Charles may pay for Andrew's security

Its not OK because other people are doing it and love a sex party

He's not blameless because he didn't ask their names and ages

He is quite capable of taking responsibility. Penises do not have their own autonomy and are not dragging around unwilling participants

I agree M0nica PA is arrogant and stupid but being arrogant and stupid doesn't mean you're a sex offender, and saying so isn't defending him.

Neither is stating the fact that he has never been tried and convicted for the offence.

but he has not been involved in any criminal proceedings as far as i know.
so talk of guilt, innocence, offence etc are inappropriate.
he paid to settle a civil claim.
that is frequently done to avoid the expense and time taken of going to court (civil procedure).

In 2020, fewer than obe in 60 rape cases recorded by the police resulted in charges. 52,210 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales, only 843 resulted in charges - 1.6%

The argument about whether the girls/young women ensnared, groomed, trafficked and sexually exploited by Epstein and Maxwell, we’re willing sex workers continues on this forum. I see them as very similar to the Rochdale grooming girls. They were vulnerable, that’s why they were targeted. That’s why they were seen as ‘prostitutes’ despite being 13-14 when snared and groomed.

I’ve sat through trials were racists / incestuous fathers/step fathers were found not guilty. The CPS/police believed the cases had 85-90 % likelihood of conviction, they absolutely believed the allegations. The judge directed the jury thst the absence of independent evidence in support of the allegations meant conviction may be impossible.

I used to believe I’d support those prosecutions. Not so sure of that now. A not guilty finding leaves the perpetrator ‘innocent’.
I’ve seen children weeping because ‘they didn’t believe me’.
I’m not at all surprised VG took money rather than go to trial. If I was her lawyer, that’s what I’d advise.

VS
Penises do not have their own autonomy and are not dragging around unwilling participants.
Thank you for that!

but in the civil courts the burden of proof is lesser; it is balance of probabilites.
for the criminal courts it needs to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
that is the same basic legal system in uk and america, as far as i know.
there seems to be some muddled thinking here in this discussion, or maybe confusion re general principles of legal procedures.
civil matters are not the same as prosecution.

I’m familiar with the differences between civil and criminal courts. Beyond reasonable doubt can leave children and adult victims feeling they’re seen as liars. Perpetrators walk out smiling ‘innocent’ .
The rate of prosecutions is a national disgrace

I imagine the Crown is footing the bill although i suppose it could be Charles personally, but in his capacity as King rather than brother.
I don’t think rights, wrongs, ethics or morals come into it, it’s a question of security for a member of the RF. End of.

Smileless2012

I agree M0nica PA is arrogant and stupid but being arrogant and stupid doesn't mean you're a sex offender, and saying so isn't defending him.

Neither is stating the fact that he has never been tried and convicted for the offence.

Totally agree.

It's been said a lot of times though hasn't it

Besides

Innocent till proven guilty is within the court system, to prevent mistreatment.

It does not stop people being put in prison to await trial if they are deemed too dangerous to roam free.

It does not prevent a jury, judge or magistrates from convicting you whatever th balance of evidence.

And yes sometimes you must prove innocence, for instance, if someone were proven to be carrying a knife then they would then need to prove they were carrying a knife for an innocent reason.

And it really really does not stop trial by media and its not unlawful for anyone to say they believe someone guilty. The same way its not unlawful for anyone to say the things said on this thread about the potential victim.

So it's definitely not a get out of jail free card in discussion, so the discussion continues

Today 09:20 GrannyGravy13

Smileless2012
I agree M0nica PA is arrogant and stupid but being arrogant and stupid doesn't mean you're a sex offender, and saying so isn't defending him.

Neither is stating the fact that he has never been tried and convicted for the offence.
Totally agree.
Totally agree too.

I love this though from VS, slightly amended and especially if it applies to all weapons.
^ And yes sometimes you must prove innocence, for instance, if someone were proven to be carrying a weapon in a place where it should not be carried, then they would then need to prove they were carrying the weapon for an innocent reason.^

The law doesn't work that way as we know Mollygo. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not on the defence to prove innocence.

So in the case of someone carrying a knife for example, the prosecution would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the carrier was doing so with malicious intent.

So a person displaying a weapon in a manner which appears threatening would be doing so with malicious intent.

Yes I suppose so. Someone simply carrying a cricket bat isn't the same as someone brandishing one. It's an offence to carry a knife at all in the UK isn't it, regardless.

Charles is a nice man and his niceness is not a PR effort but is genuine. The more I hear about him the more he appears to be a nice human being.

Yes I think so too Caleo and TBH he's rather grown on me.

Caleo

Charles is a nice man and his niceness is not a PR effort but is genuine. The more I hear about him the more he appears to be a nice human being.

Back to he loves his brother and is perhaps (who actually knows? not GN) planning to pay for his brothers security.

People never give up on those they truly love, in my opinion.

Oh yay

Undertones

I think that's more than likely Norah. You don't need a vivid imagination to envisage the back lash if Charles wasn't footing the bill himself.

VioletSky

Oh yay

Undertones

VS are you saying that you would give up on a family member like PA?
Are those your undertones?

I have spoken of this several times , those who can recall the horrors of the Dennis Nielsen case, his mother was asked why she traveled from Scotland every month to visit him , her reply
-he’s my son, so many mothers will understand her , same surely applies to siblings.

Norah

Caleo

Charles is a nice man and his niceness is not a PR effort but is genuine. The more I hear about him the more he appears to be a nice human being.

Back to he loves his brother and is perhaps (who actually knows? not GN) planning to pay for his brothers security.

People never give up on those they truly love, in my opinion.

I can't imagine giving up on my son, whatever he did. I would condemn any behaviour remotely similar to PA's, but I wouldn't/couldn't stop loving him. It's what mothers do, and maybe brothers, too.

I’ve no problem with PA getting security, even if paid for by the public purse. Things may change as King Charles slims down the monarchy but Given PA (and Harry) served in our military, fought in wars as well as being members of the RF I believe they’re in greater need of protection thanI am.

I see no reason for PA to be cut off by his family, but it’s right that he’s cut off from being an active working member of the RF/acting on behalf of the monarchy

I understand and respect posters who say they can’t imagine ever cutting a family member out, estranging them. I understand why that is said. In some situations though it happens and for good reason. Devastating, heart breaking but the point of no return can be reached

So many families end up estranged for what seem to be the slimmest of reasons, there will always be those who cannot understand that other families are not as fragile as theirs.