National News Prince Andrew - Yeah right...!

Scotchegg said:
There's a huge difference between having the evidence to convict someone of a crime, and the recognition that someone is a victim of their actions.

Virginia Roberts is a victim. There is no denying the fact that she was taken advantage of by rich and powerful men (and at least one woman) and was trafficked from one country to another to be prostituted. This began when she was 16/17.

You don't need to a court to show that this young girl was very clearly a victim within all of this.

Yet your view is;



Do you think that being raped is somehow better because you're given a glass of champagne and a nice dress before hand? Or that it doesn't matter if your rapist is someone famous? How much of a highlife must someone enjoy before you turn a blind eye to them being abused? Do you think the same about the victims of Jimmy Saville? Or those abused by Barry Bennell and others from football clubs? After all, most of their victims were given gifts and got to see famous people? Were they all living the highlife and enjoying their social circles?

Now maybe you can see just how ridiculously offensive your posts are, but sadly I suspect that you will have absolutely no idea.
Click to expand...

Jeez Mr Mole take a hill and make a mountain why don`t you?

Saville & Bennell certainly abused SOME people under their influence there is no doubt to the majority of people.

I will also suggest, based on lack of actual evidence, that SOME people will ride on the coat tails of events/circumstance to their benefit.

So there can not be a "de facto" status that "He was there so he`s guilty" without due process, which will require evidence or it becomes "He said - she said".

"Maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat"
 
Essexyellows said:
Jeez Mr Mole take a hill and make a mountain why don`t you?

Saville & Bennell certainly abused SOME people under their influence there is no doubt to the majority of people.

I will also suggest, based on lack of actual evidence, that SOME people will ride on the coat tails of events/circumstance to their benefit.

So there can not be a "de facto" status that "He was there so he`s guilty" without due process, which will require evidence or it becomes "He said - she said".

"Maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat"
Click to expand...


So please just explain your comments that were specific to Virginia Roberts. Do you think that she enjoyed the highlife and social circles and is now looking to cash in her chips. Or do you acknowledge that, regardless of criminal charges/proven cases against her accused, that she was the victim in all of this? Not SOME people, just her.
 
Scotchegg said:
So please just explain your comments that were specific to Virginia Roberts. Do you think that she enjoyed the highlife and social circles and is now looking to cash in her chips. Or do you acknowledge that, regardless of criminal charges/proven cases against her accused, that she was the victim in all of this? Not SOME people, just her.
Click to expand...

She is an accuser, which doesn`t make her a victim "by default" in this case.

I have no idea what happened because I wasn`t there, likewise neither do you.

Neither have I read any of the documentation filed in the US, neither have you I shall surmise?

Did she enjoy the highlife & social circles? Only she can answer that, but compared to her troubled early life I would suggest she did, her early life is well documented if you look it up.

I would suggest that way before being 17 far worse things happened to her where she truly was a victim, 100%, but those people don`t appear to be being pursued with the same vigour as the "rich & famous".

Furthermore, her father seemed happy enough to drive her to the house where said events are alleged to have occurred, IIRC he was asked about it on GMB although now has "some regret".

As far as I am aware Virginia Roberts has only ever made allegations of what went on and was not part of any trial where Epstein was found guilty.

It's not as clear-cut as some may think.
 
Marked Ox said:
Or he is lying....
Click to expand...
He didn’t do a great interview with Emily Maitland either.
If the yanks insist on Andy Pandy testifying under oath, I hope the British will ask for Anne Sacoolas to do the right thing.
 
Scotchegg said:
The Prince Andrew accusations aside, its pretty clear that Virginia Roberts was a vulnerable young woman who was procured for sex with powerful older men for many years. She was moved around the world to places where the age of consent was lower than her homeland in order to try to legitimise the offences against her. She was a victim of sex trafficking and coercive behaviour for a number of years.

To say that she was "loving the highlife" is frankly disgusting and victim shaming at its worst.
Click to expand...
I dunno. Have you seen the Netflix documentary?

Undoubtedly some terrible stuff happened and she was very young and preyed upon, but she acted as Epstein’s chief recruiter of other girls, all a lot younger than her.

She’s by no means whiter than white and the fact it’s a civil court and not criminal screams pay-off attempt.

That said, is Prince Andy hiding something? Let him sweat on it for a bit I say… hang on a minute…
 
Mighty Tage said:
I dunno. Have you seen the Netflix documentary?

Undoubtedly some terrible stuff happened and she was very young and preyed upon, but she acted as Epstein’s chief recruiter of other girls, all a lot younger than her.

She’s by no means whiter than white and the fact it’s a civil court and not criminal screams pay-off attempt.

That said, is Prince Andy hiding something? Let him sweat on it for a bit I say… hang on a minute…
Click to expand...

They should hold the proceedings in Woking's Pizza Express so that Prince Andy will feel at home.
 
SteMerritt said:
Can't he just say 'I'm not American, your courts have no jurisdiction over me', shrug, and ignore them?
Click to expand...
The yanks don’t give a crap about some laws when it involves famous people, especially when they’re foreign.
 
FalmouthOx said:
Suspect he has borderline personalty disorder. kamikaze risk taker, compulsive natural liar and sexual deviate. Didnt Fergie leave him when walked in on some MM action?
Click to expand...
What?????

...Andrew and Meghan??????
 
SteMerritt said:
Can't he just say 'I'm not American, your courts have no jurisdiction over me', shrug, and ignore them?
Click to expand...

Two thirds of the alleged assaults were committed on US soil (one in New York, and one in the US Virgin Islands).

It's not a federal case, so I don't believe he can be extradited, but I think the outcome of a US civil case can be enforced in the UK, as long as an English (in this case) court agrees.
 
OUFCGav said:
www.independent.co.uk

Anne Sacoolas to face court charged with causing death of Harry Dunn in crash

It is thought that the 44-year-old American citizen will appear via video-link from the US
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
Video link from the US. So unless I’m mistaken, she can get any sentence they like and it’s never enforceable in terms of actually serving a sentence unless she sets foot in the UK again, which she won’t. Pretty much a box ticking exercise so both countries can go, “See? Justice has been served.”
 
RyanioBirdio said:
Video link from the US. So unless I’m mistaken, she can get any sentence they like and it’s never enforceable in terms of actually serving a sentence unless she sets foot in the UK again, which she won’t. Pretty much a box ticking exercise so both countries can go, “See? Justice has been served.”
Click to expand...
Kind of same as the Prince Andrew case then...
 
RyanioBirdio said:
Video link from the US. So unless I’m mistaken, she can get any sentence they like and it’s never enforceable in terms of actually serving a sentence unless she sets foot in the UK again, which she won’t. Pretty much a box ticking exercise so both countries can go, “See? Justice has been served.”
Click to expand...

Her case is a little different to Andrew's because she had diplomatic immunity from criminal jurisdiction - because she was the spouse of a US federal employee working under diplomatic status in the UK, she was not under UK legal jurisdiction; so she could basically do anything she liked and could never be punished for it by a British court without the US agreeing to waive her immunity and extradite her (which they did not in this case). All stems from the Vienna convention from the 60s.

So yeah, the UK court case is just a box-ticking exercise.

I believe Harry Dunn's family did bring a US civil suit against her, which was then settled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Oxymoron
National News Prince Phillip has died
13 14 15
Replies
296
Views
21K
gofish2
gofish2
bazzer9461
National News PC Andrew Harper
4 5 6
Replies
115
Views
13K
MarkG
MarkG
Back
Top Bottom