The man formerly known as Prince can fall no further....

Quote Whitewavemark2 Sat 01-Nov-25 10:52:21
Anyone thought to wonder from where WM got details of Guiffre’s national security details and gave them to his security officer in order for him to find and dish up “dirt” on the victim?

WW did you dig up dirt re your claim “Andrew interest in children?
I have asked for a l link re your claim

I'm not insisting that Andrew shouldn't be prosecuted if he's broken the law, but he hasn't been charged with a crime and so far no evidence has been produced that would make a charge possible.

Anyone thought to wonder from where WM got details of Guiffre’s national security details and gave them to his security officer in order for him to find and dish up “dirt” on the victim?

Quote Whitewavemark2 Sat 01-Nov-25 10:27:29
Why not?

Just because the rich and powerful have so far got away with their behaviour - although this may not continue to be the case in the USA - I fail to understand why someone in the U.K. should not be subjected to the court of law.

It would be no different to convicting a member of a gold bullion robbery say, even if other members have so far got away,

WW you spoke this morning of Andrew’s interest in young women and children,I asked you for a link re your claim of “ children” , ages of the children please

Whitewavemark2

Why not?

Just because the rich and powerful have so far got away with their behaviour - although this may not continue to be the case in the USA - I fail to understand why someone in the U.K. should not be subjected to the court of law.

It would be no different to convicting a member of a gold bullion robbery say, even if other members have so far got away,

Agreed, WWM. Nobody suggests that we should wait for all thieves to be prosecuted before anyone caught shoplifting or burgling can be brought to court. That would just go round in circles, as nobody could face justice before everyone else had done so.

Similarly, it would make no sense to insist that prosecutions for, say, fraud should be put on hold in the UK until the US has got rid of fraudsters over there.

Grannycool52

I've just seen ine one of the UK broadsheets that Sarah Ferguson is leaving Andrew for good.

Trying to distance herself from all the noise, I expect.
She has sold her Belgravia property for £3+. That amount would see most mid-60's people living quite comfortably for the remainder of their lives but this is Sarah Ferguson who seems to have no financial acumen whatsoever. She is distancing herself in the hopes that she won't lose all her income streams but I can't see many people wanting to bother too much with her going forward.

Why not?

Just because the rich and powerful have so far got away with their behaviour - although this may not continue to be the case in the USA - I fail to understand why someone in the U.K. should not be subjected to the court of law.

It would be no different to convicting a member of a gold bullion robbery say, even if other members have so far got away,

ronib

From my vague recollection of history, I seem to remember that royalty everywhere went in for quite a few illegitimate children as did the aristocracy over the centuries. Time to be honest?

For your information, my grandmother was illegitimate as you call it, although she was a legitimate, good, kind person.
It did not mean her descendants became child sex abusers.

I am offended by your inference.

Allira

^The man formerly known as Prince can fall no further^

He should look on the bright side.
At least he won't have to sleep in a doorway or queue up at the foodbank like some people.

Indeed. I don't understand the sympathy.

It's not as though, like many ordinary mortals who lose their homes and jobs, he will suffer actual poverty, or even be a bit hard-up. He will be subsidised by his brother to live in a large 'cottage', will probably have staff, will have plenty to eat and will be able to put the heating on when he wants to. As punishments go, it's not too brutal, is it?

Without men like Andrew .... yes WW 'men' is a plural, Andrew is one man so why is he the only one being pursued?

America needs to put it's own house in order before dictating to other countries. Epstein was American and many of 'friends' and acquaintances if not the vast majority, were also American so where are their names?

ronib

From my vague recollection of history, I seem to remember that royalty everywhere went in for quite a few illegitimate children as did the aristocracy over the centuries. Time to be honest?

What has that to do with this?

Nothing whatsoever.

From my vague recollection of history, I seem to remember that royalty everywhere went in for quite a few illegitimate children as did the aristocracy over the centuries. Time to be honest?

fancyflowers

I feel sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie in all this. They can't help having the parents they do, and it must be hard for them.

They must have known something about this, they’ve accompanied their parents to meet various dubious people as well as inviting Epstein, Maxwell and Weinstein to their birthday parties.
Mud sticks, I imagine they’re going to have to be extremely careful who they associate with in future.
I understand that Ferguson has finally dumped Andrew (according to The Times) now he’s persona non grata, she’ll be desperate to find someone else to fund her lifestyle, know any undiscriminating billionaires anyone? I can’t imagine anyone wanting to be associated with her now either.

Quote Whitewavemark2 Sat 01-Nov-25 10:01:26
Without men like Andrew whose appetite for vulnerable young women and children, the sex traffickers would not exist.

The same is true of child pornography

Link please supporting you claim “men like Andrew whose appetite for vulnerable young women and children “

The man formerly known as Prince can fall no further

He should look on the bright side.
At least he won't have to sleep in a doorway or queue up at the foodbank like some people.

In law I suspect that there is no difference between the Rotherham Gangs, the Romanian sex traffickers and Epstein together with those who took part.

I've just seen ine one of the UK broadsheets that Sarah Ferguson is leaving Andrew for good.

Without men like Andrew whose appetite for vulnerable young women and children, the sex traffickers would not exist.

The same is true of child pornography

ronib

Good public relations exercise do we think? Wwm2

Well, yes and No - it is not quite so simple.

The monarchy is according to Bagehot the “virtuous” or moral dimension of our constitution, and historically, particularly since Victoria came to the throne the RF, have come down pretty hard on those members who fail to live up to this ideal.

Since the Georgians, the RF has endeavoured (often failing) to live up to its part in the constitution. Charles is merely following accepted historical practice of clearing the decks of those members. Not to do so risks the existence of the monarchy.

Besides which he hates being heckled😊

Put the word 'vulnerable' in front of anyone and at present they become untouchable.
Guiffre was vulnerable, but it was Epstein and Maxwell who exploited her, not Andrew, plus apparently her father, grandfather, family friend , according to her. Why were they not investigated?
As for trafficking, very difficult to prove against the single piece of evidence (now mislaid) of their meeting, a happy, smiling excited teenager and a rather bored looking prince with his arm loosely round her waist, posed for a photograph.
Other evidence may emerge, but I feel America is not interested;in pursuing it; too many prominent influential business men involved.
Meanwhile in England, a witch hunt.

ronib
Good public relations exercise do we think? Wwm2

Reason why the Queen is involved with charities for abused women , public relations exercise?

ronib

Good public relations exercise do we think? Wwm2

Possibly. I suspect there is a lot more to come out, and there will be a lot of back-covering going on.

But PR is delicately balanced, and the fact that they have made a strong statement on the matter will hugely backfire if anything comes out to suggest that they have not ben squeaky clean from the start, so I don't know.

The public aren't as daft as they are often assumed to be, and if there is clear hypocrisy on top of a scandal (as there would be if it is shown that the King was aware of Andrew's behaviour but did nothing until he had no choice) it will be worse than if they had said nothing.

A major result of the loss of Andrew's titles is that he will also lose the protection that being Royal has afforded him until now. If he is called to court it will be as 'Mister', not HRH, and (presumably?) it will not have to be signed off by the King before that can happen. Whether this helped to inform the decision or not, who knows.

Quote Smileless2012 Sat 01-Nov-25 09:17:55
She was complicit in the civil case not going to court by accepting an out of court settlement OldFrill.

It's become a witch hunt Annie.

With you Smileless seems one man going to court will a abolish the Monarchy and dismiss any Americans

ronib

Good public relations exercise do we think? Wwm2

Absolutely that.

LadyBridgerton

Doodledog

Where do you get the idea that juries ‘always find for the alleged victim’?

I sat on a jury in a historical abuse trial and from the minute we discovered the nature of the case he was guilty in the eyes of most of the jury.

Ok, but how does that mean that juries 'always' find for the victims?

David, you have gone from 'always' to 'most' and back again in your last post, but there is still no indication of what you are basing it on.