Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the secret sealed document and his arrest

[Bevan Price]

Apart from anything else, Prince Andrew has demonstrated a very poor ability in his choice of "friends".

 

[LOL The Irony]

Apart from anything else, Prince Andrew has demonstrated a very poor ability in his choice of "friends".

Another issue to add on to this is andrew stayed friends with epstein, even after his 2008 conviction.

 

[brad465]

The Sun decided to post the below front page today about Andrew. This looks very much like them trying to distract from the Deputy editor's role in the illegal no.10 parties, as opposed to actually reporting on what Andrew is up to. What's probably worth noting is Andrew could sue for libel and I reckon stand a good chance of winning, but I suspect he won't because the last thing he wants right now is more publicity.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1483204052011864064

THE SUN: Andrew’s 6-in-a-bed #TomorrowsPapersToday

 

[Shrop]

The Sun decided to post the below front page today about Andrew. This looks very much like them trying to distract from the Deputy editor's role in the illegal no.10 parties, as opposed to actually reporting on what Andrew is up to. What's probably worth noting is Andrew could sue for libel and I reckon stand a good chance of winning, but I suspect he won't because the last thing he wants right now is more publicity.

You've hit the nail on the head. Prince Andrew's appalling behaviour is no longer news, so in true "Sun" style they've sought to sensationalise this story, which as you say may well be to steer the focus away from the behaviour of their own staff. If the Deputy Editor was involved in the No 10 parties, then what a shame there isn't some sordid publication seeking to expose them with the same bloodlust as they show for others.

 

[Gloster]

Andrew is apparently now demanding trial by jury. As this means by your peers, meaning equals, where are they going to get a dozen princes from?

 

[Anonymous10]

Andrew is apparently now demanding trial by jury. As this means by your peers, meaning equals, where are they going to get a dozen princes from?

they can do trial by royal family. yes bit.tongue in cheek or they could speak to france and Netherlands

 

[GusB]

Andrew is apparently now demanding trial by jury. As this means by your peers, meaning equals, where are they going to get a dozen princes from?

Saudi Arabia?

 

[najaB]

Andrew is apparently now demanding trial by jury. As this means by your peers, meaning equals, where are they going to get a dozen princes from?

Pretty sure it was always going to be a jury trial.

 

[Cowley]

Saudi Arabia?

Of course!

 

[brad465]

Apologies if I've not understood this properly: what has Andrew (via his lawyers), demanded the trial by jury be about specifically, and who exactly is the defendant in it? I cannot see why he would happily want to be the defendant in a trial by jury unless he's absolutely sure he'll be found innocent (which I'm not suggesting means he is guilty right now).

 

[najaB]

I cannot see why he would happily want to be the defendant in a trial by jury unless he's absolutely sure he'll be found innocent (which I'm not suggesting means he is guilty right now).

They are likely hoping that (a) the process of empanelling a jury draws the process out a bit longer; (b) that the case against him is weak enough that it's unlikely that a jury would reach a unanimous verdict; and/or (c) that the likelihood of a mistrial is higher in a jury trial than one heard solely by a judge.

 

[43096]

Andrew is apparently now demanding trial by jury. As this means by your peers, meaning equals, where are they going to get a dozen princes from?

Well there's Harry and Meghan already over there. I'm sure they'll give him a fair hearing!

 

[Busaholic]

Well there's Harry and Meghan already over there. I'm sure they'll give him a fair hearing!

I've heard no mention of him attending the court for this CIVIL action and, even if he did, wouldn't submit himself to questioning. His legal team would remind him of his car crash of an interview on the BBC.

 

[najaB]

I've heard no mention of him attending the court for this CIVIL action and, even if he did, wouldn't submit himself to questioning. His legal team would remind him of his car crash of an interview on the BBC.

While he doesn't have to testify, I'm pretty sure that he would have to attend as he's being sued in his personal capacity.

 

[43096]

I've heard no mention of him attending the court for this CIVIL action and, even if he did, wouldn't submit himself to questioning. His legal team would remind him of his car crash of an interview on the BBC.

My comment was a tongue-in-cheek one about Harry and Meghan sitting on the jury.

 

[Busaholic]

While he doesn't have to testify, I'm pretty sure that he would have to attend as he's being sued in his personal capacity.

No idea how things operate in U.S. courts, but here many civil cases are concluded in the hours or minutes before the court hearing, often for undisclosed sums of money. After all, money is no object to the ultra-privileged buffoon!

 

[najaB]

No idea how things operate in U.S. courts, but here many civil cases are concluded in the hours or minutes before the court hearing, often for undisclosed sums of money. After all, money is no object to the ultra-privileged buffoon!

The plaintiff has stated that she's not interested in a purely financial settlement though.

 

[Senex]

No idea how things operate in U.S. courts, but here many civil cases are concluded in the hours or minutes before the court hearing, often for undisclosed sums of money. After all, money is no object to the ultra-privileged buffoon!

But watching it all develop does bring out the point very clearly that even if you're a buffoon, as long as you're an utra-privileged one with access to huge amounts of money you can get lawyers to support you and access to the courts in a way that ordinary citizens couldn't hope for in their wildest dreams.

 

[Shrop]

But watching it all develop does bring out the point very clearly that even if you're a buffoon, as long as you're an utra-privileged one with access to huge amounts of money you can get lawyers to support you and access to the courts in a way that ordinary citizens couldn't hope for in their wildest dreams.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2022 ==

Have you seen PMQs or indeed most questions about Partygate recently? It's a masterclass in being an ultra-priveleged buffoon with access to huge amounts of taxpayers money, getting a host of what ought to be otherwise intelligent and well educated people, to answer every conceivable question about wrong doings with either "Ah yes but look how many vaccinations we've organised" or "We'd rather be thinking about the Ukraine". If Andrew had the amount of blinkered and utterly biased support that Boris has, he'd have no worries about a court case. But just to follow Boris's example, I think next time I get a speeding ticket I'll plead that I might have broken the law, but I've done lots of miles at below the speed limit, and see if that works to get me off a fine

 

[najaB]

But just to follow Boris's example, I think next time I get a speeding ticket I'll plead that I might have broken the law, but I've done lots of miles at below the speed limit, and see if that works to get me off a fine

Or, to go back in time in this Government's lawlessness, admit that you might have exceeded the speed limit but that it was in a very specific and limited way.

 

[Shrop]

Or, to go back in time in this Government's lawlessness, admit that you might have exceeded the speed limit but that it was in a very specific and limited way.

Or I could say I was pushed into breaking the speed limit by someone else. Who then left his job to become deputy editor of a rag that's read by nearly 3 million people every day. Which provides a glorious opportunity to divert attention away from his wrongdoings by printing massive headlines about something else. And that something else just happens to be Prince Andrew. Too ridiculous for words?

 

[Busaholic]

The plaintiff has stated that she's not interested in a purely financial settlement though.

Yes, that potentially makes things very interesting, but I cannot conceive a situation in which he takes the rap other than financially, much though i fantasise about such an eventuality. 'Wrongdoing' is never something that can be ascribed to those born with the solid gold cutlery set in their mouth.

 

[najaB]

Yes, that potentially makes things very interesting, but I cannot conceive a situation in which he takes the rap other than financially, much though i fantasise about such an eventuality.

A guilty finding would trash his reputation, which probably means more to him than money. The evidence presented in this case also could open the door to criminal proceedings (assuming that there isn't a statues of limitations prohibition).

 

[Busaholic]

A guilty finding would trash his reputation, which probably means more to him than money. The evidence presented in this case also could open the door to criminal proceedings (assuming that there isn't a statues of limitations prohibition).

Only he and a few who believe in the Divine Right of Princes, or whatever, are deluded enough to think he has any reputation left.

 

[najaB]

Only he and a few who believe in the Divine Right of Princes, or whatever, are deluded enough to think he has any reputation left.

At the moment he is an accused sex offender. Which, if the jury finds in his favour, disappears from the public conscience in a couple of years. If they find in favour of the plaintiff he'll never be able to outlive the stigma.

Plus, it's not unknown for the evidence uncovered in a civil case to lead to criminal charges.

 

[Senex]

Only he and a few who believe in the Divine Right of Princes, or whatever, are deluded enough to think he has any reputation left.

I think you might, unfortunately, find that there are still far too many in this country who believe in the Divine Right of Princes (as long as they're members of the Windsor family).

 

[brad465]

I think you might, unfortunately, find that there are still far too many in this country who believe in the Divine Right of Princes (as long as they're members of the Windsor family).

Lady Colin Campbell trying to defend Epstein and Andrew by suggesting at least Epstein was 'merely' an ephebophile, not paedophile, when she was asked about how Andrew may have damaged the royals through his association with Epstein, comes to mind here.

 

[najaB]

I won't link to it since it's in the Daily Mail but they are reporting that Ms Guffrie has said that she would be willing to settle out of court, but only if the settlement agreement involves an admission of guilt.

 

[baz962]

I was wondering and hoping someone can answer a question. Obviously you have to turn up for a criminal trial , but what's the law as regards a civil suit. Not withstanding the status of a person , is a defendant legally required. Also would the US have any legal standing if Prince Andrew or indeed any civilian , refused to attend.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I was wondering and hoping someone can answer a question. Obviously you have to turn up for a criminal trial , but what's the law as regards a civil suit. Not withstanding the status of a person , is a defendant legally required. Also would the US have any legal standing if Prince Andrew or indeed any civilian , refused to attend.

I believe that in the US, if you don’t attend and mount a defence, judgement is given against you by default