Prince Andrew Can't Sweat

I used it correctly for what I was saying.

Thank you for getting me to double check on the grammar sites. For the record, not all English is UK English, and not only UK English is correct.

Wrongly, or preferably incorrectly, would have been appropriate. If you wish to debate matters of grammar or use of the Queen’s English you will find me at Pedants’ Corner, though I wouldn’t advise it.

What did the judge mean when he said Giuffrie has no obligation to detail alleged assaults

What on earth has a victim’s previous sexual activity got to do with anything?

Not correcting other users is even more appropriate.
Bad etiquette.

I haven’t heard that. It sounds very odd. I caught a snippet on the news saying that he interrupted PA’s lawyers’ submissions about the agreement much more than he did VG’s and has now retired to consider the matter. Of course the US judiciary are elected and therefore cannot be trusted not to be biased. We shall see. I look forward to hearing more on the 6 o’clock news.

I wasn’t correcting per se, more asking a question on why.

?

Michael Rosen
@MichaelRosen

Could I propose a plaque on the wall of the Pizza Express in Woking?

wwm it’s relevant to why the prosecution in GM’s case didn’t call VG as a witness. Apparently they considered she would be unreliable.
MissA Summerlove had a swing at Annie for allegedly deliberately misspelling VG’s surname (which isn’t the easiest). That isn’t in accordance with GN guidelines so in Annie’s defence I evened the score. People in glass houses …

The judge couldn’t have been referring to what took place in the bed, surely he doesn’t mean she doesn’t have to say where and when the alleged assaults took place ?

I don’t know Annie but where and when the alleged assaults took place is surely very relevant to whether she was above or below the age of consent in the place in question.

I don't think having a lot of sex means that people are unreliable as witnesses, surely?

In the GM case it would have laid her open to potentially damning cross examination and could have seriously undermined the prosecution case.

Ah, I see.
Is that fair, though?
Isn't that the reason why lots of women don't report sex crimes?

wwm it’s relevant to why the prosecution in GM’s case didn’t call VG as a witness. Apparently they considered she would be unreliable.

That is an assumption.

It is indeed, MissAdventure - and reading this thread in full, you can certainly understand why. It shouldn't matter, especially in this day and age, but obviously some still feel a woman should be judged on her sexual history.

You are all idiots

I seems that the judge looking at the latest representation by Windsors lawyers, has indicated that Giuffre will not be expected to go into detail about her sexual activity, this would I suspect also include any sexual activity she may have experienced prior to being sex trafficked.

In my opinion it is entirely immaterial.

Yes, to my dismay, I have read it in full.

This line of questioning has been restricted in England and Wales (no idea about Scotland) but if you were a man who had been wrongly accused you might favour it. What is allowed in New York I can’t say, having only been qualified to practise in E&W, but my hunch is that that’s why the prosecution said they felt she wouldn’t be a reliable witness. The allegations about her life would give a lot for a defence lawyer to get their teeth into.

Marina Hyde " Hiding behind the loophole of a dead sex trafficker? Stay classy Andrew"

Yes, it is no wonder women don't report sexual attacks, you only have to read this thread to see why, as Blondiescot says.

But it is still only an assumption. We don’t know the reason as they have never been published

Women reporting sex attacks are, quite rightly, physically examined and closely questioned by the police and are asked to consent to their phone records being examined because not infrequently the allegation is made about someone they have associated with. It’s the CPS who decide whether or not to prosecute in the basis of the evidence. My view has always been that if you’re telling the truth you have nothing to fear beyond embarrassment. However this thread isn’t about women in general, it’s about a specific ongoing case.

I agree.
That's why I don't understand Andrew's reluctance to cooperate.

IMO the argument that if you are innocent you have nothing to fear is spurious.

The women have been physically violated and then their private social life is open to the police.

It is very very wrong. Where else are victims expected to lay open their private life?