• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

Prince Andrew and the secret sealed document

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
13,509
Location
Another planet...
I'm sure Andy will be fine, his mum will make sure of that.

No sweat.

I don't dislike Prince Charles, but I'm not overly keen on him becoming King. There is little chance of him passing the opportunity of the Crown to his eldest son - Charles has been immediately in line to the throne since his birth. The fact he is nearly 73 makes him now the longest Royal 'in wait' according to the record books.

It would be nice to see Prince William take the throne as a young man, but I doubt he will become the Monarch until he is in his 60s.

The Queen has been a rarity - getting coronated in her 20s. Given the excellent quality of life the Royals live, I doubt if we will see a younger Monarch in the future.

CJ
William is around half a year younger than me, but despite my prodigious alcohol use and poverty diet, he looks about ten years older than me.

So I'm not convinced about the "better genes" thing!
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
28,322
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
My son, who has a quicker mind than I, said the title of this thread Prince Andrew and the secret sealed document reminded him of some well-known films....

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
3,251
Location
Maidstone
Looks like Prince Andrew has nothing more to worry about from the Met's side of things:


The Metropolitan Police will not take any further action against the Duke of York following a review prompted by Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre.
Ms Giuffre is suing Prince Andrew in the US for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.
Prince Andrew has consistently denied Ms Giuffre's allegations.
In August, the Met said it would review its decision not to investigate allegations connected to Epstein.
Ms Giuffre, 38, claims she was sexually assaulted by the prince at three locations - London, New York and on Epstein's private island in the Caribbean.
Her case claims Prince Andrew engaged in sexual acts without Ms Giuffre's consent, including when she was 17.
The Met also confirmed it had completed its review into allegations reported in June by broadcaster Channel 4 News that British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, trafficked, groomed and abused women and girls in the UK.
The force said it had "reviewed information passed to us by a media organisation in June" and decided that "no further action will be taken".
In August 2019, US financier Epstein was found dead in his cell in New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center.

The Met previously ruled out opening an investigation into Epstein, but in August Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick said the force would review the decision.
On Sunday, the Met said: "As a matter of procedure, MPS officers reviewed a document released in August 2021 as part of a US civil action. This review has concluded and we are taking no further action."
The Met added that it will continue to liaise with other law enforcement agencies who are leading the investigation into matters associated with Epstein.
 

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
10,719
Looks like Prince Andrew has nothing more to worry about from the Met's side of things:

Wow, isn't that a surprise? :D I'd dispute the wording, though. 'No further action' implies there was some action in the first place other than agreeing it was far too hot a potato to get involved in.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,573
Location
York
Did anyone seriously expect anything else from the Met? Oh to have been the proverbial fly on the wall at the meetings that no doubt have been taking place between "courtiers" and some of their good Establishment contacts. I wonder whether, if the alleged actions had not involved US citizens and so both the US media and the US legal system, we should have heard anything about any of it in this country. Remember the extent to which the Abdication business was kept from the general public with the full connivance of the Establishment and media.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
25,721
Location
Fenny Stratford
it is all very good fun looking for a conspiracy theory but there does actually have to be some evidence of wrongdoing for someone to be charged! A picture and an allegation isn't enough.
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
1,856
Wow, isn't that a surprise? :D I'd dispute the wording, though. 'No further action' implies there was some action in the first place other than agreeing it was far too hot a potato to get involved in.

I read that as "nothing further to the whitewash review they've just finished"
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
13,509
Location
Another planet...
Given that the current legal case is a civil suit, filed in a foreign country, I'm not sure what people were expecting the Met to do. Unless a criminal complaint is made, I don't think the Met are even authorised to take any action at this point even if they wanted to.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
25,092
Location
Scotland
Unless a criminal complaint is made, I don't think the Met are even authorised to take any action at this point even if they wanted to.
As I understand it, because the basis of the civil suit is criminal activity that is alleged to have happened in the London, the Met had an obligation to determine if there was enough evidence to support a criminal complaint in this country. But that's about all. Had there been strong evidence then the CPS would have been informed and it would be up to them to decide if to bring charges or not.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,573
Location
York
As I understand it, because the basis of the civil suit is criminal activity that is alleged to have happened in the London, the Met had an obligation to determine if there was enough evidence to support a criminal complaint in this country. But that's about all. Had there been strong evidence then the CPS would have been informed and it would be up to them to decide if to bring charges or not.
Would the CPS have been informed, or would things have taken exactly the course we have just seen, regardless of any evidence?
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
1,173
Would the CPS have been informed, or would things have taken exactly the course we have just seen, regardless of any evidence?

The Met have claimed in previous statements that "“It’s been reviewed twice before, we’ve worked closely with the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service)."
So assuming they're telling the truth, it would appear the CPS have looked and decided there's nothing worth taking forward.
Given the recent criticism of the Met, I would expect them to be keener than usual to make sure investigations were done properly.
 

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
10,719
Given the recent criticism of the Met, I would expect them to be keener than usual to make sure investigations were done properly.
Why? Cressida Dick appears to be bombproof, with Pritti Patel, Sadiq Khan and (probably) the Queen onside, and BJ hardly likely to ruffle the status quo given the huge amount of dirt there must be on him (no wrongdoing, it hardly needs saying <D ).Let's face it, the chances of Andrew Windsor spending one minute of his life in custody, regardless of what he may have done or do in the future, are 0.00000%. Even so, I'd like to think the arrogant buffoon is doing a little squirming or worrying, though the convenient demise of creep Epstein has been superseded by the American treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell, which might just be providing him with sleepless nights, if she decides to spill some beans in order to reduce her probable sentence should she be found guilty. The Americans tend to take these matters far more seriously than we do in sentencing terms, I'm happy to say.
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
396
I’m still waiting to see what evidence they have for this case, or if its all one big bluff.

The amount of noise they are making suggests they are overflowing with evidence. But time and again we see US cases tend to be far more open and less secretive than European ones. Often they court public opinion outside the court room, as an indirect influence inside, regardless whether its supposed to or not..”Trial by media” and all that, where some evidence is public domain too, and often splattered across the press.

But so far all we have is a picture of her in a corridor with his arm posed around her in a photo position. Taken in a place with several others present, that looks pretty innocent. it could be nothing more than a “can i get a picture with you because your famous” moment, at least thats what it looks like to me.
ive several pictures with celebrities from my younger days, especially band members, some I met more than once. It doesn't make them guilty of anything.

Regardless what Epstein or anyone else did, shes going to need something pretty strong to pin it directly on him, and so far all Ive seen in the news is Legal bluster more about bigging up the lawyers own profile than his clients. It makes me sceptical, that Andrews been caught with the wrong friends and shes latched onto it as a meal ticket ?

The legal response seems to be to take the block, slow, tedious, meticulous route, which is exactly opposite of what shes seeking.

One thought those saying the Met police are ignoring it..if the evidence was there, and wasnt investigated, but later is revealed to the world.. the next question for the met is defending that decision, and you know the press wont hold back on that one, as it will be the Met not Andrew in the crosshairs.

The other is all these stories of saying Andrew has no way back, basically assigns guilt.. if thats the case, settling quietly and quickly would be in every parties interest.. yet they are doing the opposite.

i’m not convinced, yet. I think more evidence is needed.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
25,092
Location
Scotland
Regardless what Epstein or anyone else did, shes going to need something pretty strong to pin it directly on him, and so far all Ive seen in the news is Legal bluster more about bigging up the lawyers own profile than his clients. It makes me sceptical, that Andrews been caught with the wrong friends and shes latched onto it as a meal ticket.
Remember though that this is a civil, rather than criminal case. As such the standard of evidence isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather "a preponderance of evidence". In order to win they just need to tell a more convincing narrative than Edward's legal team can manage.
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
396
Remember though that this is a civil, rather than criminal case. As such the standard of evidence isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather "a preponderance of evidence". In order to win they just need to tell a more convincing narrative than Edward's legal team can manage.
Quite..

here it is in full, reading through this, the only actual evidence offered, is BBC URLs. (its not comfortable to read, but its a very long way from a slamdunk).


Epstein and Maxwell have their own cases to answer, and i’m not sure i’d even want to read that it given how bad it sounds.
Andrew definitely seems to have had badly judged his friends.

In that regard if Andrew did get involved, then they should throw the book at him, criminally and civil, and without forgiveness.
But additionally, the other actors behind Epstein and Maxwell should be unmasked too, as its not just Andrew.

but reading that filing, I dont see anything other than a film plot, with places to insert characters into. I think it will (and should) legally demand more evidence than that.

The question is why now ?
Why before the Maxwell trial..

Things for Maxwell dont look good, I hope she does spill the beans. If she’s guilty then taking down all the guilty with her is the right outcome, vindicates Guiffre and just rightly strengthens her case.

So if there is evidence there thats incriminating, which you would expect there to be, then why not wait until after, so they can capitalise on it ?
 
Last edited:

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
3,251
Location
Maidstone
Epstein and Maxwell have their own cases to answer, and i’m not sure i’d even want to read that it given how bad it sounds.
Andrew definitely seems to have had badly judged his friends.

In that regard if Andrew did get involved, then they should throw the book at him, criminally and civil, and without forgiveness.
But additionally, the other actors behind Epstein and Maxwell should be unmasked too, as its not just Andrew.

but reading that filing, I dont see anything other than a film plot, with places to insert characters into. I think it will (and should) legally demand more evidence than that.

The question is why now ?
Why before the Maxwell trial..

if there is evidence there thats incriminating, which you would expect there to be, then why not wait until after, so they can capitalise on it ?
In the case of Epstein, it's "had their own case to answer". When Maxwell's trial starts next month it'll certainly be very interesting to hear what she says, and if the conspiracy theory suggesting Epstein was silenced were true, there'll be many nervous famous faces, including Andrew.
 

LOL The Irony

Established Member
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
4,161
Location
Tokyo-3
I see the Met are letting andrew off the hook. Expected really.
How about we get rid of the monarchy and have a proper written constitution?
I wouldn't trust any of the current crop to write a constitution for this country.
Epstein and Maxwell have their own cases to answer, and i’m not sure i’d even want to read that it given how bad it sounds.
I don't know what answers he could give as he's kind of dead.
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
396
In the case of Epstein, it's "had their own case to answer". When Maxwell's trial starts next month it'll certainly be very interesting to hear what she says, and if the conspiracy theory suggesting Epstein was silenced were true, there'll be many nervous famous faces, including Andrew.

Dont forget the victims.
A quick read of wiki suggests more than 20 women sued Epstein or his estate.

Guiffre already sued both Epstein and Maxwell.

E & M folded easily, with Andrew its triple or quits, and the lawyer wins either way.

If Maxwell lists a string of names, we could see hundreds of lawsuits spinning off as each of the victims sues each of the names.

So if Andrew pays out to Guiffre, it would be interesting to see if it ends there, as he would be effectively admitting to it, and invites the rest to venture a claim.

of course, then the criminal case should follow…afterall settling is an admission of guilt surely ?

Andrew has a lot to fight for, and i suspect it wont be an easy rollover as E& M were for Guiffre. So if there is truth in it for Andrew, i’d reckon were going to see more than we have so far, which makes me think if there was, he would have sought to have quietly folded.. which he hasnt.

I don't know what answers he could give as he's kind of dead.
doesnt stop the lawyers.. wiki suggests at least 15 of the cases were settled by the estate of the dead… so there was an answer of a sort.

of note here is the cases are largely about financial settlements, not upholding the law.. (well at least the French are anyway).
 
Last edited:

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
396
Does the old adage of "Innocent until proved guilty" no longer apply in Britain any more?
Not as long as the media can make money out of it, and get away with a 3 line apology hidden in the back pages years later.

Unfortunately for Andrew, this isnt in Britain either, so the government cannot intervene, the financial stakes are higher and lawyers are more prone to headline grabbing stunts to gain popularity.

With Harry and Megan, plus events in Canada, I doubt the royal family will be touring the Americas for a while. If they did, they risk a stunt in relation to this case. Ultimately national celebrity sells, or destroys. Their actions in turn lowers influence in the US on things like that closer relationship and trade deal.. Two things you dont do in America is anything anti-American or anything involving minors. This whole situation affects confidence, awareness in / of the UK in the US by US businesses, and can lower investment, the pound exchange rate and rises inflation…

ah politics, in otherwords whatever happened or didnt happen, the media makes money from it, we have to pay for it… and who owns British media, and where are they based ? which national loyalties & interests do they reside in ?.. Murdoch, Comcast, Liberty Global…

The royal family ultimately are supposed to be salesmen for the country. The national news is supposed to be propaganda for a country. The two together compete for the national interest on the global stage against other competing nations. But the royals and press are consistently in conflict, declining the value of a major UK global brand.. the royal family. The UK press is globally renown for its destructive influence and often damages the UK on the global stage… maybe if we had laws on % foreign ownership of the UK press, it might help the country.

Whilst we have shortages brought to the news every day, one thing we dont seem to be short for is journalists looking to create stories, that promote their careers.
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
28,322
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Not as long as the media can make money out of it, and get away with a 3 line apology hidden in the back pages years later.
The Press seem to be a law unto themselves at times, even when police investigations are still ongoing. Remember the Jo Yeates murder case where the Press carried out a campaign against the landlord, Christopher Jeffries?
 

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
10,719
of course, then the criminal case should follow…afterall settling is an admission of guilt surely ?
That might seem to follow logically, but that's certainly not how the legal process sees it in this country. Police forces, for instance, regularly pay out sums large and small while admitting no liability. Personally, I think justice is not achieved, but any idea I used to have that we had a justice system in this country is long gone. On the rare occasions when it might happen it just seems to be luck.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
30,295
Location
Yorks
Not as long as the media can make money out of it, and get away with a 3 line apology hidden in the back pages years later.

Unfortunately for Andrew, this isnt in Britain either, so the government cannot intervene, the financial stakes are higher and lawyers are more prone to headline grabbing stunts to gain popularity.

With Harry and Megan, plus events in Canada, I doubt the royal family will be touring the Americas for a while. If they did, they risk a stunt in relation to this case. Ultimately national celebrity sells, or destroys. Their actions in turn lowers influence in the US on things like that closer relationship and trade deal.. Two things you dont do in America is anything anti-American or anything involving minors. This whole situation affects confidence, awareness in / of the UK in the US by US businesses, and can lower investment, the pound exchange rate and rises inflation…

ah politics, in otherwords whatever happened or didnt happen, the media makes money from it, we have to pay for it… and who owns British media, and where are they based ? which national loyalties & interests do they reside in ?.. Murdoch, Comcast, Liberty Global…

The royal family ultimately are supposed to be salesmen for the country. The national news is supposed to be propaganda for a country. The two together compete for the national interest on the global stage against other competing nations. But the royals and press are consistently in conflict, declining the value of a major UK global brand.. the royal family. The UK press is globally renown for its destructive influence and often damages the UK on the global stage… maybe if we had laws on % foreign ownership of the UK press, it might help the country.

Whilst we have shortages brought to the news every day, one thing we dont seem to be short for is journalists looking to create stories, that promote their careers.

What are these "events in Canada" you're referring to ? I must have missed these.
 

Top