Poor baby - run home to mummy!

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 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 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.

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

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??

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

Will the father be charged as a pimp?

Anniebach

If sex with a 17 year old is ‘having sex with underage girls, why
is marriage to a 16 year old,with parents consent legal

Sex with a 17-year old is legal if he or she is able to consent freely. A 17-year old is still legally a minor. Therefore sex with minors is legal in certain circumstances.

The issue with PA is consent, not age. If this ever gets to a court and his legal team can show that she freely consented (and that means a lot more than saying 'yes'as any vulnerable woman of any age could explain) he will not be guilty of any crime, but he will still have had sex with a minor.

Odd when you consider that, in some USA states it’s legal to marry at 14 and some don’t specify an age at all.

www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/12-year-olds-married/

If sex with a 17 year old is ‘having sex with underage girls, why
is marriage to a 16 year old,with parents consent legal

I respect your point of view Annie.

Andrew could put an end to all this speculation by cooperating with the authorities. I agree with trisher in that his behaviour is sending a very poor message to the country. Most of us don’t have large estates to hide in.

maddyone

I think she should not have allowed him to hide out at Balmoral Annie. I don’t think she is guilty of any criminal offence but I do think this situation reflects badly on her, which is a shame as she has had a long reign free from any undesirable accusations. It seems to me that she is allowing her own morality to be questioned.

The whole extended family have “hidden out at balmoral” every summer for as long as I can remember!

The father travelled with her from the USA to London then waited around whilst the “massage” supposedly took place. No masseuse available in London then? Is her dad really that dim?

Well actually I think PA behaving as he has could have some influence on men who think girls and women are just there to satisfy their own sexual demands. After all if the highest in the land are doing it (having sex with underage girls) why shouldn't the rest of them? If rich men have paedophile gangs why shouldn't poor ones? Whatever their religion. So not cooperating is sending out a really bad message.
As for the settlement if you get knocked down by one car and claim damages does that mean you can't claim damages when a second car hits you?

Maddy I can’t agree her morals are being questioned , well
I am not questioning her morals.

Looks like Guiffre already had a large settlement. I'd rather that focus was in the abuse if vulnerable girls here in UK by largely Muslim men.

I think she should not have allowed him to hide out at Balmoral Annie. I don’t think she is guilty of any criminal offence but I do think this situation reflects badly on her, which is a shame as she has had a long reign free from any undesirable accusations. It seems to me that she is allowing her own morality to be questioned.

Again Maddy what do you expect the Queen to say and do?

Should she tell the world - ‘I think he is guilty’

Should she tell his legal team what to do and say ?

My opinion only. I very much doubt that the Queen knew what Prince Andrew was allegedly up to when he went to these gatherings. However the Queen knows now what has been alleged. Whether or not Prince Andrew is guilty, he should stop dodging the delivery of papers and he should give his evidence as requested. The Queen knows what he’s doing just as well as we do, and by her apparent acceptance of him dodging the papers, she appears to be condoning his behaviour. She should not allow him to hide out at Balmoral. As I said, this is my opinion only.