lazy in your trolling. Or you're insane. It's impossible to tell which.
Thanks… you didnt linkie then?
So that’s lines a & b of the 2003 sexual offences act.
But not c then. That you’d have to reasonably believe there wasn’t consent.
Plus one for that call out.