Poor baby - run home to mummy!

Anniebach

As there was no 3rd person in the bedroom it’s impossible to
decide was it with or without consent

Really? No-one has ever been convicted of rape without an independent witness?

Petera

Rosie51

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.

It's not about a section of the law - you are confusing, I assume, a) when a successful protection can take place with b) the fact that the offence took place. They are quite different - you can commit an offence without subsequently being charged or prosecuted.

It is alleged that I had breakfast this morning and it is alleged that my mother knew and cleaned up after me. The fact that the police have not charged me with having breakfast or charged my mother with being an accessory after the fact that I had breakfast is entirely irrelevant to the fact of whether I had breakfast or not or the fact of whether or not my mother cleaned up.

It is alleged that PA raped a child and it is alleged that his mother knew. The fact that the police have not charged PA with raping or child or charged his mother with being an accessory after the fact that he raped a child is entirely irrelevant to the fact of whether he raped a child or not or the fact of whether or not his mother cleaned knew.

And thank you for the offer of running it past the police members in your extended family but I’ve already discussed it with the lawyers in my family.

It's not about a section of the law - you are confusing, I assume, a) when a successful protection can take place with b) the fact that the offence took place. They are quite different - you can commit an offence without subsequently being charged or prosecuted. How very patronising! I think you mean prosecution not protection, and I'd have to be stupid beyond belief to not know that not all offences committed , or even most of them, result in prosecution and/or conviction.
Petera as you have lawyers in your family perhaps you can link to some cases (they'll have the info at their fingertips) of people who have been examined by the courts as per your post on Monday at 14.25 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
How can anyone be convicted of being an accessory after the fact, when no "fact" has been established? I'll illustrate for you. Person A is charged and prosecuted for theft. The jury finds person A not guilty. There has been no offence by person A, person A has a clean record. You then think person A's mother can be prosecuted for being an accessory after the fact? What fact? What offence?
Once again Andrew is the subject of a civil damages claim, not a criminal case, although he could be in the future. There is no category of accessory after the fact in a civil claim. Perhaps run it past your lawyer family again. Andrew's guilt has yet to be established, and my suspicions of his guilt or otherwise have absolutely no weight in the matter at all.

Rosie51

Petera

Rosie51

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.

It's not about a section of the law - you are confusing, I assume, a) when a successful protection can take place with b) the fact that the offence took place. They are quite different - you can commit an offence without subsequently being charged or prosecuted.

It is alleged that I had breakfast this morning and it is alleged that my mother knew and cleaned up after me. The fact that the police have not charged me with having breakfast or charged my mother with being an accessory after the fact that I had breakfast is entirely irrelevant to the fact of whether I had breakfast or not or the fact of whether or not my mother cleaned up.

It is alleged that PA raped a child and it is alleged that his mother knew. The fact that the police have not charged PA with raping or child or charged his mother with being an accessory after the fact that he raped a child is entirely irrelevant to the fact of whether he raped a child or not or the fact of whether or not his mother cleaned knew.

And thank you for the offer of running it past the police members in your extended family but I’ve already discussed it with the lawyers in my family.

It's not about a section of the law - you are confusing, I assume, a) when a successful protection can take place with b) the fact that the offence took place. They are quite different - you can commit an offence without subsequently being charged or prosecuted. How very patronising! I think you mean prosecution not protection, and I'd have to be stupid beyond belief to not know that not all offences committed , or even most of them, result in prosecution and/or conviction.
Petera as you have lawyers in your family perhaps you can link to some cases (they'll have the info at their fingertips) of people who have been examined by the courts as per your post on Monday at 14.25 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
How can anyone be convicted of being an accessory after the fact, when no "fact" has been established? I'll illustrate for you. Person A is charged and prosecuted for theft. The jury finds person A not guilty. There has been no offence by person A, person A has a clean record. You then think person A's mother can be prosecuted for being an accessory after the fact? What fact? What offence?
Once again Andrew is the subject of a civil damages claim, not a criminal case, although he could be in the future. There is no category of accessory after the fact in a civil claim. Perhaps run it past your lawyer family again. Andrew's guilt has yet to be established, and my suspicions of his guilt or otherwise have absolutely no weight in the matter at all.

Well actually I found your last but one post pretty patronising but failed to mention it.

But I expect you'll find this patronising again: I wrote 'liable to prosecution' and of course after the fact had been established, I never suggested anything else.

Your argument about successfully convicting someone when no fact has been established is specious. It fails to address what I actually wrote.

Petera ...and I repeat. You can be an accessory after the fact with no charges having been laid for the principle offence. You have yet to explain the legal process for charging an accessory after the fact when there is no proved offence (fact) to which to be an accessory.

American law is not British law though. Sometimes they differ.

Rosie51

Petera ...and I repeat. You can be an accessory after the fact with no charges having been laid for the principle offence. You have yet to explain the legal process for charging an accessory after the fact when there is no proved offence (fact) to which to be an accessory.

I, nowhere, wrote that you can be charged. I did write that you are liable to it. But of course it would not happen if the fact was not established - that part I thought was obvious.

But I also wrote that, whether or not the the fact was established, you can be de facto an accessory after the fact. As I was at pains to point out, this does not
mean you can be successfully convicted of being such.

In fact my use of the Latin phrase highlights our misunderstanding: I am talking about de facto while you are talking about de jure.

You also wrote that if you were in the Queen's position 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 and I dispute you would be hauled off to court and still await your links to those that have been, where no criminal charges have been levied in the first place. If this were true the courts would barely find time for trials.

PA said in that interview he had never met the girl in question or has no memory of it, despite a photo suggesting they met. What do you think of this??

Some of Andrew’s friends believe the photos of him with the plaintiff have been doctored/photoshopped!

I have a photo of me taken at my Twenty-First talking animatedly with a girl I had no recollection of whatsoever; it was only at a youth club reunion forty years later that I discovered she was then the very new girl-friend whom nobody knew, (but later his wife), of one of the guests.
I had met her several times over subsequent years, but her hair style and colour were different each time and I never realized.

So yes, it is possible he genuinely does not recall her.

The photograph was allegedly taken in 2001, it was first put out
publicly in 2011.

Wonder how many times he has had his photograph taken with
people

And I think it strange that she kept a photograph of a man she
claims she was forced to have sex with.

I don't find it strange; he is a prince.
She was coerced, not held down and assaulted - that is the awful nature of coercion.
Lots of people don't even realise they've been a victim at the time.

The sad thing is, this woman says she was used for sex by a variety of Epstein’s friends, and she accepted this abuse for who knows what reason. She was apparently recruited, abused, and cast aside. She was 17. And apparently nobody thought it was wrong. What a world we live in.

She wasn’t cast aside, she decided to opt out and get married.

..........a lot of indigestion being suffered on this thread......repeat repeat repeat! take some rennies for relief.

This young American girl was told a middle aged man was Prince Andrew. Was he?

Who's that in the picture Aveline? A stunt double?

She was allegedly coerced.
If the photograph is to be taken as evidence, does she look like someone acting under threats or force?
And I am well aware someone will tell me that came later, but as her father was with her in England I would find it hard to believe she was unable to escape.

I don't know much about coercion.

But it seems I know shedloads more than you easybee.

Is your next post going to be about why all those women who are domestically abused don't just leave their partners?

Is being photographed with someone a criminal offence?

She's in a picture with PA.

She says PA assaulted her. (Yet to be proved, of course)

Presumably she knows who PA is, then.

I'm sure lots of the women on gransnet who have posted about abusive exes had photos taken with them.
There are probably lots of seemingly happy family pictures.
Social media certainly certainly shows that to be true these days.

I have been looking at old photos recently and I noticed how unhappy my Mum looks in some of them even though she is smiling

Coersive partners particularly like to spoil events that are important to their partner, so I dread to think how many beautiful pictures of happy birthdays, christmases and so on are hiding sadness.
Of course, that is only if they choose to spoil that particular day.

If they don't, it doesn't mean they are suddenly not coersive anymore.

I'm sure she has now been told by her legal and PR team that thats Prince Andrew.