Prince Andrew Accused of Underage Sex Acts

Thanks for that.
I have just read the relevant bits and they certainly cover what Epstein was convicted of.
I read the definitions of Traffiking and Sexual Exploitation which led me on to the definition of Coercion. These two young women have said nothing , to my knowledge, about being forced or financially rewarded .
They’re under 18. They don’t have to be coerced or paid. Come along for a flight on the Lolita Express, have a great time, party with the rich and famous. Shag the boss. And his randy royal bezzer Andy. That’s enough.

I’m pretty much convinced that Maxwell was trafficking young girls for Epstein. He plea bargained a federal trafficking charge for a state prostitution offence after all.

Frankly Andrew was utterly stupid to stay involved with Epstein after that. If he did screw Guiffre when she had been flown across the Atlantic to party, surely his alarm bells should have rung?
 

TamH70

MIA
stopped Burning middle aged virgin men too.
Well, depends on which version of "The Wicker Man" you've seen. Howie gets offed by a very druidical type cult, and the one that Nic Cage plays is very much not a virgin as one of his kids is part of the burning man group.
 
He would have to answer if he receives a subpoena from a correctly formed US Federal Court and a UK Court enforces it. If US court subpoena complies with Article 23 of The Hague Evidence Convention, a UK court would likely enforce.
Not true for numerous reasons.

First the Convention relates to civil matters only, and Prince Andrew enjoys immunity from civil prosecution (including UK court immunity, which would be the court of competent jurisdiction), and, less directly, the "100 mile rule" applies (for US subpoena enforcement) as US plaintiffs found out during the last Argentinian sovereign bond default.

The FBI criminal investigation is continuing and the civil case against Maxwell is progressing. If he is identified in either, he is highly likely to receive a subpoena. The criminal one would be enforceable.
See previous comment on enforceability of US subpoena in the UK, or read Why Serving a Subpoena Abroad Presents Unique Challenges

On the question of criminal matters, see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415038/MLA_Guidelines_2015.pdf which covers mutual legal assistance.

As it stands, UKHO guidelines would consider such a request "de minimus" insofar as it relates to an alleged offence (yet to even be established) which occurred over 10 years ago.

I would have thought it ******* obvious that he will have to speak to any authority with jurisdiction should the chose to question him.
Read and absorb the above and, perhaps, you'll think otherwise.
 
Frankly Andrew was utterly stupid to stay involved with Epstein
Agreed, very stupid

surely his alarm bells should have rung?
The very stupid, mixed in with a severe dose of entitlement, often do not have alarm bells.

He might be many things, although stupidity is not a crime, I think it would be extremely difficult to prosecute for trafficking or sexual exploitation.

Rock stars, playboys, millionaires the world over would be fleeing to the Bermuda Triangle en masse.
 
Perhaps you should read the agreed definition of human trafficking set out in the UN Trafficking Protocol, embodied into UK Law as the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and it’s predecessors and into US law as the Trafficking of Vulnerable People’s Act 2000.
The Act specifically excludes prostitution (which is the point you were addressing, above). Your point is, therefore, a non sequitur.
 
Not true for numerous reasons.

First the Convention relates to civil matters only, and Prince Andrew enjoys immunity from civil prosecution (including UK court immunity, which would be the court of competent jurisdiction), and, less directly, the "100 mile rule" applies (for US subpoena enforcement) as US plaintiffs found out during the last Argentinian sovereign bond default.



See previous comment on enforceability of US subpoena in the UK, or read Why Serving a Subpoena Abroad Presents Unique Challenges

On the question of criminal matters, see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415038/MLA_Guidelines_2015.pdf which covers mutual legal assistance.

As it stands, UKHO guidelines would consider such a request "de minimus" insofar as it relates to an alleged offence (yet to even be established) which occurred over 10 years ago.



Read and absorb the above and, perhaps, you'll think otherwise.
Happy to concede The Hague Convention one; google was not my friend. I read a blog article from a US law firm which distinguished between The Hague Evidence Convention and The Hague Service Convention and indicated that criminal subpoenas are covered by the Evidence Convention. Should have checked it.

Why does Prince Andrew enjoy immunity from civil proceedings? He doesn’t benefit from Crown Immunity as he isn’t the Sovereign.
 
They’re under 18. They don’t have to be coerced or paid. Come along for a flight on the Lolita Express, have a great time, party with the rich and famous. Shag the boss. And his randy royal bezzer Andy. That’s enough.

I’m pretty much convinced that Maxwell was trafficking young girls for Epstein. He plea bargained a federal trafficking charge for a state prostitution offence after all.

Frankly Andrew was utterly stupid to stay involved with Epstein after that. If he did screw Guiffre when she had been flown across the Atlantic to party, surely his alarm bells should have rung?
USA probably has various laws depending on which State you are in relating to Age of Consent.
In the UK , at the age of 17 it is only illegal if the older person is in a recognised position of trust . I dont think that applies in this particular case. Happy to be told different.

Totally agree Andrew has made some poor decisions, not sure he has commited a crime.
 
They’re under 18. They don’t have to be coerced or paid. Come along for a flight on the Lolita Express, have a great time, party with the rich and famous. Shag the boss. And his randy royal bezzer Andy. That’s enough.

I’m pretty much convinced that Maxwell was trafficking young girls for Epstein. He plea bargained a federal trafficking charge for a state prostitution offence after all.

Frankly Andrew was utterly stupid to stay involved with Epstein after that. If he did screw Guiffre when she had been flown across the Atlantic to party, surely his alarm bells should have rung?
If he did **** her, it was before Epstein was charged with anything.
 
[QUOTE="Why does Prince Andrew enjoy immunity from civil proceedings? He doesn’t benefit from Crown Immunity as he isn’t the Sovereign.
[/QUOTE]

According to the legal encyclopedia Halsbury’s Laws of England, members of the royal household cannot be arrested in civil proceedings, they cannot be cuffed in a monarch’s presence, and no arrest can take place in or near the palace.

Halsbury's Laws of England just states the Law, but doesn't explain why.
 
Well, depends on which version of "The Wicker Man" you've seen. Howie gets offed by a very druidical type cult, and the one that Nic Cage plays is very much not a virgin as one of his kids is part of the burning man group.
got to be the one true bare arsed Britt Eckland version
 

Fake Sheikh

Old-Salt
Oh dear Andy in more poo now, surprised he did not try to get BBC's Panorama stopped?
He has questions to ask, Prince Charles can now ditch Andrew & his sponging children.
Andy's taste of friends has always been poor after all he married Fergie, who is hoofing ugly.

Bet he would sweat under pressure from the FBI grilling in the US
 
Whatever he is guilty or not guilty of is, of course, yet to be determined.

What can be said with utter certainty is that the man has not the slightest shred of good judgement about him, this has been seen down the decades time and time again.

That, plus (from what I have gathered) him being an arrogant and condescending buffoon with the charm and grace of a social misfit would seem to make him a natural and easy target for nefarious types who are more than happy to buy the friendship of a Prince.

For him public sympathy is in very short supply, perhaps the best he can hope for is pity.

Either way he has done his legs in, he is history and toast with no way back and only a worsening situation to look forward to.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
While not making any judgement about the actions of the parties involved, I thinks it's worth mentioning that Air Miles Andy's accuser stands to do very well financially out of this should it be conceded that he did shag her - even if no laws were broken.

Andy's been a weapon's grade dick, but there's a big whiff of ulterior motive coming from the other side as well.

Wordsmith
 
While not making any judgement about the actions of the parties involved, I thinks it's worth mentioning that Air Miles Andy's accuser stands to do very well financially out of this should it be conceded that he did shag her - even if no laws were broken.

Andy's been a weapon's grade dick, but there's a big whiff of ulterior motive coming from the other side as well.

Wordsmith
Fundamentally then no judgement skills. He jumps into holes (no pun intended) without even seeing they are there, and once in deep (again no pun intended) he just keeps digging and digging like a blundering imbecile.

The man should not be let out without a carer, one to whom he is totally subordinate and makes every decision for him.

He is a walking PR disaster and potentially another nail on the coffin of the Monarchy. Some Ambassador, he makes Dianne Abbot look like the very model of shrewd wily cunning and foresight.
 
Last edited:
While not making any judgement about the actions of the parties involved, I thinks it's worth mentioning that Air Miles Andy's accuser stands to do very well financially out of this should it be conceded that he did shag her - even if no laws were broken.

Andy's been a weapon's grade dick, but there's a big whiff of ulterior motive coming from the other side as well.

Wordsmith
Its pretty clear the accuser is after one thing and one thing only , $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
 
I havent watched any of the interviews - has she been asked why she was shacked up with Epstein and why she (alledgedly) shagged men she was told to? Genuine question.

It is such a no-no subject these days because basically women can do no wrong but at what point does personal responsibility get taken into account?

From the little I've read in the papers these girls were basically groupies, enjoying the parties/money/mixing with the rich and famous/holidays etc - obviously that doesnt mean they should be assaulted/raped! but did she do what she did voluntararly? edited to add, the difficulty is that she was alledgedly 17 and legal over here
 

Latest Threads

Top