Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

[tabitha2]

Because they are his family and he is still a Royal Duke. That will never change. 

[formergothardite]

2 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Because they are his family and he is still a Royal Duke. That will never change. 

And that is one of the reasons the royal family needs to go. If a guy like Andrew is still welcomed in and congratulated in public then the whole institutions isn't really worth keeping. If they circle the wagons around him then what other horrible things will they protect? 

[IrishCarrie]

Gotta say though, I had the best laugh of my day at all the memes of Andrew celebrating his birthday in the Pizza Express in Woking  ???

[viii]

9 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Because they are his family and he is still a Royal Duke. That will never change. 

Then text him ? There is ZERO reason to bring him up on a public platform, unless it’s to condemn him for his heinous behaviour. But of course you’d never do that. 

[SweetJuly]

How likely is it that Andrew could be held legally accountable for his connections to Epstein / the claims of (statutory) rape?

I suppose it is extremely difficult to get the right evidence to have him arrested or even summoned to court, not to mention that many "friends" would surely be holding their protective hand over him, but my question is more whether there are any legal restrictions that protect (working) members of the BRF from criminal prosecution? Do they have some sort of diplomatic status?

Edited February 21, 2020 by SweetJuly
fixed the sentence a little

[Palimpsest]

49 minutes ago, SweetJuly said:

my question is more whether there are any legal restrictions that protect (working) members of the BRF from criminal prosecution? Do they have some sort of diplomatic status?

No.  In the UK, only the monarch has Sovereign Immunity.  Although that didn't work so well for Charles I, no monarch has been arrested and tried since.

The rest of the bunch can certainly be arrested and prosecuted for crimes they commit. But there's a little caveat there.  They technically can't be arrested on the grounds of a royal palace or in the presence of the monarch, so if Andrew clings to mummy's knees at Sandringham , Balmoral, etc. he should be safe from arrest.

The question at this stage is whether they have the grounds to arrest him or not, and whether he should cooperate with the investigation as simply the right thing to do.  He should stand up and take responsibility.  The Queen should be kicking his rear end into cooperation, IMO, not protecting her nasty lamb. 

Anne has made court appearances and paid fines for speeding tickets and owning a dangerous dog.  I think the rest have mostly kept their noses clean, but I'm sure a lot of minor things have been hushed up.

Diplomatic immunity is only relevant if they are overseas.  If a royal committed a crime in another country they would probably try to claim diplomatic immunity,  I'd say that should only work if they were traveling on government business.  Not if they were on vacation. 

On 2/19/2020 at 11:27 AM, tabitha2 said:

he is still a Royal Duke. That will never change. 

Look up the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917.  Absolutely Andy could be demoted.  It has happened before.  As for family, the Queen may have a soft spot for Andy. Charles, not so much.

[omilona]

It appears he may be losing the HRH too https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/prince-andrew-loses-hrh-title-21528005?fbclid=IwAR2uNujUKnJysG2FYY9z194SDcqcrdKZfiY06yxLyjOCTKQqdD1jpqd_Du4

[SweetJuly]

20 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

He should stand up and take responsibility.  The Queen should be kicking his rear end into cooperation, IMO, not protecting her nasty lamb. 

Oh, absolutely!

But this is Andrew... unfortunately I can't picture him doing this unless he's absolutely forced to. He's probably rightfully concerned about making it worse for himself. A bigger person would take that risk and responsibility in order to do the right thing, but again - this is Andrew. Taking responsibility and doing the right thing are not in his repertoire.

As for the Queen, she most likely believes him that he is not only innocent but also had no idea about anything, and is just an unfortunate victim of having been too trusting of his creepy friends.

[Palimpsest]

Hee!  "If you see this man please ask him to call the FBI to answer their questions."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/21/lawyer-epstein-victims-prince-andrew-school-bus-buckingham-palace-fbi

[hoipolloi]

4 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

As for family, the Queen may have a soft spot for Andy. Charles, not so much.

This. If Andrew is still playing hard-to-get with the FBI when the Queen shuffles off this mortal coil, Charles probably won't hesitate to come down on him like a ton of bricks. 

[Jigsaw3]

Has anyone mentioned the Nygard case yet? Peter Nygard, a Canadian multi-millionaire clothing designer/magnate, has been accused of fairly horrific Epstein-style grooming and assault of children (teenage girls), especially at his estate in the Bahamas. The alleged assaults are actually much more brutal than Epstein's, so read with caution:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/peter-nygard-class-action-lawsuit-1.5463684

Why am I bringing this up in Randy Andy's thread? Well, guess who was a visitor at Nygard's Bahamas estate? If you guessed Andrew, you're right.

A few pages ago I suggested that Andrew might be playing the plausible deniability card with respect to the victims' ages and consent. But after reading this, I regret ever saying that. He knew what he was doing.

As for Nygard, he's a nasty character and has been involved in multiple different legal cases. I believe he has been fighting in court to get publication bans on some of these sexual assault accusations, so that might be why Andrew's association with him has been underreported.

[hoipolloi]

Not familiar with Nygard but it wouldn't surprise me if he came to use his wealth & its power to prey on vulnerable women.

Re: Andrew. Also not surprising that he'd gravitate towards the likes of Nygard who seems to have a lot in common with Epstein.

[Jigsaw3]

So in addition to being a pedophile and a rapist, Andy's also dishonest with money.

He didn't make a massive payment on his Swiss chalet in December: speculation is that he probably expected some of his dodgy friends like Epstein to bail him out when he set up the financing. And now his charity has been revealed to have less than impeccable books -- he paid a staff member a severance payment (translation: hush money) approx 300k pounds from the charitable funds, and has had to repay that from his own finances.

Not good, Andy, not good.

[just_ordinary]

Hmmm I heard today that Andrew will not resume into any office regarding the BRF. Apparently he will also not publicly take part in any public family appearances (so no spot on the balcony I guess). His titles and rank remain untouched. I have no idea how valid this statement is. I will say if true, I am disappointed. He should have been stripped from all titles and ranks. Even if we don’t get ever proof and if we act in doubt of the accused and believe his stories- stupidity has consequences. And at best, he was completely stupid, clueless and ignorant (not that I believe he didn’t know or maybe just made sure he could claim he didn’t know). Alone for this entitlement to his status and the abuse those women endured it is ok to loose privilege. His actions might have not been legally wrong but morally he hit rock bottom. 
I guess, they fear stripping him will effectively “proof” to the public that he indeed is guilty. 
 

@Jigsaw3 I think our countries and legal systems might have very different ideas about pedophilia. The classic definition is used for sexual encounters with people before their hit puberty and if you are only sexually interested in people before they hit puberty (so being sexual interested in  someone younger and it evolves while you grow up together aka Highschool sweethearts for example doesn’t make you a pedophile). Obviously there are still reasons to protect young people and their sexuality from predators. Example if you are 14-15 your partner is legally safe if you two have consensual sex if they are under 21. I think from age 16 there are no legal rules anymore but I could be wrong. I know other countries have different laws (stricter or softer) but that’s why my toenails go up every time people use that term loosely (from my point of view). As if harassing, exploiting, trafficking, abusing and raping this young women wasn’t enough. As if this alone doesn’t make those predators despicable, disgusting and just scum.

Edited June 3, 2020 by just_ordinary

[WiseGirl]

How will he weasel out of this one? 

Prosecutors formally request to talk with Prince Andrew in Epstein investigation

https://www.today.com/video/us-prosecutors-formally-request-to-talk-to-prince-andrew-about-jeffrey-epstein-84650565896

[JenniferJuniper]

The new Netflix documentary is particularly damning for Andrew.  I doubt he'll ever face the criminal prosecution that he should, but he should be stripped of every title he has.

The documentary was horrifying (just one little story - Epstein once celebrated his birthday with three 12 year old girls, flown in from Paris for him to rape one night and then flown right back) but I suspect it just scratches the surface.  It's terrifying to think of the extent of child sex trafficking rich and powerful men have been getting away with. And Epstein was likely just a player - not the epicenter himself. 

[hoipolloi]

4 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

The new Netflix documentary is particularly damning for Andrew. 

Just started watching this and it's horrifying. 

Also listened to this three-part podcast on Epstein. One of the three guests is Steve Hoffenberg who worked with Epstein in the 1980s at Tower Financial. Hoffenberg went prison for years after pleading guilty to bilking Tower's clients of their money through a ponzi scheme. He says that Epstein was the un-indicted co-conspirator in that fraud and used the money he stole to set up his hedge fund. Another major takeaway, if I understood it all correctly, is that Epstein was a player in international espionage and arms dealing. The sex trafficking was a component of the espionage because it was an effective way to compromise individuals with power & access -- like Prince Andrew. 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I truly hate the world we live in.  I hope all the victims of every one of these monsters find peace.

[FluffySnowball]

9 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Another major takeaway, if I understood it all correctly, is that Epstein was a player in international espionage and arms dealing. The sex trafficking was a component of the espionage because it was an effective way to compromise individuals with power & access -- like Prince Andrew. 

I’m not one to support conspiracies on the regular, but I do think Epstein was killed and I assume that he knew too much about some influential people. *takes tinfoil hat off again*

As much as I’d like to say “good riddance”, neither did Epstein get the chance to face justice and receive his deserved punishment, nor do his victims get the possibility to speak out against him during a trial. So the outcome of his arrest was most unfortunate, though I don’t feel an ounce of sympathy for him. 

And as for Prince Andrew... birds of a feather flock together so there’s that. 

[Pleiades_06]

I just hate that a rich man from a powerful family might get away with crap per usual.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Pleiades_06
Grammar

[HerNameIsBuffy]

For those who care about the titles he still has, do you think public outcry would sway his mom to strip them from him?

[hoipolloi]

12 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

I’m not one to support conspiracies on the regular, but I do think Epstein was killed and I assume that he knew too much about some influential people. *takes tinfoil hat off again*

Re: Epstein's death. It would not be surprising if he were murdered but there is no clear evidence this happened. 

3 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

For those who care about the titles he still has, do you think public outcry would sway his mom to strip them from him?

Not unless she's absolutely forced to do so by public outcry or the unlikely occurrence of an indictment & conviction on trafficking. Once she's gone, though, Charles will probably issue back-dated proclamations stripping Andrew of all titles.

[FluffySnowball]

15 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Re: Epstein's death. It would not be surprising if he were murdered but there is no clear evidence this happened.

Oh yes, I am aware of that. That’s why I referred to my opinion as a conspiracy theory. It might very well be wrong. Still, I reckon he became a liability for someone very powerful. 

[hoipolloi]

6 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

Still, I reckon he became a liability for someone very powerful. 

There's no doubt that many people were unnerved by Epstein's arrest in 2019, not to mention the reports on the stockpile of videotapes & other data from his NYC mansion.

Sure hope that stuff is safe somewhere and will eventually provide a basis for prosecuting all of the perpetrators who who were in Epstein's sex trafficking ring(s). 

[just_ordinary]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

For those who care about the titles he still has, do you think public outcry would sway his mom to strip them from him?

I think she wouldn’t do this as long as there is another way. Sadly, Covid-19, the economical situation afterwards and (on a positive note) the fight against racism will be on the forefront of topics the majority will be interested in. So there will be not much pressure if they are smart. He is probably is worst enemy. He could easily hide away and with his lawyers find a way to please legal institutions without really taking part in anything helpful to the case. But he seems the feel unfairly treated and doesn’t seem to get that he cannot resume his old role. How someone can be so stupid, so entitled and full of himself and removed from reality is beyond me. 
 

I often said it on the Sussex thread- the Queens unwillingness to reign in her family is biggest fault. It is hurting the monarchy in my eyes. That is a big con that comes with all those privileges. There is no real distinction between private family matters and public ones as far as it concerns the institution. He could very well be a loved and respected family member after they forced him to renounce every official role and rank. But making him do this will hurt their private relationship as it’s all intertwined. Maybe she overcompensates that there is said to be not much warmth and comfort between them all.

 It’s just the last couple of years (5 or so) that they very actively and successfully push narratives of close relationships between the individual families (Charles and his children for example). It’s hard to know what to believe though as tabloids live to fabricate all sorts of stories. That’s why people read them after all. Who knows what’s the truth and what was just made up. Maybe they are a close bunch that just prefers to show their real emotions privately (which is within their good rights) maybe they hardly like or can barely tolerate each other.