Poor baby - run home to mummy!

Mollygo

Petera, it’s nothing to do with whether it not I have compassion for HM.
If I was asked if my child had confessed it to me and he/she hadn’t then I’d have no hesitation in saying no. Would you say yes because you had a suspicion it might be true even if you only had hearsay to go on?

No, but I would also expect that I should make myself available to clarify that they hadn't; just as in you reply you said you implied you would. Shall we ask the queen?

Aveline

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

If the offence is true I would not grudge Guiffre a single cent of even the most obscenely large settlement.

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.

Perhaps that goes to show that young women from dysfunctional backgrounds are all the more vulnerable to becoming prey to men.

But why would any responsible parent take their 17 year old daughter to give massages to grown men? It’s unbelievable. I would never have done that. I would have thought it extremely suspect, and not a suitable activity for my daughter. It screams sleazy to me, and not an activity suitable for a young girl.

He thought she was going to Epstein’s home to give him massages,
she didn’t tell him what was really allegedly going on and didn’t show any distress because she is a good actress !

She honestly told her dad what was going on and he still took her? Being a good actress is a benefit here?

Ch'ching!

Sadly my response to what Mr Roberts says is ‘he would say that wouldn’t he?’

Mr Roberts said his daughter is honest, he regrets he didn’t know what was happening when he use to drive her to Epstein’s house for a massage !

He also said ‘she is very good actress’

Whatever you might think of Prince Andrew, he hasn't been charged with anything. There is publicity about the current civil case where the woman who has accused him is looking to have a settlement and expose what she is claiming happened, but so far there is no real proof. He has had some pretty dubious, ghastly 'friends' and I'm extremely glad he isn't my son, but why hasn't he been charged by the American Law authorities? Until he is the rest is all speculation.

Petera, it’s nothing to do with whether it not I have compassion for HM.
If I was asked if my child had confessed it to me and he/she hadn’t then I’d have no hesitation in saying no. Would you say yes because you had a suspicion it might be true even if you only had hearsay to go on?

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.

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

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.

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.

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’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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

trisher knows the Queen is protecting him from the press,

trisher knows the Queen is protecting him from judicial
process.