Prince Andrew Accused of Underage Sex Acts

[theoriginalphantom]

The FCO have a program that detects future convictions of the thousands of people that the Royalty meet?
This is some amazing software.

that'll be why I was sent away when Princess Di visited. It all makes sense now

 

[stacker1]

Speculating. Like most of this thread. Her core point was that being a senior royal carries responsibility.

Does he carry a supervisory relationship and a duty of care with a random foreign 17 year old in Tramps nightclub? No? Then your barrister friend was talking out of her hoop.

 

[Resasi]

Jeffrey Archer bunged a slut £2000 to keep quite about shagging her. and then went down for four years for telling porky's in a libel case against a red top paper, so what does that prove?

You appear to be speaking about two unrelated cases here in this one example???

Seems a bit muddled.

 

[tommikka]

You appear to be speaking about two unrelated cases here in this one example???

Seems a bit muddled.

The cases were related:

Archer was seen with a prostitute, the paper that got the story decided to get her to ask him to pay her off so that they could catch him paying her off
In the subsequent stories libel case he lied and later went to prison for perjury

It still has no bearing on whether an out of court settlement equates to accepting guilt in a civil case

 

[ThunderBox]

The Maxwells what? Youbdo realise that children don't always have the same job as their father.





Tell me an employer that will sack you for having legal sex with a 17 year old?

The Queen?

 

[stacker1]

The Queen?

Did the Queen tell you that or are you talking out of your hoop?

 

[Resasi]

The cases were related:

Thanks for that clarification.

Apology to @Retired bloke.

 

[bobthebuilder]

Does he carry a supervisory relationship and a duty of care with a random foreign 17 year old in Tramps nightclub? No? Then your barrister friend was talking out of her hoop.

A teacher who entered a relationship with a 17 year old girl from another school could be committing an offence. As could a 42 year old officer from another unit who pulled a 17 year old apprentice.

Her view was that it’s very difficult for a Prince not to exert a degree if coercion on others given that he expects to be called HRH etc etc.

It’s never been tested before a judge.

 

[hackle]

A teacher who entered a relationship with a 17 year old girl from another school could be committing an offence. As could a 42 year old officer from another unit who pulled a 17 year old apprentice.

Her view was that it’s very difficult for a Prince not to exert a degree if coercion on others given that he expects to be called HRH etc etc.

It’s never been tested before a judge.

If we are talking about the specific offences committed by a person "in a position of trust" under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, I do not believe that the situation being alleged would amount to such a position of trust as defined, or even under proposed changes to that Act.

If you think about it, creating a specific offence of sexual activity while "in a position of authority" (as you put it) would preclude anyone in any kind of senior position from consensual sexual activity with an adult private citizen.

 

[stacker1]

A teacher who entered a relationship with a 17 year old girl from another school could be committing an offence. As could a 42 year old officer from another unit who pulled a 17 year old apprentice.

Could or is?

Her view was that it’s very difficult for a Prince not to exert a degree if coercion on others given that he expects to be called HRH etc etc.

It’s never been tested before a judge.

Its never been tested because its total ******* horseshit, People with Knighthoods are called Sir, it doesnt mean they cant poke 17 year olds.

Did you say if you reported your suspicions that women were being raped at your works party?

 

[stacker1]

If we are talking about the specific offences committed by a person "in a position of trust" under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, I do not believe that the situation being alleged would amount to such a position of trust as defined, or even under proposed changes to that Act.

If you think about it, creating a specific offence of sexual activity while "in a position of authority" (as you put it) would preclude anyone in any kind of senior position from consensual sexual activity with an adult private citizen.

You would think his barrister friend would know that.

 

[bobthebuilder]

If we are talking about the specific offences committed by a person "in a position of trust" under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, I do not believe that the situation being alleged would amount to such a position of trust as defined, or even under proposed changes to that Act.

If you think about it, creating a specific offence of sexual activity while "in a position of authority" (as you put it) would preclude anyone in any kind of senior position from consensual sexual activity with an adult private citizen.

We’re not talking about The Sexual Offences Act. Andrew is being pursued in the US courts.

You can take your pick of any number of different state laws, but presumably New York would apply given where the case is being heard? The issue would, I think, be whether his Royal status created undue influence in a position of trust.

My friend is an Australian lawyer. A relationship between a teacher and a pupil is verboten irrespective of whether there is a direct teacher / student relationship or even that they are in the same school. She was simply musing that Andrew may automatically have been in a position of trust with any minor by dint of being a Prince.

English law is irrelevant.

 

[GreyArea]

"She was simply musing that Andrew may automatically have been in a position of trust with any minor by dint of being a Prince".


WTF was she smoking when she made that assumption?

Just because he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth doesn't mean he's in any position of trust. In terms of his military rank with a subordinate I would say it's another matter but again I would imagine that depends on the position he would hold in relation to any lower ranking subordinate.

 

[bobthebuilder]

"She was simply musing that Andrew may automatically have been in a position of trust with any minor by dint of being a Prince".


WTF was she smoking when she made that assumption?

Just because he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth doesn't mean he's in any position of trust. In terms of his military rank with a subordinate I would say it's another matter but again I would imagine that depends on the position he would hold in relation to any lower ranking subordinate.

It wasn’t an assumption; she was musing about whether the use of rank, title, role, position etc etc creates a position of trust in the relevant US law. She thinks it might. Bugger all to do with UK law.

 

[Kroneit44]

Are you just making up bollocks as you are going along?

You don't think a Government department had filing cabinets in the late 90's?
Also you're inferring that people don't do any sort of prediction on future events based on current intelligence...like weather forecasters or intelligence officers (who use a computer program called PowerPoint). Surely you encountered this in 24yrs in the Army?

 

[Terry11990]

Virgina making her claims against Rand Andy back in 2015 including the two additional locations.

Jane-Doe-unredacted 2015

 

[Drazyl]

Her view was that it’s very difficult for a Prince not to exert a degree if coercion on others given that he expects to be called HRH etc etc.

Again, utter bollocks. We don't live in a world where people have to do what royalty say, and she's not even a British citizen.

Of course it's never been tested because it's rubbish.

 

[psychobabble]

Speculating. Like most of this thread. Her core point was that being a senior royal carries responsibility.

They don’t work under a separate set of laws regarding made up ‘supervisory relationships’ and a judge would never find that they did as it’s demonstrable bollocks.

 

[psychobabble]

You don't think a Government department had filing cabinets in the late 90's?
Also you're inferring that people don't do any sort of prediction on future events based on current intelligence...like weather forecasters or intelligence officers (who use a computer program called PowerPoint). Surely you encountered this in 24yrs in the Army?

There was no current evidence that he was a paedophile at that time. Are we back soothsaying again, but this time from relatively lowly civil servants in the FCO?

No there certainly weren’t filing cabinets full of files of everyone that Andrew may have met socially or may meet in the future, even if non-UK citizens.

 

[psychobabble]

We’re not talking about The Sexual Offences Act. Andrew is being pursued in the US courts.

You can take your pick of any number of different state laws, but presumably New York would apply given where the case is being heard? The issue would, I think, be whether his Royal status created undue influence in a position of trust.

My friend is an Australian lawyer. A relationship between a teacher and a pupil is verboten irrespective of whether there is a direct teacher / student relationship or even that they are in the same school. She was simply musing that Andrew may automatically have been in a position of trust with any minor by dint of being a Prince.

English law is irrelevant.

As is Australian law. Even under US law there is no way that two people unknown to each other and meeting in a social setting (and in a nightclub) can possibly be considered to have any sort of relationship similar to a teacher and student ie in a trust sense.

As I said, desperate straw clutching at best, total bollocks is more likely.