Crosswords0 min ago
Royal Prince Andrew Imprisoned?.
With the Prince Andrew, Epstein, Giuffre sex case going on how much of a big thing would it be if in a years time Prince Andrew is tried, convicted, and sent to prison in the US?.
Answers
It would be one of the biggest news stories in peacetime. But it is highly unlikely to happen like that. The smart money is still on a settlement in advance of the court case actually being heard. The problem for Prince Andrew is that he has been painted into a corner - if he goes to trial he stands a very real chance of losing and paying millions in compensation
17:27 Wed 02nd Feb 2022
It would be one of the biggest news stories in peacetime.
But it is highly unlikely to happen like that.
The smart money is still on a settlement in advance of the court case actually being heard.
The problem for Prince Andrew is that he has been painted into a corner - if he goes to trial he stands a very real chance of losing and paying millions in compensation, although I doubt he would get prison.
If he does settle, the world at large will simply see that as an admission of guilt - the premise being that if he was innocent he would go to court, and only if guilty would he settle to avoid it.
That means that however this ends up, Andrew's life as a working royal is probably already over, and he can look forward to a quiet life playing golf somewhere, and thinking about what might have been had he developed a sense of judgement the same size as his sense of entitlement.
But it is highly unlikely to happen like that.
The smart money is still on a settlement in advance of the court case actually being heard.
The problem for Prince Andrew is that he has been painted into a corner - if he goes to trial he stands a very real chance of losing and paying millions in compensation, although I doubt he would get prison.
If he does settle, the world at large will simply see that as an admission of guilt - the premise being that if he was innocent he would go to court, and only if guilty would he settle to avoid it.
That means that however this ends up, Andrew's life as a working royal is probably already over, and he can look forward to a quiet life playing golf somewhere, and thinking about what might have been had he developed a sense of judgement the same size as his sense of entitlement.
naomi24
I think the removal of his privileges and titles before any hearing has encouraged the perception of his guilt.
———
Well technically he relinquished them
They were not removed
As I opined at the time he has obviously been advised to do so in light of festivities his mother will shortly enjoy
After the year she has had the last thing she needs is this sideshow debasing her legacy
I think the removal of his privileges and titles before any hearing has encouraged the perception of his guilt.
———
Well technically he relinquished them
They were not removed
As I opined at the time he has obviously been advised to do so in light of festivities his mother will shortly enjoy
After the year she has had the last thing she needs is this sideshow debasing her legacy
naomi - // I think the removal of his privileges and titles before any hearing has encouraged the perception of his guilt. //
I entirely agree.
The Queen and the Royal Family have always put the monarchy above everything, and always will.
For that reason, they have distanced themselves from Andrew as the Jubilee approaches, to avoid any potential embarrassment caused by him appearing in public with them, and distracting the attention from the Queen as such a milestone in history comes around.
But as you correctly point out, the parallel effect of such brutal distancing can only increase the perception of his guilt, and their embarrassment about him regarding his legal case, coming as the two events do, at the same time.
We should remember that Andrew remains innocent until proven guilty, but public perception simply does not work that way, and his altered and indeed absent status as a member of the Royal Family is probably something that his prosecutors are going to exploit to the maximum.
I entirely agree.
The Queen and the Royal Family have always put the monarchy above everything, and always will.
For that reason, they have distanced themselves from Andrew as the Jubilee approaches, to avoid any potential embarrassment caused by him appearing in public with them, and distracting the attention from the Queen as such a milestone in history comes around.
But as you correctly point out, the parallel effect of such brutal distancing can only increase the perception of his guilt, and their embarrassment about him regarding his legal case, coming as the two events do, at the same time.
We should remember that Andrew remains innocent until proven guilty, but public perception simply does not work that way, and his altered and indeed absent status as a member of the Royal Family is probably something that his prosecutors are going to exploit to the maximum.
Stickybottle - // Well technically he relinquished them
They were not removed //
I think you'll find that the niceties of protocol may have allowed Andrew to 'relinquish' his titles, but be under no illusion, he was not given a choice in the matter.
They were absolutely removed, he was given the courtesy of saying he was relinquishing them to spare him the public embarrassment of having his titles stripped from him.
They were not removed //
I think you'll find that the niceties of protocol may have allowed Andrew to 'relinquish' his titles, but be under no illusion, he was not given a choice in the matter.
They were absolutely removed, he was given the courtesy of saying he was relinquishing them to spare him the public embarrassment of having his titles stripped from him.
andy-hughes
Stickybottle - // Well technically he relinquished them
They were not removed //
I think you'll find that the niceties of protocol may have allowed Andrew to 'relinquish' his titles, but be under no illusion, he was not given a choice in the matter.
——
Have no doubt that I am fully aware of the protocol
It just Lois good on paper that he ‘chose to relinquish them himself as he fights his case’
That is why I said he was ‘advised’
He was not unceremoniously stripped of them
He handed them back for safekeeping until clears his name
Or not !
Stickybottle - // Well technically he relinquished them
They were not removed //
I think you'll find that the niceties of protocol may have allowed Andrew to 'relinquish' his titles, but be under no illusion, he was not given a choice in the matter.
——
Have no doubt that I am fully aware of the protocol
It just Lois good on paper that he ‘chose to relinquish them himself as he fights his case’
That is why I said he was ‘advised’
He was not unceremoniously stripped of them
He handed them back for safekeeping until clears his name
Or not !
naomi24
I’m not sure that in doing that they are protecting the brand. I could understand it if things go the wrong way for him but before the event? Not a good look.
———-
It was the best possible ‘easy out’ for everyone
He looks gallant for relinquishing them prior to fighting his case
She looks the dutiful mother who as a result of what he has given up looks not to be scolding him
Privately I would imagine she is somewhat miffed
I hope her grandson does not feel the need to re-emerge into the public eye too much either whilst languishing on the other side of the pond
Let her have her moment of glory in kinder circumstances
I’m not sure that in doing that they are protecting the brand. I could understand it if things go the wrong way for him but before the event? Not a good look.
———-
It was the best possible ‘easy out’ for everyone
He looks gallant for relinquishing them prior to fighting his case
She looks the dutiful mother who as a result of what he has given up looks not to be scolding him
Privately I would imagine she is somewhat miffed
I hope her grandson does not feel the need to re-emerge into the public eye too much either whilst languishing on the other side of the pond
Let her have her moment of glory in kinder circumstances
To clarify the above . . .
There has been, as yet, not the slightest hint of a criminal prosecution of any sort being brought against Prince Andrew, whether that be in the UK (where he lives), in Australia (where his accuser lives) or in the USA (where the current civil proceedings are taking place). So there's currently absolutely no possibility whatsoever of Prince Andrew being sentenced to custody or to anything else. As in the UK, a civil court in the USA can only award damages to a claimant.
A post above refers to a 'private prosecution' but such (criminal) prosecutions are extremely unusual, and difficult to pursue, almost anywhere in the world. In particular, in New York state (where the current civil proceedings are taking place), the District Court ruled in 2002 that "private prosecutions by interested parties or their attorneys present inherent conflicts of interest which violate defendants' due process rights".
Civil cases aren't 'private prosecutions'. They're simply a claim for compensation for being wronged. In civil law (almost anywhere in the world) a claimant only has to show that their account of the facts is true based upon 'the balance of probabilities'. It's far harder for the prosecution to succeed in criminal proceedings where (again, almost anywhere in the world) they have to prove their case 'beyond reasonable doubt'. [That's why, for example, a Scottish civil court was able to rule that the footballer David Goodwillie had committed rape, and order him to pay £100k in compensation to the victim, but the Procurator Fiscal was unable to proceed with a criminal case against him].
There has been, as yet, not the slightest hint of a criminal prosecution of any sort being brought against Prince Andrew, whether that be in the UK (where he lives), in Australia (where his accuser lives) or in the USA (where the current civil proceedings are taking place). So there's currently absolutely no possibility whatsoever of Prince Andrew being sentenced to custody or to anything else. As in the UK, a civil court in the USA can only award damages to a claimant.
A post above refers to a 'private prosecution' but such (criminal) prosecutions are extremely unusual, and difficult to pursue, almost anywhere in the world. In particular, in New York state (where the current civil proceedings are taking place), the District Court ruled in 2002 that "private prosecutions by interested parties or their attorneys present inherent conflicts of interest which violate defendants' due process rights".
Civil cases aren't 'private prosecutions'. They're simply a claim for compensation for being wronged. In civil law (almost anywhere in the world) a claimant only has to show that their account of the facts is true based upon 'the balance of probabilities'. It's far harder for the prosecution to succeed in criminal proceedings where (again, almost anywhere in the world) they have to prove their case 'beyond reasonable doubt'. [That's why, for example, a Scottish civil court was able to rule that the footballer David Goodwillie had committed rape, and order him to pay £100k in compensation to the victim, but the Procurator Fiscal was unable to proceed with a criminal case against him].
Latest Posts
Animals & Nature5 mins ago
Mass Graves Found In Khan Younis
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
This Talk Of The Economy On A War...
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.