• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Sadly i think that might be optimistic. Depending on status, race, location etc.

It's still a mess. Probably better discussed on a more general thread, of which we have a couple.
You're sadly right. However, at least these days youngsters can talk about sex without being seen as knowing too much.
 
I know the two cases aren't connected, but every time I read about prince Andrew and this law suit, I can't help but think about Anne Saccoolis . She killed that poor kid, then pissed off back to the US, screaming diplomatic immunity . Do the Yanks really think we'd give up a Prince of the realm just to appease some greedy little tart and her grasping lawyers? He should just tell 'em to piss off.
You’ve said it yourself - the two cases have nothing whatsoever in common other than neither perpetrator will be extradited.

As for greed, I think any greed she displayed would likely be far & away exceeded by Epstein, Maxwell & our glorious prince of the realm. I’d like to see him tell ‘em to piss off as well - it would be the worse for him. By keeping schtum he’s effectively doing that not in so many words.

You seem to be saying that all these underage girls, & let’s not forget that sex with a minor is illegal in the first place whether willing or not, & I’ve lost track of exactly how many there are, were quite OK with whatever they were coerced to do by enormously rich & powerful people & thought at the time there’d be a big payday in it for them. I’d suggest that that opinion is quite some distance from the reality. Others here have put it better in explaining why.
 
It takes a hell of a lot of courage for someone like her to stand up and name the rich and powerful creeps she was pimped to.

It takes no courage at all to spend a trivial fraction of your wealth in sending an army of lawyers after her. Likewise with having the palace guards protect you from being served the papers you pretend to not know about.
 
It takes a hell of a lot of courage for someone like her to stand up and name the rich and powerful creeps she was pimped to.

It takes no courage at all to spend a trivial fraction of your wealth in sending an army of lawyers after her. Likewise with having the palace guards protect you from being served the papers you pretend to not know about.
Agreed. I'm really sorry Epstein wasn't kept alive to face the music, however he died - suicide or murder.

I do worry about Guiffre's safety and I'm glad she lives in Australia. Hopefully there is less chance of accidents there.
 
Agreed. I'm really sorry Epstein wasn't kept alive to face the music, however he died - suicide or murder.

I do worry about Guiffre's safety and I'm glad she lives in Australia. Hopefully there is less chance of accidents there.
Can’t see her coming to trouble, though it might make things tidier for a couple of people.

Maxwell on the other hand.. Still a couple of months til November.
 
Can’t see her coming to trouble, though it might make things tidier for a couple of people.

Maxwell on the other hand.. Still a couple of months til November.
Ohhh yussss. :cool:

Maxwell might have to suffer a more creative end than Epstein's though.
Can't have too much of a coincidence. Lightning doesn't strike twice an' all that.

I seem to remember a discussion about this a while back. I'm not bored though. :chuckle:
 
Ohhh yussss. :cool:

Maxwell might have to suffer a more creative end than Epstein's though.
Can't have too much of a coincidence. Lightning doesn't strike twice an' all that.

I seem to remember a discussion about this a while back. I'm not bored though. :chuckle:
A car crash in a tunnel in Paris?
Falling out of a window?
 
A car crash in a tunnel in Paris?
Falling out of a window?
Hard to have a crash in Paris when you’re in jail in New York. And the windows have bars.

No it’d have to be heart attack, brain aneurism, falling downstairs & hitting head fatally, sudden alien abduction. ’Suicide’ is the obvious fallback option but another suicide might be a bit too coincidental.

If I were the prison governor I’d have her in a cell with concealed cctv. You wouldn’t want that unexplained death on your watch. No-one would be given authorisation access to the video unless something happened to her. I don’t know if this is allowed under privacy/human rights laws however.

I’d also make sure the cameras on her cell door were working.
 
Hard to have a crash in Paris when you’re in jail in New York. And the windows have bars.

No it’d have to be heart attack, brain aneurism, falling downstairs & hitting head fatally, sudden alien abduction. ’Suicide’ is the obvious fallback option but another suicide might be a bit too coincidental.

If I were the prison governor I’d have her in a cell with concealed cctv. You wouldn’t want that unexplained death on your watch. No-one would be given authorisation access to the video unless something happened to her. I don’t know if this is allowed under privacy/human rights laws however.

I’d also make sure the cameras on her cell door were working.
Yup, letting Maxwell also slip away would look bad for whoever's in charge. :wink2:

I'd like to think she's bricking it 24/7, and that people don't spend time with her in case they're also present at the Chop.
Seems a real danger to me. She knows too much and is in a position to bargain.
 
Yup, letting Maxwell also slip away would look bad for whoever's in charge. :wink2:

I'd like to think she's bricking it 24/7, and that people don't spend time with her in case they're also present at the Chop.
Seems a real danger to me. She knows too much and is in a position to bargain.

Sings-

Bang bang Maxwell’s silver hammer came down upon her head

Bang bang Maxwell’s silver hammer made sure that she was dead
 
In R4's Today just now (3 minutes in so must be a Top Story with more to come :cool: ) there was mention of a denial by HRH's office that the papers had been correctly served.

Desperate talk, there! Straws clutched.
Not to mention pearls. :chuckle:

So what happens now, do we think? Will Randy Andy be commanded to take one for the Queen in a bizarre but inevitable hunting accident?

Who will order him to fall on his gralloching knife?
 
Last edited:
Ah yup, there was indeed a spot on the Today programme, available on BBC Sounds. The item begins at about 17:20.

HRH's argument is that as the papers were left with a police officer at his home who promised to hand them to him they weren't actually served.

HRH*'s lawyer in New York is the famous Andrew B. Brettler, Hollywood Attorney to the Stars. Mr Brettler has so far addressed the pre-case hearing to contest the validity of the service of the court documents.

This seems like normal American lawyer-play to me. We've all seen the fillums. :chuckle:

*He's getting HRH because I can't be bothered to keep typing out Randy Andy, Handy Andy, Sweaty Betty etc.
 
We love our technicalities over here. This one is ludicrous, since the serving of papers is a formality to ensure the legitimacy of the court's decision. The defendent can't claim ignorance of the charges if their receipt of them is certified. This made perfect sense hundreds of years ago, but there is no way Andy doesn't know the nature of the charges. Evading the process server is a favorite maneuver of petty thieves and other small time criminals. Seeing the Royal Family stoop to such tawdry stunts is pathetic. It would actually be shocking if not for the history of the past several years. We're all so jaded by crap we never thought possible, we aren't really surprised.
 
We love our technicalities over here. This one is ludicrous, since the serving of papers is a formality to ensure the legitimacy of the court's decision. The defendent can't claim ignorance of the charges if their receipt of them is certified. This made perfect sense hundreds of years ago, but there is no way Andy doesn't know the nature of the charges. Evading the process server is a favorite maneuver of petty thieves and other small time criminals. Seeing the Royal Family stoop to such tawdry stunts is pathetic. It would actually be shocking if not for the history of the past several years. We're all so jaded by crap we never thought possible, we aren't really surprised.

Evading the process server is it called then? Not original or daring, just stalling.
Good old technicalities. As you say, pathetic and tawdry. Makes people look as guilty as.

Reminds me of the defence that used to be offered by defendants of early British Breathalyser cases: as the arresting officer was not wearing his uniform hat he was improperly dressed to do his duty so the Breathalyser reading was invalid blah blah blah...

It worked a few times until some judge threw it out. :chuckle:
 
Whether you have been involved in nefarious activities or not, in his position you have to be thick as a pile of Accrington bricks to allow yourself to be photographed with your arm around a young woman. I have to wonder whether someone had an eye on a future payoff/blackmail scenario to arrange for that piccie to be taken. (not meaning the woman in question)
 
A skilled abuser can easily silence children and teenagers.

Many adults of both sexes don't grasp the enormity of childhood abuse against them until they are old enough to have children of their own, or are at least themselves adults.

They then understand how vulnerable they had been.

The British actor and comedian Alan Davies describes this process in his autobiography which was incidentally recently mentioned on this very messageboard in that exact context.

Davies' own father abused him and kept him compliant by telling others Davies Jnr was a liar and fantasist so nobody would believe him.*

Some of Michael Jackson's victims defended him in court and only disclosed the abuse after Jackson's death; not because he couldn't then answer back, but because by then they were grown men with an adult perspective.

This is very common with victims of abuse. Admitting it to oneself is a big step and risking humiliation by taking it further is another.
I am full of admiration for people who can do this.

*I used to dislike Davies because I found his diffident manner and slight lisp false. He seemed to be putting on a front for some reason.
I can see now what it was and have changed my opinion of him. He is a good father.
Exactly this. I've known people who were abused as children and it's only decades later that they have summoned up the courage to do something about it. Very very easy for critics with their "why wait so long, got to be a scam" type attitude when they have absolutely no idea what some kids have gone through. The fact that true allegations are historic makes them no less real. And as a small benefit no reason why real victims shouldn't at the very least grab every penny they can from their abusers as well as seeing them suffer behind bars.
 
Whether you have been involved in nefarious activities or not, in his position you have to be thick as a pile of Accrington bricks to allow yourself to be photographed with your arm around a young woman. I have to wonder whether someone had an eye on a future payoff/blackmail scenario to arrange for that piccie to be taken. (not meaning the woman in question)
Agreed, it's a deeply incriminating photo. HRH says he 'can't explain' it, which actually sounds like he can't explain it away.

The original photo was a print from a film camera and was handed to the FBI in 2011 with other snaps from Giuffre's travels with Epstein and Maxwell. So it went from her to the FBI and was scanned and then released.
One assumes HRH would LOVE to accuse the FBI of doctoring it. Perhaps he hopes that's what we will infer.

Epstein had his residences bugged with video surveillance and is known to have kept copies of goings-on in a safe which was opened when his New York townhouse was raided. The Andrew photo is the tip of a large and incriminating iceberg.

One assumes Maxwell's house wasn't bugged so a little snap would have to do. Also, Epstein and Maxwell were arrogant and confident enough believe Giuffre wouldn't dare use the photo against them.

Evening Standard article about the photo from December 2019 -
No way' photo of Prince Andrew with arm around Virginia Giuffre is fake, photographer who copied image says

Ms Giuffre insisted to Panorama the photo was "authentic" and said she gave the original to the FBI in 2011.
She told the programme: "I think the world is getting sick of these ridiculous excuses. It's a real photo. I've given it to the FBI for their investigation and it's an authentic photo. There's a date on the back of it from when it was printed."
Panorama reported that a redacted court document showed Ms Giuffre handed 20 photos to the FBI in 2011 and they were scanned front and back.
But only 19 photos were shown in the public version with two reference numbers - 03956 9431 and 03956 9432 - missing, the programme reported, adding it had been told the numbers related to the Andrew photo and that it was removed from the public document to protect his privacy.

HRH was also groomed by Epstein and Maxwell. As a grown man he should really have known better.
'Thick as a pile of Accrington bricks' indeed. :chuckle:
 
Exactly this. I've known people who were abused as children and it's only decades later that they have summoned up the courage to do something about it. Very very easy for critics with their "why wait so long, got to be a scam" type attitude when they have absolutely no idea what some kids have gone through. The fact that true allegations are historic makes them no less real. And as a small benefit no reason why real victims shouldn't at the very least grab every penny they can from their abusers as well as seeing them suffer behind bars.
Yup, kids often can't even process what's happened to them. No wonder it messes with their heads and wrecks their lives.
 
Heh, for some reason my spellchecker has been 'correcting' Giuffre to Guiffre.

There's a tip for HRH.
:bthumbup:
 
and then people call them mercenary wee prozzies, or similarly offensive words to that effect.
Yup, they were children who didn't understand what was going on. When they did understand it was because they'd been abused and taken advantage of.
 
I watched an interview with Virginia Giuffre. She said that when she first met Maxwell and Epstein they were really kind and friendly and she opened up to them about having been abused in the past. When the Loathsome Couple started their manipulations (quite soon after she confided in them I think) Virginia said that she thought something along the lines of 'Oh!, it's turned to shit, again. Maybe this is my life.'

I've not quoted her very accurately but basically part of her died/gave up. She didn't have the strength to fight it at the time so maybe part of her went along with it, like Stockholm syndrome. Luckily the part of her that didn't give in won through in the end but at quite a cost I fear.
 
I watched an interview with Virginia Giuffre. She said that when she first met Maxwell and Epstein they were really kind and friendly and she opened up to them about having been abused in the past. When the Loathsome Couple started their manipulations (quite soon after she confided in them I think) Virginia said that she thought something along the lines of 'Oh!, it's turned to shit, again. Maybe this is my life.'

I've not quoted her very accurately but basically part of her died/gave up. She didn't have the strength to fight it at the time so maybe part of her went along with it, like Stockholm syndrome. Luckily the part of her that didn't give in won through in the end but at quite a cost I fear.
Sometimes I hope there really is a Hell.
 
I watched an interview with Virginia Giuffre. She said that when she first met Maxwell and Epstein they were really kind and friendly and she opened up to them about having been abused in the past. When the Loathsome Couple started their manipulations (quite soon after she confided in them I think) Virginia said that she thought something along the lines of 'Oh!, it's turned to shit, again. Maybe this is my life.'

I've not quoted her very accurately but basically part of her died/gave up. She didn't have the strength to fight it at the time so maybe part of her went along with it, like Stockholm syndrome. Luckily the part of her that didn't give in won through in the end but at quite a cost I fear.
As you may know, Giuffre eventually escaped the situation by co-operating to the extent of being trusted to travel aboard alone for a massage course.

From there she went to Australia and eventually married, settled down and had a family. She still didn't feel safe because Maxwell would always find her number and ring her with a reminder to keep her mouth shut.
 

High Court accepts Virginia Giuffre’s request to serve lawsuit on Prince Andrew


The High Court has agreed to intervene in Prince Andrew’s with a sex assault civil lawsuit and ensure he is served in accordance with international law.

Lawyers for the Duke of York’s accuser, Virginia Giuffre, asked the British courts to notify him about the case, which had its first hearing in New York this week.

The High Court initially rejected the request, saying the duke had not been properly served, before issuing an update following further correspondence from Ms Giuffre’s team.

It said in a statement: ‘The lawyers acting for Ms Giuffre have now provided further information to the High Court, and the High Court has accepted the request for service under the Hague Service Convention.

‘The legal process has not yet been served but the High Court will now take steps to serve under the convention unless service is arranged by agreement between the parties.’

Solicitor advocate Nick Goldstone, head of dispute resolution at international law firm Ince, said: ‘Andrew’s lawyers need to make themselves known, officially no one is “on the record” for Andrew in England with regards to these proceedings.
 
Was talking about this with a work colleague today. He reckons Randy Andy was picked on by the prosecution first to show all the other important people that are involved that they are NOT SAFE. That if you can go after a member of the royal family then they could easily be next. I don’t think anybody expects him to go to court (although i would try for a swap with the Sacoolas woman) it’s just a bit of sabre-rattling
 
and then people call them mercenary wee prozzies, or similarly offensive words to that effect.
Remember when the northern sex-trafficking rings were first being investigated, and it came out that social workers had dismissed the underage victims as teenage prostitutes?

Prostitution was, they said, a lifestyle choice. :mad:

2015 Guardian article on it -

End use of outdated term ‘child prostitution’, says MP

A series of reports on child sexual exploitation scandals in Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford and Telford revealed that abused children were repeatedly dismissed for making “poor choices” and having “problematic lifestyles”.

“When you read report after report about the attitudes of agencies to these children, you find they did actually see [the exploitation] as a lifestyle choice, the children were considered to be child prostitutes – that suggests victims were complicit in their abuse, it protects the abusers and it absolves agencies from failing to take action,” she said.

In 2013 there was condemnation of a court’s decision to allow a paedophile to walk free after his 13-year-old victim was described as a sexual predator, and in another trial victims of abuse in Oxford were branded “naughty girls” by defence barristers.
 
Remember when the northern sex-trafficking rings were first being investigated, and it came out that social workers had dismissed the underage victims as teenage prostitutes?

Oh yes. I remember it well.
 
Looks like Ghislaine is playing the blame-the-victim game, including bringing in a psychologist who specialises in memory issues. Which seems a similar technique being employed by a certain member of the royal family, whose name escapes me.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...well-jeffrey-epstein-sexual-abuse-allegations

I have little sympathy for the Maxwell family as a whole. Her father stole much of my father's pension and he deserves to rot in whatever hell lets him in. If his daughter is guilty of the crimes she's charged with, then she can follow him down that hellhole.

At the very least, she was close friends with a man of very unsavoury character. At worst, well, we'll see...
 
Back
Top