Chomper Higgot

Regardless of whether you personally regard the evidence as credible, Prince Andrew was resident at Epstein’s home in NY for extended periods. Your attempts to avoid the fact his actions in the U.S. are subject to U.S. law are exposing the weakness of your arguments. You ignore that which you can’t deal with. That bucket of sand in the corner is for fighting fires Jonny, not hiding your head.

Don’t forget to leave your engine running when you park to go shopping, leave your heating/air conditioning on full blast 24/7, fill your airline luggage with rocks if you don’t meet the baggage allowance and rev your engine at traffic lights. You’re the man Jonny, burn those fossil fuels. Oh get a T-shirt with the words ‘Guzzler’ printed front and back, just incase anyone misses your infantile point.

Thanks for the laugh. You can put your head back down below the parapet again now. Job’s a good ‘un.

Once again dodging the allegations of what Andrew did in the U.S. and under U.S. jurisdiction. Odd given the subject of the thread.

Thank you for demonstrating the non sequitur. There are layers of reasons why sexual abuse cases in the UK and US are so infrequently brought to trial and conviction. That fact does not negate the factual legal principal that in both the U.S. and the UK judicial systems criminal convictions may and occasionally are based solely on a single witness statement. Refer links I provided above.

I don’t disagree and I don’t support the ‘it may harm your defense’ bit either. Either way, sworn testimony exists, at the very least the MET ought to question Prince Andrew under caution.

It depends on the Jurisdiction and circumstances. In the UK the police have arrested the wrong person and you are questioned but fail to reveal your knowledge of who the real suspect is you are committing the crime of perverting the course of justice and or aiding and abetting a suspect evade justice. In the U.S. the 5th Amendment does not apply to witnesses of crimes in which the witness has not committed any part of the crime. There are of course exceptions relating to fear of reprisal etc.

A keen cyclist myself I usually give other cyclists a wide leeway when passing, but you’ve used up your fellow cyclist points with your ‘banana republic’ nonsense: First the U.S.: “If the judge and jury find a witness statement credible, they can charge or convict you of a crime based solely on witness testimony alone. The statement must be made under oath for eyewitness testimony to be used to charge someone with a crime. “ https://www.bergencriminalattorney.com/can-i-be-charged-with-a-crime-based-on-someone-elses-testimony-alone/#:~:text=If the judge and jury,charge someone with a crime. And then the U.K.: https://www.olliers.com/news/how-can-i-be-prosecuted-no-evidence/

I read your post, then I read it again. It didn’t improve with a second reading. Are you talking to yourself?

Nobody can be charged with perjury for anything they haven’t said, however in English law an individual’s refusal to answer police questioning at the time of investigation may be considered in their subsequent trial: You can certainly be charged with perverting the course of justice if you withhold information when questioned. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/adverse-inferences

Not so. Sworn testimony is evidence, it may be corroborated or undermined by other sworn testimony. At the very least it would be a positive step if Prince Andrew were to give his sworn testimony. Though perhaps not for Prince Andrew, hence the recourse to mummy’s money. I don’t spend my life defending credibility accused rapists who are also long term and frequent associates of a notorious pedophile and who are unwilling to defend themselves.

That’s the judicial process, it starts with accusations being investigated, not ignored. As mentioned in this thread, ignoring accusations has in the past lead to continuing abuse.

As in, take allegations of sexual abuse seriously and not defend an alleged abuser regardless of whether or not the allegations have been proven in a court of law. The right course of action is to investigate and act in the outcome of investigations.

The central point is Prince Andrew paid out millions of his mummy’s money to avoid having to go to court.

He’s grasping at straws. During one of his indictments he argued that if he had broken the law that was a matter for the courts not Congress. Well Donny here we are already.

The Guardian don’t defend anything, they have simply reported the part the UK’s libel laws played in helping Saville cover up his crimes.

There’s a great deal more than simply one persons sworn testimony.

Except the court records record corroborating testimonies. But maybe you are letting a car out of the bag…

It was a bit more complicated than that: https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/28/outrageous-libel-laws-protected-jimmy-savile-lawsuits

Once again you omit the fact that the allegations against Prince Andrew are not restricted to his behaviour in the UK. That Epstein’s home, refer title of thread, was in the U.S. ought to be a clue.

There are far more examples of rapists, sexual abusers and pedophiles getting away with their crimes and never facing justice. Oh and off you go once again with your ‘beat the British Royal Family’, your hypocrisy on the matter has already been explained.

I don’t think anyone has accused Prince Andrew of being a pedophile. Such an accusation would be even more reason to defend himself in court. Agree, Sir Cliff did very well and is an example of why challenging false allegations is necessary.

Sex with a minor is rape. The allegations of Prince Andrew having sex and group sex with minors is sworn testimony within the court records. Proof? Maybe the MET needs to investigate these serious sworn allegations.

Nonsense. Firstly, you said “I hope it never happens to you” now you add ‘this thread’ is full of also accusations. Here’s news for you, false accusations of criminal behaviour in this thread are actionable in a both civil and criminal courts of law. Secondly, the accusations of rape against the disgraced Prince Andrew are in the released court records, in the form of testimony under oath of Prince Andrew engaging in sex and group sex with minors. Sex with a minor is rape. I’ll leave you to explain what my agenda is.

If I were the subject of a false accusation I would defend myself in court and have absolutely no problem giving testimony and denials under oath. What I would not do is pay off anyone making false accusations, regardless of who’s money I had to hand to do so.