Prince Andrew Accused of Underage Sex Acts

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Last edited:
That's with employees, not someone you've just met outside the working environment, a bit of a difference. he wasn't sacked for shagging anyone, he was sacked for shagging employees
And he’s appealed it too, it certainly wouldn’t be seen as a reasonable contract clause in the UK.
 
Last edited:
That's with employees, not someone you've just met outside the working environment, a bit of a difference. he wasn't sacked for shagging anyone, he was sacked for shagging employees
This was the question: Can you name one company that says you can't legally have sex?
 
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.
Does your Australian friend not realise that his titles mean **** all to an American? She must lose a lot of cases.
 
This was the question: Can you name one company that says you can't legally have sex?

If its part of their rules its technically legal but not really what I was asking.
If you **** a 17 year old (who you don't have any power over) which company says you can't.
 
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.
For a barrister, she sounds like a right thicky.
 
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?
Stop your flailing, it's getting embarrassing

There was not computer program (or filing system) that the prince's advisors had access to that could have predicted people that royalty meet would be convicted of noncing in the future or that someone was being trafficked at the time.
You are as bad as Bob the big time businessman barrister friend.
 
And that’s where we disagree. His responsibility is to know she wasn’t trafficked.
How would he know? Have you a signed legal document from every woman you have ever had sex with clearly stating she has not been “trafficked” and is over the age of consent and has received no monetary payment from a third party for the services you have been provided with?
 
Last edited:
Here’s a thought ….. once upon a time, a prince went to a party

His security whispered in his ear -“Don’t bang that Virginia, she’s a trafficked sex slave”
And the prince whispered back “Thanks smudge, you’ve saved me from major grief in twenty years time”

Then fast forward 20 years and Andrew is sat thinking “Bloody Smudge, if he’d kept his mouth shut at least I would have got a shag out of all this”
 
I am personally not aware of any 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?

I don't believe that there were filing cabinets full of files of everyone that Andrew may have met socially or may meet in the future, even if non-UK citizens.

But I'm just another person arguing the toss on the internet and unfortunately I just don't know everything.
Gratis
 
Does your Australian friend not realise that his titles mean **** all to an American? She must lose a lot of cases.
Being a Prince means nothing to an American? You're losing it.
He had massive leverage. He socialised with some of the worlds richest and most influential people, why wouldn't you want influence over him?
 
And neither do you… There is no evidence that any law enforcement agency has ever had to suggest he’s a paedophile. We know this to be the case because no agency, after looking into this for five years, has wanted to interview him as anything other than a witness.

Even the person who alleges that he raped her hasn’t claimed that she was under age at the time.

Me and others like me aren’t the ones proposing the existence of time travelling databases full of the details of random people that one man hasn’t met yet.
 
Last edited:
Stop your flailing, it's getting embarrassing

There was not computer program (or filing system) that the prince's advisors had access to that could have predicted people that royalty meet would be convicted of noncing in the future or that someone was being trafficked at the time.
You are as bad as Bob the big time businessman barrister friend.
In the late 90's I was hanging off masts and you were dusting shelves. How do you know what computer programmes and filing systems other government departments were using?

Also, I have never said that the Princes advisers had access to anything.
 
Being a Prince means nothing to an American? You're losing it.
He had massive leverage. He socialised with some of the worlds richest and most influential people, why wouldn't you want influence over him?

I'm losing it? You aren't even following the conversation, Bob the big time business man legal friend think that a British Prince has some sort of power over an American.
Which is utter bollocks.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
This was the question: Can you name one company that says you can't legally have sex?
It didn't say that he couldn't have sex, just not with employees.
 
In the late 90's I was hanging off masts and you were dusting shelves. How do you know what computer programmes and filing systems other government departments were using?

Also, I have never said that the Princes advisers had access to anything.

I know that they can't predict future crimes or know if some random 17 year old yank was being trafficked.
 
In the late 90's I was hanging off masts and you were dusting shelves. How do you know what computer programmes and filing systems other government departments were using?

Also, I have never said that the Princes advisers had access to anything.
Sorry, you too are talking bollocks.

To put it very simply:

A database is only as useful as the data entered into it. It does not matter at all what systems were in use, the real question is :

Was Epstein listed as a paedophile and/or a trafficker.
Was Giuffre listed as being trafficked.

If the answer to either is yes, then why wasn't it dealt with.
If the answer is no, then your mystical systems are irrelevant.
 

Latest Threads

Top