Poor baby - run home to mummy!

Callistemon

I think that Virginia Guiffre would rather have justice for her and other girls than money.

Well said.

Grany

Royal silence has to end. Prince Andrew was accused of these offences ten years ago, why haven’t our head of state and next head of state ensured he cooperate with the FBI, in the interests of justice for sexual abuse victims?

Yes, absolutely.

Anniebach

Seems if he remains silent , she will get the money, end of .

I refer to you previous answer where you described any person who attends parties with runaway teenage girls as "a pervert and a criminal".

Is 'end of' enough, or are you now saying he wasn't at the party he was photographed at (and many others that have been reported)?

I haven’t seen a photograph of him at a party.

If he tells the truth he will have to pay, if he remains silent and the courts rule in her favour he pays.

Whichever, I believe he did have sex with her and I very much
doubt anyone believes he didn’t.

Ever thought of being a lawyer Anniebach?

A party you say? Well how would you define a party? In this picture there are 3 people, that does not equate to a party. Ergo, m'lud, I submit that this whole case is a tissue of lies and was made up purely to extort money from this fine upstanding member of society and his blameless mother.

Case dismissed.

I was thinking that if we had an elected Head of State whose son was involved and friendly with paedophiles there would have been a huge outcry and demands for her resignation. But we have this dysfunctional royal family that no one can shift.

I think it’s wrong to suggest that a mother or father is responsible for the actions of their child and should be castigated for them. An example is that the adopted son of our first minister was charged with a serious sexual offence. Nobody blamed the FM, the overriding response was sympathy. It hasn’t affected his standing at all.

Well I expect that was because he was adopted Casdon.

Casdonwas the son protected from the press and judicial process by his father? Did the son lie about his activities? Was he in a long term friendship with known sex offenders?
Anyone can commit an offence how the parent deals with it is important.

I was responding directly to the point you raised trisher which was that an elected head of state would be treated differently in these circumstances. I don’t think they would. Prince Andrew is 60ish years old, he is accountable for his own actions. Attempts to rubbish a 95 year old woman who’s just lost her husband, regardless of who she is and whether she is allowing him to stay with her or not don’t sit well with me at all, I feel sorry for her, she loves her son. That doesn’t excuse his actions, but I think compassion for her is called for.

I take it your first minister didn't do any of the things I posted then Casdon? Unfortunately the Queen has.

The Queen isn't on trial. She's not responsible for actions of her 60 year old son.

trisher knows the Queen is protecting him from the press,

trisher knows the Queen is protecting him from judicial
process.

Casdon

I was responding directly to the point you raised trisher which was that an elected head of state would be treated differently in these circumstances. I don’t think they would. Prince Andrew is 60ish years old, he is accountable for his own actions. Attempts to rubbish a 95 year old woman who’s just lost her husband, regardless of who she is and whether she is allowing him to stay with her or not don’t sit well with me at all, I feel sorry for her, she loves her son. That doesn’t excuse his actions, but I think compassion for her is called for.

We can feel compassion; but nonetheless if she knows that an offence has been committed and prevents access to him she is legally an accessory after the fact and liable to prosecution.

If I did this for my child I would be taken to court and examined under oath about my knowledge of any offence. And we all know the RF are not above the law don't we?

Petera

Casdon

I was responding directly to the point you raised trisher which was that an elected head of state would be treated differently in these circumstances. I don’t think they would. Prince Andrew is 60ish years old, he is accountable for his own actions. Attempts to rubbish a 95 year old woman who’s just lost her husband, regardless of who she is and whether she is allowing him to stay with her or not don’t sit well with me at all, I feel sorry for her, she loves her son. That doesn’t excuse his actions, but I think compassion for her is called for.

We can feel compassion; but nonetheless if she knows that an offence has been committed and prevents access to him she is legally an accessory after the fact and liable to prosecution.

If I did this for my child I would be taken to court and examined under oath about my knowledge of any offence. And we all know the RF are not above the law don't we?

Petera, are you unaware this is a civil lawsuit not a criminal one? The scenario you paint just doesn't apply.

Rosie51

Petera

Casdon

I was responding directly to the point you raised trisher which was that an elected head of state would be treated differently in these circumstances. I don’t think they would. Prince Andrew is 60ish years old, he is accountable for his own actions. Attempts to rubbish a 95 year old woman who’s just lost her husband, regardless of who she is and whether she is allowing him to stay with her or not don’t sit well with me at all, I feel sorry for her, she loves her son. That doesn’t excuse his actions, but I think compassion for her is called for.

We can feel compassion; but nonetheless if she knows that an offence has been committed and prevents access to him she is legally an accessory after the fact and liable to prosecution.

If I did this for my child I would be taken to court and examined under oath about my knowledge of any offence. And we all know the RF are not above the law don't we?

Petera, are you unaware this is a civil lawsuit not a criminal one? The scenario you paint just doesn't apply.

There doesn't have to be a lawsuit, just the knowledge of an offence

Petera, “If she knows that an offence has been committed”? Is hearsay now accepted as evidence? I’m not au fait with how the Queen is preventing access to her son so I can’t comment on that.
I’m not condoning PA’s behaviour at all, but I’m not sure how HM can be an accessory after the fact and unless PA has told her he committed the offence then her knowledge is the same as yours and mine and that’s hearsay.

Mollygo

Petera, “If she knows that an offence has been committed”? Is hearsay now accepted as evidence? I’m not au fait with how the Queen is preventing access to her son so I can’t comment on that.
I’m not condoning PA’s behaviour at all, but I’m not sure how HM can be an accessory after the fact and unless PA has told her he committed the offence then her knowledge is the same as yours and mine and that’s hearsay.

Exactly - so now tell me the mechanism that would come into play for any other person who is not above the law.

If there was the least suspicion - and that is 'suspicion' not 'evidence' - that my child had confessed a crime of this stature to me I would be interviewed under police caution where I could either confirm or deny it. If I confirmed it, or denied it but was later was found to have lied, I would then be an accessory after the fact.

But the queen gets a free pass because it's somehow not compassionate to do this.

Honestly - I would have more respect for the argument of the RF supporters on here if they just said - she's the queen, you can't do that.

I am not a RF supporter, just a bit more clued up on the law than you appear to be Petera. I actually think Andrew should cooperate with the authorities, but to repeat once again this is a civil suit, the police are not involved. Your fantasy scenario is just that, fantasy. Andrew has not been charged with any criminal offence.

I’m not a Royal Family supporter Petera, I’ve just taken the time and effort to read about what this case is in some detail. Understanding the potential consequences is key. Having done that, in my view castigating the Queen is unnecessary and inappropriate.

Rosie51

I am not a RF supporter, just a bit more clued up on the law than you appear to be Petera. I actually think Andrew should cooperate with the authorities, but to repeat once again this is a civil suit, the police are not involved. Your fantasy scenario is just that, fantasy. Andrew has not been charged with any criminal offence.

...and I repeat. You can be an accessory after the fact with no charges having been laid for the principle offence.

I agree with you Petera. We all have sympathy with the old lady who has lost her husband, but she is enabling Andrew to evade being served with the necessary papers. She knows what is happening, I sincerely hope she’s had a strong word with him. Of course, he can choose to ignore his mother if he wishes.

Petera can you please quote the section of the law that supports your claims, then I'll run it by one of the police in my extended family.

This is an American civil case. It's all about money. Cynical? Moi?

It would be interesting to know the facts Rosie. I didn’t mean that the Queen had committed a crime, I don’t think she has, but she has enabled Andrew to evade the authorities.