FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Prince Andrew/Harry Dunn
Prince Andrew/Harry Dunn
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Okay so this might start an argument or ppl might have a go at me cos it’s a bit political but I honestly think it needs saying.
Harry Dunn was killed by an American women who (however it came about) was able to leave the country on diplomatic immunity.
Prince Andrew is accused (no admittance like Harry’s case) of child sex crimes in line with America’s sex crime age laws.
After the failure of his interview on TV American lawyers are now saying he should be extradited to the U.S to face questioning. Fair point he should. However America has so far refused to extradite the women accused of the murder (or manslaughter) of Harry Dunn.
Is it fair that they want to extradite Prince Andrew over a sex crime (still a major offence in my eyes and most likely every Brits) yet refuse to extradite a women who killed a young lad in Britain?
To me Harry’s family could speak to the Home Office here and use leverage(Harry’s case for Andrews case), I know it won’t happen. But I think both should be extradited in a mutual agreement between America and Britain, at least then poor Harry’s mum who always breaks down in tears in EVERY interview, even now (shows the pain is still there), maybe able to get justice for her son. Why does it feel that there is one rule for America and another for the rest of the world? Just wondered who agrees? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"They should both be put in a ring to bitch fight it to the death. Both are disgusting self centred people. "
Given Andrews accusation I can only imaging the fight may turn into something else |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *modDMan
over a year ago
Lichfield |
"Okay so this might start an argument or ppl might have a go at me cos it’s a bit political but I honestly think it needs saying.
Harry Dunn was killed by an American women who (however it came about) was able to leave the country on diplomatic immunity.
Prince Andrew is accused (no admittance like Harry’s case) of child sex crimes in line with America’s sex crime age laws.
After the failure of his interview on TV American lawyers are now saying he should be extradited to the U.S to face questioning. Fair point he should. However America has so far refused to extradite the women accused of the murder (or manslaughter) of Harry Dunn.
Is it fair that they want to extradite Prince Andrew over a sex crime (still a major offence in my eyes and most likely every Brits) yet refuse to extradite a women who killed a young lad in Britain?
To me Harry’s family could speak to the Home Office here and use leverage(Harry’s case for Andrews case), I know it won’t happen. But I think both should be extradited in a mutual agreement between America and Britain, at least then poor Harry’s mum who always breaks down in tears in EVERY interview, even now (shows the pain is still there), maybe able to get justice for her son. Why does it feel that there is one rule for America and another for the rest of the world? Just wondered who agrees?"
Fuck this shit mate, Ant or Dec’s had a tattoo...of a lamppost apparently.
Bad taste or is Ant/Dec just making light of the situation? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *adetMan
over a year ago
South of Ipswich |
Its a question of law. Unfortunately she left the UK legally. It don't know how this is possible considering what she did but the law is an ass as some splendid bugger once said |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The think is, for all the stories and allegations around Andrew no one is looking at charging him, probably nothing more than him being a person of interest.
The American would be charged if she hadn't fled and claimed immunity.
Thec2 arent really comparanle |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *adetMan
over a year ago
South of Ipswich |
"The think is, for all the stories and allegations around Andrew no one is looking at charging him, probably nothing more than him being a person of interest.
The American would be charged if she hadn't fled and claimed immunity.
Thec2 arent really comparanle"
Exactly  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"The think is, for all the stories and allegations around Andrew no one is looking at charging him, probably nothing more than him being a person of interest.
The American would be charged if she hadn't fled and claimed immunity.
Thec2 arent really comparanle"
Did he not allegedly have sex with under age girls, isn't there a case to answer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The think is, for all the stories and allegations around Andrew no one is looking at charging him, probably nothing more than him being a person of interest.
The American would be charged if she hadn't fled and claimed immunity.
Thec2 arent really comparanle
Did he not allegedly have sex with under age girls, isn't there a case to answer?"
I thought they wanted to question him with the outcome being possible charges. From what the news say the FBI might charge if they gained evidence from an interview |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *adetMan
over a year ago
South of Ipswich |
"The think is, for all the stories and allegations around Andrew no one is looking at charging him, probably nothing more than him being a person of interest.
The American would be charged if she hadn't fled and claimed immunity.
Thec2 arent really comparanle
Did he not allegedly have sex with under age girls, isn't there a case to answer?"
I think he does but they will have to subpoena him
The American lady already has diplomatic immunity
I don't feel that it's remotely fair but the law isn't concerned with feelings |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"The think is, for all the stories and allegations around Andrew no one is looking at charging him, probably nothing more than him being a person of interest.
The American would be charged if she hadn't fled and claimed immunity.
Thec2 arent really comparanle
Did he not allegedly have sex with under age girls, isn't there a case to answer?
I thought they wanted to question him with the outcome being possible charges. From what the news say the FBI might charge if they gained evidence from an interview "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The think is, for all the stories and allegations around Andrew no one is looking at charging him, probably nothing more than him being a person of interest.
The American would be charged if she hadn't fled and claimed immunity.
Thec2 arent really comparanle
Did he not allegedly have sex with under age girls, isn't there a case to answer?
I think he does but they will have to subpoena him
The American lady already has diplomatic immunity
I don't feel that it's remotely fair but the law isn't concerned with feelings"
Apparently she didn’t and our bobbys mucked it up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"The think is, for all the stories and allegations around Andrew no one is looking at charging him, probably nothing more than him being a person of interest.
The American would be charged if she hadn't fled and claimed immunity.
Thec2 arent really comparanle
Did he not allegedly have sex with under age girls, isn't there a case to answer?
I think he does but they will have to subpoena him
The American lady already has diplomatic immunity
I don't feel that it's remotely fair but the law isn't concerned with feelings"
It is outrageous she has diplomatic immunity, she killed someone's child. I doubt Prince Andrew will go out there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"The think is, for all the stories and allegations around Andrew no one is looking at charging him, probably nothing more than him being a person of interest.
The American would be charged if she hadn't fled and claimed immunity.
Thec2 arent really comparanle
Did he not allegedly have sex with under age girls, isn't there a case to answer?
I think he does but they will have to subpoena him
The American lady already has diplomatic immunity
I don't feel that it's remotely fair but the law isn't concerned with feelings
Apparently she didn’t and our bobbys mucked it up"
I didn't think she did.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The think is, for all the stories and allegations around Andrew no one is looking at charging him, probably nothing more than him being a person of interest.
The American would be charged if she hadn't fled and claimed immunity.
Thec2 arent really comparanle
Did he not allegedly have sex with under age girls, isn't there a case to answer?
I think he does but they will have to subpoena him
The American lady already has diplomatic immunity
I don't feel that it's remotely fair but the law isn't concerned with feelings
It is outrageous she has diplomatic immunity, she killed someone's child. I doubt Prince Andrew will go out there."
Agree completely, tail between the legs scenario |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *adetMan
over a year ago
South of Ipswich |
"The think is, for all the stories and allegations around Andrew no one is looking at charging him, probably nothing more than him being a person of interest.
The American would be charged if she hadn't fled and claimed immunity.
Thec2 arent really comparanle
Did he not allegedly have sex with under age girls, isn't there a case to answer?
I think he does but they will have to subpoena him
The American lady already has diplomatic immunity
I don't feel that it's remotely fair but the law isn't concerned with feelings
It is outrageous she has diplomatic immunity, she killed someone's child. I doubt Prince Andrew will go out there."
I completely agree. I didn't even realise myself that diplomatic immunity was extended to family members  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"The think is, for all the stories and allegations around Andrew no one is looking at charging him, probably nothing more than him being a person of interest.
The American would be charged if she hadn't fled and claimed immunity.
Thec2 arent really comparanle
Did he not allegedly have sex with under age girls, isn't there a case to answer?
I think he does but they will have to subpoena him
The American lady already has diplomatic immunity
I don't feel that it's remotely fair but the law isn't concerned with feelings
It is outrageous she has diplomatic immunity, she killed someone's child. I doubt Prince Andrew will go out there.
Agree completely, tail between the legs scenario "
Yes I agree... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
The international 'incident' of questioning and trying to prosecute a prince probably makes him out of bounds. Unless he goes voluntarily the Americans would have to apply for an extradition order, which wouldn't be granted.
He will be deemed to be worth more than Harry Dunn's life.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"The international 'incident' of questioning and trying to prosecute a prince probably makes him out of bounds. Unless he goes voluntarily the Americans would have to apply for an extradition order, which wouldn't be granted.
He will be deemed to be worth more than Harry Dunn's life.
"
It would be good if he went voluntarily, which he should do if he has nothing to hide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The international 'incident' of questioning and trying to prosecute a prince probably makes him out of bounds. Unless he goes voluntarily the Americans would have to apply for an extradition order, which wouldn't be granted.
He will be deemed to be worth more than Harry Dunn's life.
"
Which is the nasty reality of life unfortunately.
Personally as much as I want a answer and justice for that American lass I really really wanna see Harry Dunn’s mum get some sort of justice. I work with vulnerable ppl every day and my heart breaks for them but Harry’s mum really broke my heart. Don’t mean it in a nasty way but I hope she comes to terms with it soon and the mourning she feels gets easier to cope with. She’ll never recover but like they say “times a healer”, it’s not, it just gets less shit. Best of wishes to her x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"He doesn't seem to care "
No mate I agree. Money and connections in both cases clearly show it’s not what you know it’s who you know and what you have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The international 'incident' of questioning and trying to prosecute a prince probably makes him out of bounds. Unless he goes voluntarily the Americans would have to apply for an extradition order, which wouldn't be granted.
He will be deemed to be worth more than Harry Dunn's life.
It would be good if he went voluntarily, which he should do if he has nothing to hide."
Exactly |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Once again for the two reasons a) he is Royalty and b) the accusations are of a sex offence Andrew is nailed as a criminal and hung out to dry by posters here. Welcome to Social Media madness.
So let me remind people of the simple facts: He has not been charged with, arrested for or had papers served for any court hearing regarding any offences anywhere at all. Nothing. Some people in the States are making accusations with no evidence other than 'she said' for their own purposes.
So Andrew is:
I N N O C E N T
Now as to the American woman who fled. It is a proven fact, it is on video tape and she was interviewed at the scene and the morning after by Police that she killed this poor lad. She confirmed she has no intention of leaving and then left under her husband's Diplomatic Immunity. She was entitled to do this under the Vienna Convention NOT because of some failure by UK Police or the UK FCO. However once she arrived in the USA her Immunity ceased as the US State Dept and UK Foreign Office have agreed. She could and should be extradited to the UK to face court charges although the USA does not normally agree to extradition of its citizens.
So in summary Andrew has done nothing illegal while the woman killed someone. They are hardly comparable except in the kangaroo court in here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Once again for the two reasons a) he is Royalty and b) the accusations are of a sex offence Andrew is nailed as a criminal and hung out to dry by posters here. Welcome to Social Media madness.
So let me remind people of the simple facts: He has not been charged with, arrested for or had papers served for any court hearing regarding any offences anywhere at all. Nothing. Some people in the States are making accusations with no evidence other than 'she said' for their own purposes.
So Andrew is:
I N N O C E N T
Now as to the American woman who fled. It is a proven fact, it is on video tape and she was interviewed at the scene and the morning after by Police that she killed this poor lad. She confirmed she has no intention of leaving and then left under her husband's Diplomatic Immunity. She was entitled to do this under the Vienna Convention NOT because of some failure by UK Police or the UK FCO. However once she arrived in the USA her Immunity ceased as the US State Dept and UK Foreign Office have agreed. She could and should be extradited to the UK to face court charges although the USA does not normally agree to extradition of its citizens.
So in summary Andrew has done nothing illegal while the woman killed someone. They are hardly comparable except in the kangaroo court in here."
You have previously on this post said Andrew is nothing but innocent yet nothing you’ve posted proves him to be nothing but inclusive in indecent behaviour, so he needs to be put on trial for a jury to decide |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its a question of law. Unfortunately she left the UK legally. It don't know how this is possible considering what she did but the law is an ass as some splendid bugger once said "
Then if it is down to law, wasn't the girl Randy Andy was meant to have knocked off, 17? Legal in this country, where it was alleged to have happened. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its a question of law. Unfortunately she left the UK legally. It don't know how this is possible considering what she did but the law is an ass as some splendid bugger once said
Then if it is down to law, wasn't the girl Randy Andy was meant to have knocked off, 17? Legal in this country, where it was alleged to have happened. "
Uk services can intervene in us and vice versa but very rare! USA will integrate. I however have my own thoughts an theory, president and royal family comes to mind |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"Its a question of law. Unfortunately she left the UK legally. It don't know how this is possible considering what she did but the law is an ass as some splendid bugger once said
Then if it is down to law, wasn't the girl Randy Andy was meant to have knocked off, 17? Legal in this country, where it was alleged to have happened. "
It was also alleged to have happened in USA, where the age of consent, in some states is 18. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its a question of law. Unfortunately she left the UK legally. It don't know how this is possible considering what she did but the law is an ass as some splendid bugger once said
Then if it is down to law, wasn't the girl Randy Andy was meant to have knocked off, 17? Legal in this country, where it was alleged to have happened.
It was also alleged to have happened in USA, where the age of consent, in some states is 18."
Some are 15 for consensual sex |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"Its a question of law. Unfortunately she left the UK legally. It don't know how this is possible considering what she did but the law is an ass as some splendid bugger once said
Then if it is down to law, wasn't the girl Randy Andy was meant to have knocked off, 17? Legal in this country, where it was alleged to have happened.
It was also alleged to have happened in USA, where the age of consent, in some states is 18.
Some are 15 for consensual sex"
Yes I know |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Its a question of law. Unfortunately she left the UK legally. It don't know how this is possible considering what she did but the law is an ass as some splendid bugger once said
Then if it is down to law, wasn't the girl Randy Andy was meant to have knocked off, 17? Legal in this country, where it was alleged to have happened.
It was also alleged to have happened in USA, where the age of consent, in some states is 18.
Some are 15 for consensual sex"
And some still have death penalty |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Anne Sacoolas was driving on the wrong side of the road, it caused an accident. This would probably be driving without due care, few hundred quid fine and loss of license for 3 to 6 months. Hardly worth an extradition, diplomatic immunity is just a story the press are playing up.
Prince Andrew may or may not have had consensual sex with someone at a millionaires mansion, he probably didn't check her passport or if she was coming on to him because her boss told her to or because she liked his receeding hairline.
Only crooks in the picture are Epstein and bored media. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anne Sacoolas was driving on the wrong side of the road, it caused an accident. This would probably be driving without due care, few hundred quid fine and loss of license for 3 to 6 months. Hardly worth an extradition, diplomatic immunity is just a story the press are playing up.
Prince Andrew may or may not have had consensual sex with someone at a millionaires mansion, he probably didn't check her passport or if she was coming on to him because her boss told her to or because she liked his receeding hairline.
Only crooks in the picture are Epstein and bored media. "
He done it he didn’t care. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anne Sacoolas was driving on the wrong side of the road, it caused an accident. This would probably be driving without due care, few hundred quid fine and loss of license for 3 to 6 months. Hardly worth an extradition, diplomatic immunity is just a story the press are playing up.
Prince Andrew may or may not have had consensual sex with someone at a millionaires mansion, he probably didn't check her passport or if she was coming on to him because her boss told her to or because she liked his receeding hairline.
Only crooks in the picture are Epstein and bored media.
He done it he didn’t care. "
What did he do? Have sex with someone who offered it, maybe, maybe not it's a he said she said with no chance of proving either way? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Once again for the two reasons a) he is Royalty and b) the accusations are of a sex offence Andrew is nailed as a criminal and hung out to dry by posters here. Welcome to Social Media madness.
So let me remind people of the simple facts: He has not been charged with, arrested for or had papers served for any court hearing regarding any offences anywhere at all. Nothing. Some people in the States are making accusations with no evidence other than 'she said' for their own purposes.
So Andrew is:
I N N O C E N T
Now as to the American woman who fled. It is a proven fact, it is on video tape and she was interviewed at the scene and the morning after by Police that she killed this poor lad. She confirmed she has no intention of leaving and then left under her husband's Diplomatic Immunity. She was entitled to do this under the Vienna Convention NOT because of some failure by UK Police or the UK FCO. However once she arrived in the USA her Immunity ceased as the US State Dept and UK Foreign Office have agreed. She could and should be extradited to the UK to face court charges although the USA does not normally agree to extradition of its citizens.
So in summary Andrew has done nothing illegal while the woman killed someone. They are hardly comparable except in the kangaroo court in here."
Without having to write lines and lines and lines of details, yes we are all innocent until proven guilty, however given the interview Andrew did there are a lot of inconsistencies in his story that just don’t add up, details he remembers for weird reasons where as other details he cannot remember, it gives in my opinion, the legal authority to have him interviewed by police in relation to the crimes accused against him .
Not one part of this post has been judgement by social media, people in my opinion have been looking at this thread objectively and fairly. Regardless of his royal status he is a human being and if an accusation is made against him he should be answerable to those accusations, of course no charges have been brought against him BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO BE INTERVIEWED BY POLICE. If he did get interviewed this gives him the opportunity to defend himself it also gives the federal investigators the opportunity to do a proper investigation into the accusations and come up with hopefully what would be a fair judgement of the situation. My point on this thread was why would the Americans want and ask for an extradition of a British national when they will not extradite an American national who did not have diplomatic immunity and the “Vienna Convention” you’re referring to is not applicable to her, I know this because I am an ex servicemen. Referring to the Vienna Convention seems to be silly. Vienna convention is a guideline to international rules and how to apply them, the Vienna convention is NOT a set of laws, plz hit google and prove me wrong. Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with the Vienna Convention. When someone without D.I commits a crime, they are open to the lawful proceedings of the country they committed the crime in, no exceptions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Anne Sacoolas was driving on the wrong side of the road, it caused an accident. This would probably be driving without due care, few hundred quid fine and loss of license for 3 to 6 months. Hardly worth an extradition, diplomatic immunity is just a story the press are playing up.
Prince Andrew may or may not have had consensual sex with someone at a millionaires mansion, he probably didn't check her passport or if she was coming on to him because her boss told her to or because she liked his receeding hairline.
Only crooks in the picture are Epstein and bored media. "
She had been in the uk for months, she knew what side of the road to drive on. I’d probably say she’d get “death by dangerous driving”. Remember licenses issued to foreign nationals are on the basis of being “aware and capable” of adhering to the countries driving code |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Anne Sacoolas was driving on the wrong side of the road, it caused an accident. This would probably be driving without due care, few hundred quid fine and loss of license for 3 to 6 months. Hardly worth an extradition, diplomatic immunity is just a story the press are playing up.
Prince Andrew may or may not have had consensual sex with someone at a millionaires mansion, he probably didn't check her passport or if she was coming on to him because her boss told her to or because she liked his receeding hairline.
Only crooks in the picture are Epstein and bored media.
He done it he didn’t care.
What did he do? Have sex with someone who offered it, maybe, maybe not it's a he said she said with no chance of proving either way?"
Yes it’s he said/she said. Until they ask him questions and are enabled to do a proper and thorough investigation which he won’t let them! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Once again for the two reasons a) he is Royalty and b) the accusations are of a sex offence Andrew is nailed as a criminal and hung out to dry by posters here. Welcome to Social Media madness.
So let me remind people of the simple facts: He has not been charged with, arrested for or had papers served for any court hearing regarding any offences anywhere at all. Nothing. Some people in the States are making accusations with no evidence other than 'she said' for their own purposes.
So Andrew is:
I N N O C E N T
Now as to the American woman who fled. It is a proven fact, it is on video tape and she was interviewed at the scene and the morning after by Police that she killed this poor lad. She confirmed she has no intention of leaving and then left under her husband's Diplomatic Immunity. She was entitled to do this under the Vienna Convention NOT because of some failure by UK Police or the UK FCO. However once she arrived in the USA her Immunity ceased as the US State Dept and UK Foreign Office have agreed. She could and should be extradited to the UK to face court charges although the USA does not normally agree to extradition of its citizens.
So in summary Andrew has done nothing illegal while the woman killed someone. They are hardly comparable except in the kangaroo court in here.
Without having to write lines and lines and lines of details, yes we are all innocent until proven guilty, however given the interview Andrew did there are a lot of inconsistencies in his story that just don’t add up, details he remembers for weird reasons where as other details he cannot remember, it gives in my opinion, the legal authority to have him interviewed by police in relation to the crimes accused against him .
Not one part of this post has been judgement by social media, people in my opinion have been looking at this thread objectively and fairly. Regardless of his royal status he is a human being and if an accusation is made against him he should be answerable to those accusations, of course no charges have been brought against him BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO BE INTERVIEWED BY POLICE. If he did get interviewed this gives him the opportunity to defend himself it also gives the federal investigators the opportunity to do a proper investigation into the accusations and come up with hopefully what would be a fair judgement of the situation. My point on this thread was why would the Americans want and ask for an extradition of a British national when they will not extradite an American national who did not have diplomatic immunity and the “Vienna Convention” you’re referring to is not applicable to her, I know this because I am an ex servicemen. Referring to the Vienna Convention seems to be silly. Vienna convention is a guideline to international rules and how to apply them, the Vienna convention is NOT a set of laws, plz hit google and prove me wrong. Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with the Vienna Convention. When someone without D.I commits a crime, they are open to the lawful proceedings of the country they committed the crime in, no exceptions."
Exactly his inconsistencies In his interview would raise concerns for any federal agency to bring him in !! Will they ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Once again for the two reasons a) he is Royalty and b) the accusations are of a sex offence Andrew is nailed as a criminal and hung out to dry by posters here. Welcome to Social Media madness.
So let me remind people of the simple facts: He has not been charged with, arrested for or had papers served for any court hearing regarding any offences anywhere at all. Nothing. Some people in the States are making accusations with no evidence other than 'she said' for their own purposes.
So Andrew is:
I N N O C E N T
Now as to the American woman who fled. It is a proven fact, it is on video tape and she was interviewed at the scene and the morning after by Police that she killed this poor lad. She confirmed she has no intention of leaving and then left under her husband's Diplomatic Immunity. She was entitled to do this under the Vienna Convention NOT because of some failure by UK Police or the UK FCO. However once she arrived in the USA her Immunity ceased as the US State Dept and UK Foreign Office have agreed. She could and should be extradited to the UK to face court charges although the USA does not normally agree to extradition of its citizens.
So in summary Andrew has done nothing illegal while the woman killed someone. They are hardly comparable except in the kangaroo court in here.
Without having to write lines and lines and lines of details, yes we are all innocent until proven guilty, however given the interview Andrew did there are a lot of inconsistencies in his story that just don’t add up, details he remembers for weird reasons where as other details he cannot remember, it gives in my opinion, the legal authority to have him interviewed by police in relation to the crimes accused against him .
Not one part of this post has been judgement by social media, people in my opinion have been looking at this thread objectively and fairly. Regardless of his royal status he is a human being and if an accusation is made against him he should be answerable to those accusations, of course no charges have been brought against him BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO BE INTERVIEWED BY POLICE. If he did get interviewed this gives him the opportunity to defend himself it also gives the federal investigators the opportunity to do a proper investigation into the accusations and come up with hopefully what would be a fair judgement of the situation. My point on this thread was why would the Americans want and ask for an extradition of a British national when they will not extradite an American national who did not have diplomatic immunity and the “Vienna Convention” you’re referring to is not applicable to her, I know this because I am an ex servicemen. Referring to the Vienna Convention seems to be silly. Vienna convention is a guideline to international rules and how to apply them, the Vienna convention is NOT a set of laws, plz hit google and prove me wrong. Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with the Vienna Convention. When someone without D.I commits a crime, they are open to the lawful proceedings of the country they committed the crime in, no exceptions.
Exactly his inconsistencies In his interview would raise concerns for any federal agency to bring him in !! Will they ??"
Probably not, we won’t know what happens behind the scenes (palace to house) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Once again for the two reasons a) he is Royalty and b) the accusations are of a sex offence Andrew is nailed as a criminal and hung out to dry by posters here. Welcome to Social Media madness.
So let me remind people of the simple facts: He has not been charged with, arrested for or had papers served for any court hearing regarding any offences anywhere at all. Nothing. Some people in the States are making accusations with no evidence other than 'she said' for their own purposes.
So Andrew is:
I N N O C E N T
Now as to the American woman who fled. It is a proven fact, it is on video tape and she was interviewed at the scene and the morning after by Police that she killed this poor lad. She confirmed she has no intention of leaving and then left under her husband's Diplomatic Immunity. She was entitled to do this under the Vienna Convention NOT because of some failure by UK Police or the UK FCO. However once she arrived in the USA her Immunity ceased as the US State Dept and UK Foreign Office have agreed. She could and should be extradited to the UK to face court charges although the USA does not normally agree to extradition of its citizens.
So in summary Andrew has done nothing illegal while the woman killed someone. They are hardly comparable except in the kangaroo court in here.
Without having to write lines and lines and lines of details, yes we are all innocent until proven guilty, however given the interview Andrew did there are a lot of inconsistencies in his story that just don’t add up, details he remembers for weird reasons where as other details he cannot remember, it gives in my opinion, the legal authority to have him interviewed by police in relation to the crimes accused against him .
Not one part of this post has been judgement by social media, people in my opinion have been looking at this thread objectively and fairly. Regardless of his royal status he is a human being and if an accusation is made against him he should be answerable to those accusations, of course no charges have been brought against him BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO BE INTERVIEWED BY POLICE. If he did get interviewed this gives him the opportunity to defend himself it also gives the federal investigators the opportunity to do a proper investigation into the accusations and come up with hopefully what would be a fair judgement of the situation. My point on this thread was why would the Americans want and ask for an extradition of a British national when they will not extradite an American national who did not have diplomatic immunity and the “Vienna Convention” you’re referring to is not applicable to her, I know this because I am an ex servicemen. Referring to the Vienna Convention seems to be silly. Vienna convention is a guideline to international rules and how to apply them, the Vienna convention is NOT a set of laws, plz hit google and prove me wrong. Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with the Vienna Convention. When someone without D.I commits a crime, they are open to the lawful proceedings of the country they committed the crime in, no exceptions.
Exactly his inconsistencies In his interview would raise concerns for any federal agency to bring him in !! Will they ??
Probably not, we won’t know what happens behind the scenes (palace to house)"
Absolutely no way will he be put on trial !! I’ll bet my life on it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Once again for the two reasons a) he is Royalty and b) the accusations are of a sex offence Andrew is nailed as a criminal and hung out to dry by posters here. Welcome to Social Media madness.
So let me remind people of the simple facts: He has not been charged with, arrested for or had papers served for any court hearing regarding any offences anywhere at all. Nothing. Some people in the States are making accusations with no evidence other than 'she said' for their own purposes.
So Andrew is:
I N N O C E N T
Now as to the American woman who fled. It is a proven fact, it is on video tape and she was interviewed at the scene and the morning after by Police that she killed this poor lad. She confirmed she has no intention of leaving and then left under her husband's Diplomatic Immunity. She was entitled to do this under the Vienna Convention NOT because of some failure by UK Police or the UK FCO. However once she arrived in the USA her Immunity ceased as the US State Dept and UK Foreign Office have agreed. She could and should be extradited to the UK to face court charges although the USA does not normally agree to extradition of its citizens.
So in summary Andrew has done nothing illegal while the woman killed someone. They are hardly comparable except in the kangaroo court in here.
Without having to write lines and lines and lines of details, yes we are all innocent until proven guilty, however given the interview Andrew did there are a lot of inconsistencies in his story that just don’t add up, details he remembers for weird reasons where as other details he cannot remember, it gives in my opinion, the legal authority to have him interviewed by police in relation to the crimes accused against him .
Not one part of this post has been judgement by social media, people in my opinion have been looking at this thread objectively and fairly. Regardless of his royal status he is a human being and if an accusation is made against him he should be answerable to those accusations, of course no charges have been brought against him BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO BE INTERVIEWED BY POLICE. If he did get interviewed this gives him the opportunity to defend himself it also gives the federal investigators the opportunity to do a proper investigation into the accusations and come up with hopefully what would be a fair judgement of the situation. My point on this thread was why would the Americans want and ask for an extradition of a British national when they will not extradite an American national who did not have diplomatic immunity and the “Vienna Convention” you’re referring to is not applicable to her, I know this because I am an ex servicemen. Referring to the Vienna Convention seems to be silly. Vienna convention is a guideline to international rules and how to apply them, the Vienna convention is NOT a set of laws, plz hit google and prove me wrong. Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with the Vienna Convention. When someone without D.I commits a crime, they are open to the lawful proceedings of the country they committed the crime in, no exceptions.
Exactly his inconsistencies In his interview would raise concerns for any federal agency to bring him in !! Will they ??
Probably not, we won’t know what happens behind the scenes (palace to house)
Absolutely no way will he be put on trial !! I’ll bet my life on it "
I would say more chance of finding life on Mars but I think those odds would still be too close |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As a motorcyclist I have known a few who have been in accidents with foreign drivers, wrong side of the road is not unusual.
Prosecutions are rare, and other drivers are never held or stopped from leaving the country. Most recent was a French deer farmer, left the country within a week, police put it up, but CPS said not worth pursuing.
The exploitation of Harry Dunns poor family by the media, creating a political story to sell papers at their expense is the criminal act that should be upsetting people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As a motorcyclist I have known a few who have been in accidents with foreign drivers, wrong side of the road is not unusual.
Prosecutions are rare, and other drivers are never held or stopped from leaving the country. Most recent was a French deer farmer, left the country within a week, police put it up, but CPS said not worth pursuing.
The exploitation of Harry Dunns poor family by the media, creating a political story to sell papers at their expense is the criminal act that should be upsetting people."
He won’t be ever ever put on trial. Ever end of |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As a motorcyclist I have known a few who have been in accidents with foreign drivers, wrong side of the road is not unusual.
Prosecutions are rare, and other drivers are never held or stopped from leaving the country. Most recent was a French deer farmer, left the country within a week, police put it up, but CPS said not worth pursuing.
The exploitation of Harry Dunns poor family by the media, creating a political story to sell papers at their expense is the criminal act that should be upsetting people.
He won’t be ever ever put on trial. Ever end of"
It was a woman driver, so she not he. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Well I’ve really enjoyed the debate guys. Thank you all for your thoughts. I’m gonna hit the hay. Hopefully both sides of the Atlantic get justice but maybe that’s just a fairy tale, we’ll see. Take care guys, god bless x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Guilty he is.. Analyse his body movement. When he's saying no his head is nodding yes.. Common trait with liars as this is a natural yes response.. And lots more...
Only the liar know the truth.
I wonder who going to mysteriously die next?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Guilty he is.. Analyse his body movement. When he's saying no his head is nodding yes.. Common trait with liars as this is a natural yes response.. And lots more...
Only the liar know the truth.
I wonder who going to mysteriously die next?? "
Ok I am going to bed but I had to reply to this! Yes he nods AND he blinks 2 or 3 times, again a trait of a lier, apparently body language experts say a blink is like a nod but the whole “nods when he says no” is soooo visible. I can’t wait until I see a body language expert analyses of this interview! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Prince Andrew is a wrong one. He deserves the same as his other American pal .Just because he's royalty shouldn't count. He must get his nips and dumps like any other people who take liberties with vulnerable people. He's cut from the same cloth as rilf Harris not that far behind jimmy saville. What does anyone else think. Now then now then now then |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think this is where rumours and half stories get mixed about and all sorts.
I wasn't aware that anyone was alleging that HRH Prince Andrew had engaged in sex with anyone underage - more that he had associated with someobe who had.
As I understand it, the young lady alleging that she was forced to have sex with him (I don't know who she is accusing of forcing her) was 17 at the time.
My understanding is that the reason the authorities in the US want to speak to him is more to do with alleged crimes of his late former friend Epstein - who had been convicted of child sex offences. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Its just the way it goes.
Same in every country in Europe, they wanted an Irish man who broke no Irish laws and Ireland sent him, but they wouldnt send an American to Ireland.
Same with UK, etc etc etc.
I dunno why the EU puts up with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think this is where rumours and half stories get mixed about and all sorts.
I wasn't aware that anyone was alleging that HRH Prince Andrew had engaged in sex with anyone underage - more that he had associated with someobe who had.
As I understand it, the young lady alleging that she was forced to have sex with him (I don't know who she is accusing of forcing her) was 17 at the time.
My understanding is that the reason the authorities in the US want to speak to him is more to do with alleged crimes of his late former friend Epstein - who had been convicted of child sex offences."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
If, as he says, he has done nothing wrong, it would be a smart PR move to offer himself up for interview in exchange for Mrs Scoolass.
For once, he would be seen to be putting other people's interests before his own.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
So charities are disassociating themselves from him,KPMG are not renewing their sponsorship of his scheme, students at Huddersfield University want him to quit as their chancellor. Maybe he shouldn't have done the interview and just gone to USA and helped with their enquiries? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Tbh the bird who murdered Harry is probably having it alot worse in America than she would here, our prison system is full of wet wipes snowflakes and hands out pathetic sentences, obviously that's no consolation to Harry's mum thoughc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Tbh the bird who murdered Harry is probably having it alot worse in America than she would here, our prison system is full of wet wipes snowflakes and hands out pathetic sentences, obviously that's no consolation to Harry's mum thoughc"
There was no murder, nobody went to jail, in the UK or US. Prince Andrew may or may not have had sex with a 17 year old American woman, who says she was told to have sex with him by a person who is now dead.
There are a lot of people here who I really hope never get hurt duty! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Tbh the bird who murdered Harry is probably having it alot worse in America than she would here, our prison system is full of wet wipes snowflakes and hands out pathetic sentences, obviously that's no consolation to Harry's mum thoughc
There was no murder, nobody went to jail, in the UK or US. Prince Andrew may or may not have had sex with a 17 year old American woman, who says she was told to have sex with him by a person who is now dead.
There are a lot of people here who I really hope never get hurt duty!"
Ah lol I often post on threads I don't know anything about just like putting my 2 pence in |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"Tbh the bird who murdered Harry is probably having it alot worse in America than she would here, our prison system is full of wet wipes snowflakes and hands out pathetic sentences, obviously that's no consolation to Harry's mum thoughc
There was no murder, nobody went to jail, in the UK or US. Prince Andrew may or may not have had sex with a 17 year old American woman, who says she was told to have sex with him by a person who is now dead.
There are a lot of people here who I really hope never get hurt duty!"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *0FrankMan
over a year ago
The South! |
It's one rule for one etc etc...
Andrew is innocent until proven guilty, which he never will be as Mummy and Daddy will pay off or bump off anyone who gets in their way... And let's be honest, even if he was found guilty the prison he would find himself in would be very different to you or I. I am positive there are deeper darker secrets kept within the walls of Buck House.
Unfortunately the US won't extradite her because yo them it isn't important enough. Trump has already shown his hand and is not interested in the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's one rule for one etc etc...
Andrew is innocent until proven guilty, which he never will be as Mummy and Daddy will pay off or bump off anyone who gets in their way... And let's be honest, even if he was found guilty the prison he would find himself in would be very different to you or I. I am positive there are deeper darker secrets kept within the walls of Buck House.
Unfortunately the US won't extradite her because yo them it isn't important enough. Trump has already shown his hand and is not interested in the UK. "
The FBI have not requested Prince Andrew attend an interview, the CPS have not issued an extradition request. So currently nobody is receiving special treatment. Except the media who are creating news to fill pages. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
" So currently nobody is receiving special treatment. Except the media who are creating news to fill pages."
So why offer yourself up to the media for an interview about your relationship with a convicted paeodophile?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" So currently nobody is receiving special treatment. Except the media who are creating news to fill pages.
So why offer yourself up to the media for an interview about your relationship with a convicted paeodophile?
"
I don't know. But perhaps he got fed up with media making shit up about him dodging the FBI, or perhaps he is a fool who fell into an obvious open pit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *0FrankMan
over a year ago
The South! |
" The FBI have not requested Prince Andrew attend an interview, the CPS have not issued an extradition request. So currently nobody is receiving special treatment. Except the media who are creating news to fill pages."
Currently being the word!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *0FrankMan
over a year ago
The South! |
Oath of allegiance
“I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.”
Tell me how anyone would ever get a fair trial in the UK against the Royal Family. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
" So currently nobody is receiving special treatment. Except the media who are creating news to fill pages.
So why offer yourself up to the media for an interview about your relationship with a convicted paeodophile?
"
I think he may have been told that the BBC have interviewed the lady accusing him for a Panorama investigation, so he got in first |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
I don't know. But perhaps he got fed up with media making shit up about him dodging the FBI, or perhaps he is a fool who fell into an obvious open pit."
Fool is an understatement.
Your friend has been sent down for soliciting children for prostitution and placed on the sex offenders register - and you decide to go stay with him upon his release from prison in order to tell him that, um, er, you cannot be friends any more?
yeah, yeah . . .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Your friend has been sent down for soliciting children for prostitution and placed on the sex offenders register - and you decide to go stay with him upon his release from prison in order to tell him that, um, er, you cannot be friends any more?
"
And you stay in his house for four days before you are able to tell him. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Once again for the two reasons a) he is Royalty and b) the accusations are of a sex offence Andrew is nailed as a criminal and hung out to dry by posters here. Welcome to Social Media madness.
So let me remind people of the simple facts: He has not been charged with, arrested for or had papers served for any court hearing regarding any offences anywhere at all. Nothing. Some people in the States are making accusations with no evidence other than 'she said' for their own purposes.
So Andrew is:
I N N O C E N T
Now as to the American woman who fled. It is a proven fact, it is on video tape and she was interviewed at the scene and the morning after by Police that she killed this poor lad. She confirmed she has no intention of leaving and then left under her husband's Diplomatic Immunity. She was entitled to do this under the Vienna Convention NOT because of some failure by UK Police or the UK FCO. However once she arrived in the USA her Immunity ceased as the US State Dept and UK Foreign Office have agreed. She could and should be extradited to the UK to face court charges although the USA does not normally agree to extradition of its citizens.
So in summary Andrew has done nothing illegal while the woman killed someone. They are hardly comparable except in the kangaroo court in here.
Without having to write lines and lines and lines of details, yes we are all innocent until proven guilty, however given the interview Andrew did there are a lot of inconsistencies in his story that just don’t add up, details he remembers for weird reasons where as other details he cannot remember, it gives in my opinion, the legal authority to have him interviewed by police in relation to the crimes accused against him .
Not one part of this post has been judgement by social media, people in my opinion have been looking at this thread objectively and fairly. Regardless of his royal status he is a human being and if an accusation is made against him he should be answerable to those accusations, of course no charges have been brought against him BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO BE INTERVIEWED BY POLICE. If he did get interviewed this gives him the opportunity to defend himself it also gives the federal investigators the opportunity to do a proper investigation into the accusations and come up with hopefully what would be a fair judgement of the situation. My point on this thread was why would the Americans want and ask for an extradition of a British national when they will not extradite an American national who did not have diplomatic immunity and the “Vienna Convention” you’re referring to is not applicable to her, I know this because I am an ex servicemen. Referring to the Vienna Convention seems to be silly. Vienna convention is a guideline to international rules and how to apply them, the Vienna convention is NOT a set of laws, plz hit google and prove me wrong. Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with the Vienna Convention. When someone without D.I commits a crime, they are open to the lawful proceedings of the country they committed the crime in, no exceptions."
I didn't need to 'hit Google' as I had previously read the detail before posting. I suggest you should have done that as well my friend. And btw being an ex serviceman means Jack Shit in this matter. I could throw in I am an ex Airman but its irrelevant. So here is the text courtesy of Wikipedia:
"Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, but they can still be expelled. Modern diplomatic immunity was codified as international law in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) which has been ratified by all but a handful of nations. The concept and custom of diplomatic immunity dates back thousands of years. Many principles of diplomatic immunity are now considered to be customary law"
Which I think makes your post simply wrong and therefore also your conclusions.
I am also bemused that you think a man is guilty because he hasn't been interviewed by Police. No Police have ASKED to interview him and therefore he has not REFUSED to be interviewed. And why the hell should any British Citizen troll off to the USA to face some private lawyers out on a money making exercise? Its all 'She Said, He Said' and nothing more. And whether you like his answers or not he HAS answered in some detail and rightfully denied all wrongdoing as he remains:
I N N O C E N T.
But then as you and everyone else bar two assume he is guilty(probably because of who he is) then nothing will change your mind... I hope you never come against such a biased set of people in a jury as exemplified here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Exactly his inconsistencies In his interview would raise concerns for any federal agency to bring him in !! Will they ?? "
Oh right so a bad interview is now a federal offence and so he must be arrested, handcuffed, put in a Purp Suit and carted off to the USA?
Jesus H Chris ..... Diane Abbott must be quaking in her shoes ...
  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"It's one rule for one etc etc...
Andrew is innocent until proven guilty, which he never will be as Mummy and Daddy will pay off or bump off anyone who gets in their way... And let's be honest, even if he was found guilty the prison he would find himself in would be very different to you or I. I am positive there are deeper darker secrets kept within the walls of Buck House.
Unfortunately the US won't extradite her because yo them it isn't important enough. Trump has already shown his hand and is not interested in the UK.
The FBI have not requested Prince Andrew attend an interview, the CPS have not issued an extradition request. So currently nobody is receiving special treatment. Except the media who are creating news to fill pages."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Once again for the two reasons a) he is Royalty and b) the accusations are of a sex offence Andrew is nailed as a criminal and hung out to dry by posters here. Welcome to Social Media madness.
So let me remind people of the simple facts: He has not been charged with, arrested for or had papers served for any court hearing regarding any offences anywhere at all. Nothing. Some people in the States are making accusations with no evidence other than 'she said' for their own purposes.
So Andrew is:
I N N O C E N T
Now as to the American woman who fled. It is a proven fact, it is on video tape and she was interviewed at the scene and the morning after by Police that she killed this poor lad. She confirmed she has no intention of leaving and then left under her husband's Diplomatic Immunity. She was entitled to do this under the Vienna Convention NOT because of some failure by UK Police or the UK FCO. However once she arrived in the USA her Immunity ceased as the US State Dept and UK Foreign Office have agreed. She could and should be extradited to the UK to face court charges although the USA does not normally agree to extradition of its citizens.
So in summary Andrew has done nothing illegal while the woman killed someone. They are hardly comparable except in the kangaroo court in here.
Without having to write lines and lines and lines of details, yes we are all innocent until proven guilty, however given the interview Andrew did there are a lot of inconsistencies in his story that just don’t add up, details he remembers for weird reasons where as other details he cannot remember, it gives in my opinion, the legal authority to have him interviewed by police in relation to the crimes accused against him .
Not one part of this post has been judgement by social media, people in my opinion have been looking at this thread objectively and fairly. Regardless of his royal status he is a human being and if an accusation is made against him he should be answerable to those accusations, of course no charges have been brought against him BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO BE INTERVIEWED BY POLICE. If he did get interviewed this gives him the opportunity to defend himself it also gives the federal investigators the opportunity to do a proper investigation into the accusations and come up with hopefully what would be a fair judgement of the situation. My point on this thread was why would the Americans want and ask for an extradition of a British national when they will not extradite an American national who did not have diplomatic immunity and the “Vienna Convention” you’re referring to is not applicable to her, I know this because I am an ex servicemen. Referring to the Vienna Convention seems to be silly. Vienna convention is a guideline to international rules and how to apply them, the Vienna convention is NOT a set of laws, plz hit google and prove me wrong. Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with the Vienna Convention. When someone without D.I commits a crime, they are open to the lawful proceedings of the country they committed the crime in, no exceptions.
I didn't need to 'hit Google' as I had previously read the detail before posting. I suggest you should have done that as well my friend. And btw being an ex serviceman means Jack Shit in this matter. I could throw in I am an ex Airman but its irrelevant. So here is the text courtesy of Wikipedia:
"Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, but they can still be expelled. Modern diplomatic immunity was codified as international law in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) which has been ratified by all but a handful of nations. The concept and custom of diplomatic immunity dates back thousands of years. Many principles of diplomatic immunity are now considered to be customary law"
Which I think makes your post simply wrong and therefore also your conclusions.
I am also bemused that you think a man is guilty because he hasn't been interviewed by Police. No Police have ASKED to interview him and therefore he has not REFUSED to be interviewed. And why the hell should any British Citizen troll off to the USA to face some private lawyers out on a money making exercise? Its all 'She Said, He Said' and nothing more. And whether you like his answers or not he HAS answered in some detail and rightfully denied all wrongdoing as he remains:
I N N O C E N T.
But then as you and everyone else bar two assume he is guilty(probably because of who he is) then nothing will change your mind... I hope you never come against such a biased set of people in a jury as exemplified here."
Well if it’s on Wiki it must be a true definition. No need to get personal and rude mate. You say I assume he is guilty, maybe read my post where I clearly say everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Bye |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"17 wasnt she? Anyone know the age of consent in that state? Whatever the state was? "
You can of course prove he had sex with her ...? Otherwise the question is a waste of time.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"17 wasnt she? Anyone know the age of consent in that state? Whatever the state was?
You can of course prove he had sex with her ...? Otherwise the question is a waste of time.
 "
Well if she wasn't underage there's no case to answer is there? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Guess there's alot being paid to keep quiet..
There will be others losing the life's.
Why is no one believing the girl?
What's she saying?"
She says she seduced him twice first time she was 17, which I think she said was in London, second time she was 18 in USA. Don't think age was the issue, and I don't think he pressured her, just that she only did it because she was told to. He said if she did, it was not memorable.
These Americans are a strange bunch, latest one says Epstein flew her half way across the country on his private jet to a party when she was 15, which leaves me thinking what did her parents think allowing that? I would warn my daughter off that now and she is twice that age! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ensualMan
over a year ago
Sutton |
"Guess there's alot being paid to keep quiet..
There will be others losing the life's.
Why is no one believing the girl? "
I think it is not so much a question as no-one believing the girl, as the allegations against Prince Andrew are irrelevant to the on going investigation against the Epstein estate.
The only people saying Prince Andrew has a case to answer is the girl and her lawyer. So far neither the FBI or the prosecuting authorities have asked to speak to Prince Andrew.
Simply put what American criminal offence has he committed even if he had sex with a girl in London when she was both 17 and 18?
The girl's lawyer is trying to argue that the girl was trafficked by Epstein because she was brought over to London. But as the prosecuting authorities have not acted against Prince Andrew and not forgetting if Prince Andrew has wronged the girl she could bring a civil action. As a side point we should note that the girl's lawyers is representing Weinstein's victim's in their civil case which I believe is already in court but stayed pending the criminal case. In which case I suspect a civil action could be brought against Prince Andrew which could start straightaway as he is not being prosecuted.
The lack of a civil case could lead to the belief that there is no credible evidence that Prince Andrew committed a criminal offence and they want Prince Andrew to incriminate himself. But as there is a potential civil case in the wings there is no obligation on Prince Andrew volunteer any information.
This is just my view of things, I will add I am no fan of Prince Andrew. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Ppl seem to forget too. He is being asked if he knew about what was going on. In America they are very very strict on ppl who were aware of the fact but did nothing to stop it, that’s accessory after the fact, which is a pretty serious crime in the U.S. something Andrew needs to clarify but given his status, probably won’t ever have to. We shouldn’t just focus on his alleged sex with this girl, we also need to look at state laws, if he knew and didn’t act, that’s accessory after the fact. And we revert back to my main point, extradite him in a deal to extradite Harry Dunn’s killer. It’s win win, if both feel innocent what have they to lose! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
"17 wasnt she? Anyone know the age of consent in that state? Whatever the state was?
Florida 18yrs
"
The first alleged innocent was in London which is obviously 16, the second in the Virgin Islands which is 16 and New York the third which is 17
However, in some states even if 17 the other person has to be within a certain age or it becomes illegal ( not sure if that's the case in NY) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"17 wasnt she? Anyone know the age of consent in that state? Whatever the state was?
Florida 18yrs
The first alleged innocent was in London which is obviously 16, the second in the Virgin Islands which is 16 and New York the third which is 17
However, in some states even if 17 the other person has to be within a certain age or it becomes illegal ( not sure if that's the case in NY)"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ensualMan
over a year ago
Sutton |
"Ppl seem to forget too. He is being asked if he knew about what was going on. In America they are very very strict on ppl who were aware of the fact but did nothing to stop it, that’s accessory after the fact, which is a pretty serious crime in the U.S. something Andrew needs to clarify but given his status, probably won’t ever have to. We shouldn’t just focus on his alleged sex with this girl, we also need to look at state laws, if he knew and didn’t act, that’s accessory after the fact. And we revert back to my main point, extradite him in a deal to extradite Harry Dunn’s killer. It’s win win, if both feel innocent what have they to lose!"
Good point on accessory after the fact.
With the American legal system it is not merely a question of innocence in terms of the criminal case, but being embroiled in a civil case where the evidence level is a balance of probabilities. Which is why the part being played by the Epstein' s victim lawyer makes it suspect in my books.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"17 wasnt she? Anyone know the age of consent in that state? Whatever the state was? "
Epstein was convicted of soliciting a a 14-year-old girl for prostitution and conspiracy to traffick others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"17 wasnt she? Anyone know the age of consent in that state? Whatever the state was?
Epstein was convicted of soliciting a a 14-year-old girl for prostitution and conspiracy to traffick others."
Yes he was, Andrew hasn't, but if he is aware of that, then he definitely has questions to answer
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He doesn't seem to care
No mate I agree. Money and connections in both cases clearly show it’s not what you know it’s who you know and what you have. "
always been the same one for the rich and one for the poor |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Yeah, Epstein gets out of jail for running a grooming gang to provide girls for the rich and famous to use.
His friend, the Duke of York, visits his home upon his release and stays for four nights.
Nothing to see here, eh?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"Yeah, Epstein gets out of jail for running a grooming gang to provide girls for the rich and famous to use.
His friend, the Duke of York, visits his home upon his release and stays for four nights.
Nothing to see here, eh?
"
Didn't think that one through, did he  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iss SJWoman
over a year ago
Hull |
"On another note, where is Ghislaine Maxwell? She seems to have gone awol."
Apparently she was last seen in September in a burger bar in LA reading a book about spies and The Sun is offering £10k to anyone who can offer information on her whereabouts. You couldn’t make it up! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"On another note, where is Ghislaine Maxwell? She seems to have gone awol.
Apparently she was last seen in September in a burger bar in LA reading a book about spies and The Sun is offering £10k to anyone who can offer information on her whereabouts. You couldn’t make it up! "
Haha! Well she has questions to answer too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ocbigMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"Its a question of law. Unfortunately she left the UK legally. It don't know how this is possible considering what she did but the law is an ass as some splendid bugger once said "
I assume Andrew did as well... he was pretending to be a diplomat as well.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"I doubt I can say the word , don't fancy adding to my 8 and a half days worth of bans from here.
Think Clinton Baptise phoenix nights
I'm getting the word (insert naughty word here)"
Haha
. Ok! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"I doubt I can say the word , don't fancy adding to my 8 and a half days worth of bans from here.
Think Clinton Baptise phoenix nights
I'm getting the word (insert naughty word here)"
Just managed to get on there...oh dear  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/20/dominic-raab-defends-governments-decision-seek-legal-costs-harry/
That's the system for you!"
Bloody hell!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/20/dominic-raab-defends-governments-decision-seek-legal-costs-harry/
That's the system for you!"
The reverse will be true, too. If the Dunn's win their judicial review, the Government will be on the hook for their costs.
I did read somewhere she never had diplomatic immunity, only her husband. Yet she was smuggled out of the country on a private plane. The UK Government has to be complicit in a foreign national being allowed to exit passport emigration.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
He now has some more free time, so it's reasonable to conclude that, he'll want to potentially help out those who were abused by his close friend, over the years that he engaged and stayed with him. As an upright citizen with an interest in ensuring that his reputation is restored, he'll obviously take responsibility for getting himself in to the hands of investigating departments.
The disgraceful behaviour by the wife of the US who fled the country and police is something that Johnson should have worked at resolving. It's clear that the USA has the position of strength and the poor family will be unsupported. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"He now has some more free time, so it's reasonable to conclude that, he'll want to potentially help out those who were abused by his close friend, over the years that he engaged and stayed with him. As an upright citizen with an interest in ensuring that his reputation is restored, he'll obviously take responsibility for getting himself in to the hands of investigating departments.
The disgraceful behaviour by the wife of the US who fled the country and police is something that Johnson should have worked at resolving. It's clear that the USA has the position of strength and the poor family will be unsupported. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amissCouple
over a year ago
chelmsford |
"He now has some more free time, so it's reasonable to conclude that, he'll want to potentially help out those who were abused by his close friend, over the years that he engaged and stayed with him. As an upright citizen with an interest in ensuring that his reputation is restored, he'll obviously take responsibility for getting himself in to the hands of investigating departments.
The disgraceful behaviour by the wife of the US who fled the country and police is something that Johnson should have worked at resolving. It's clear that the USA has the position of strength and the poor family will be unsupported. "
Prince Andrew has said he is willing to help US authorities. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
