Jump to content



Recommended Posts

His Royal Highness suffers from bad advisors. His case is lost anway but if he would have admitted everything and said a lovely lass offered herself and what the hell can you do as long as you are on the legal side? Bad behaviour maybe but grass would have grown over it. Now it goes on for ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coss said:

It might be the trafficking

Human trafficking involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to obtain some type of labor or commercial sex act. ... Traffickers use force, fraud, or coercion to lure their victims and force them into labor or commercial sexual exploitation.

No evidence of Force, Fraud or Coercion by Randy Andy and no evidence of commercial sexual exploitation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not an argument it is a debate, And I am not defending Randy Andy, merely pointing out legal definitions. 
The article states

“The complaint is detailed and shocking. Among its allegations are that the prince “abused plaintiff on separate occasions when she was under the age of 18 years old”, including in London and New York, and on Mr Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands, Little St James.

During each of the aforementioned incidents,” it reads, “Prince Andrew acted with intent to compel plaintiff’s submission.” In the starkest wording in the document, the prince is accused of knowing Ms Giuffre “was a sex-trafficking victim being forced to engage in sexual acts with him”.

As previously pointed out the age of consent in NY State and UK is 17, the alleged activities in US Virgin Isles occurred when she was 18.

Knowing about Human Trafficking is not the same as using “Force, Fraud or Coercion” and even f it was Miss Roberts was not forced into Labotr or Commercial Sex as shown


Immoral is not Illegal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mekong said:

It is not an argument it is a debate,

Man:  Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.

Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?

Man: No, this is my first time.

Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

Man: Well, what would be the cost?

Receptionist: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.

Man: Well, I think it's probably best if I start with the one and then see how it goes from there, okay?

Receptionist: Fine. I'll see who's free at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

He can run, but he can't hide...

The high court has agreed to intervene if necessary to serve papers on the Duke of York in the sexual assault civil case filed against him in the US, it has said.


I have a question: If the courts are challenged, who has the final say? Democracy? or Liz?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst theoretically Her Madge could overrule the courts I very much doubt that she would. Her policy has always been say nothing and don’t interfere on all matters and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

As for the papers being served, it is a moot point to be honest, the papers relate to a civil case and UK-US extradition only relates to criminal cases. Basically means Randy Andy can’t step foot in USA or it’s territories, no great loss IMHO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...