DaLa

I’m sure the ability to backdate or create the necessary documents for him exists. A similar method the US had for Anne Sacoolas.

Prince Andrew being in the nightclub supports Ms Roberts stating he was in the nightclub. Absolutely nothing else. If that is all the support she needs to prove her case then there’s going to be some interesting claims through legal action in the future.

I will readily admit I am ‘someone else’ that doesn’t know how extradition treaties work. The post was placed without that knowledge as a throw away to the situation with a US citizen that has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving and has mysteriously been able to avoid facing a criminal court in the UK. The main point of my post was that we supposedly have a treaty with the US, highlighted by the reduction of 1 country from the list. Someone else that knows what others don’t and cant be bothered to let us in on the secret. I’m all ears and willing to listen to your profound knowledge.

At least she is now being referred to as a ‘minor’ and not a child. So lets just remind people , a child is a biological human between the time of birth and puberty. A minor is a person who is under the age of majority. Minors are considered to be under the care of a parent or guardian. If Ms Roberts had been under the care of a parent or guardian presumably she wouldn’t have been travelling the world unaccompanied. In my view if Prince Andrew did have relations with her he would have known she wasn’t a child and as she was unaccompanied he would have also known she wasn’t a minor. Presumably he believed quite reasonably that she was an adult.

I believe (and would hope) that would be the case in the UK, but the US is the most litigious country in the world. One of the great aspects of running a business in los is that if someone comes in our shop and trips over something I don’t have to worry that a letter from Bloodsuckers, Grabbers and Hush LLP is going to land on my doorstep sometime in the next 20 years. Or even worse I don’t have a sticker on a chair leg advising customers ‘DO NOT BEAT YOURSELF OVER THE HEAD WITH THIS CHAIR LEG’ and they sue me because I didn’t warn them. I know a lot of these anecdotes are false, worryingly however is that many are not and the legal profession would love to see an expansion of their workloads. Now about Randy Andy, the case should be thrown out if this label ever enters into the proceedings. It shows complete prior bias alone and is nothing more than a headline grabber, journalists would have never used the label Randy Frederick or Randy Theodore, it just suited their schoolboy level of humour. One sad aspect of this, having being involved in a prolonged legal case involving the death of a family member is that the legal process is going to be more stressful and painful than the pain of the claim she is making. Don’t worry the lawyers won’t be losing any sleep if they lose the case, I presume they have discussed their get out clause; that is they ‘believe’ she has a 51% chance of winning.

Thank you for admitting your error on that point ; perhaps you'll also admit that you are disappointed to learn that he can't be charged with a criminal offence. I will admit I do not know of the financial position of any assets Prince Andrew holds in the US, and I presume you do not know either. Either way we have it covered , it's amazing how a backdated or fake diplomatic title can resolve important issues such as this. The US government have proved this. Probably easier than a fake rape allegation, which as we appear to be taking sides here as well as discussing the legal issues, I submit is the case. I don't know either party and I don't know the true facts in this case, but for sure I know the reason for the claim is purely a potential financial gain for both Ms Roberts and her legal team. My only interest in this is to ensure that there remains a clear demarcation between true rape allegations and ‘you humped me 3 times and didn’t marry me’ type of claim. That and saving the planet from lawyers who are acting totally in self interest and creating a world where it's impossible to conduct business or personal relationships without the fear that someone is going to be after your wealth 20 years down the road.

I agree with just about every sentence in your post KhaoYai and fail to understand how some of the other (presumably male) commenters in this case don’t see the dangerous implications of what could become a legal precedent. Back to your original post and the question was more about the legal issues. Here’s 3: Firstly he will claim that due to the amount of pre-trial publication and the obvious nationality bias that a fair trial can not be expected under the circumstances. Case dismissed. Next…. Some have speculated that he will be charged with a criminal offence...read this: Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. And The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. (Refer to Thomas Jefferson, 1813) Which is presumably why there is no criminal charge being made by the authorities in the US. Now if Ms Money Grabber and team win and she is awarded a financial settlement (careful for what you wish for here) this is how I see it being played out: Prince Andrew does not hold any assets in the US, thus Bloodsuckers, Grabbers and Hush LLP will make a claim through the UK courts via the Transatlantic Litigation process. Documents will be served with the heading Regina v Prince Andrew Windsor Now obviously the Queen never personally attends any case. She is represented by the CPS. Unfortunately no one at the CPS attends on her behalf and Queeni is too busy with the dogs etc. Prince Andrew Windsor turns up in court and the case is thrown out by the judge as the plaintiff didn’t present. Bye bye Bloodsuckers and whilst you’re travelling back to the US (cattle class I hope) look up the definition of the word ‘child’.

Apologies Rob, I didn’t read the BBC link you provided. I prefer to obtain my information from research papers rather than journalists. Either way you agree then that it is possible for Ms Roberts to have been influential in the proceedings between her and Prince Andrew. If you have read my posts you will notice I have not once stated that I believe Prince Andrew is innocent, but there are a few on here that fervently believe he is guilty. So, guilty as you believe, of what? Her lawyers have filed a lawsuit specifying that she was forced to have intercourse with Prince Andrew and the charges include ‘rape in the first degree’. I hope someone (all) the jurors look closely at that picture of them together and compare it with that of true rape victims and see how ridiculous the claim is. This action devalues the word, the same as the current media and generations have devalued the word racist. I trust they all see through the appeal to pity the lawyers have used when they refer to her as a child. I know that her lawyers will know that the youngest female to give birth was 5 years 7 months old, and using the word child is incorrect in this case as a child is defined biologically as a human between birth and puberty. If she wins this case then look out anyone with a few cents in their pockets for some money grabber with an ambulance chasing lawyer to come knocking at your door.

Whilst I agree with a great deal of your post , will you also consider that manipulation in relationships is not purely a 100% male trait. In fact playing the victim is one of the signs of manipulation and a standard get out for not taking responsibility for one's actions. A study by Andrew J Durbin on Sex and Gender Differences in Tactics of Influence, full paper here https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1991.68.2.635?journalCode=prxa found that half of the manipulative methods reported were used equally by both sexes in a study of 292 men and 231 women. Ale

Let me explain my position which simply places lawyers (especially ambulance chasers) below that of royalty; in fact pretty well at the bottom of any barrel. Nothing like using an appeal to pity in an argument to strengthen your case. This ‘child’ you refer to, 17 year old ‘child’ that apparently passed for 21, knew exactly what territory she was in and never entered a complaint against Prince Andrew at the time. My ex-wife was a school teacher and taught hundreds of post and pre-pubescent young children (girls) and will testify how manipulative and aware of their sexual power they are even at that age. Then they have another 5-7 years to master the art. Once your ‘child’ as you refer to her has been around a few luxuries they are just trading sexual favours. It’s a sad day when a label can be applied to anyone years after an incident when the real victims never get a say. In many other countries this wouldn’t even have raised an eyebrow. US, home to litigation, drink some coffee and then complain it’s too hot. The US where presumably there’s not enough legal work for Lawyers presently so they have to create extra by extending the statute of limitations. It would be interesting to know what terms her lawyers are on or are they involved because of their altruistic values? Why not go back 200 years and look at all the other injustices that took place in history and create even more lucrative work? I look back at when I was younger and there are probably a few women that could claim I abused them, but of course I’m not royalty and I don’t have a pot of money or assets in the US. This is nothing more than a money grab, she obviously didn’t get paid enough originally. Prince Andrew’s reputation is harmed regardless and many Brits are anti-royal. I have no side in this other than what I would consider to be fairness so I sincerely hope he gives her and her lawyers the run round and doesn’t pay a cent. Hopefully Prince Andrew is either withdrawing his US assets or placing them in trust so they can’t be touched.

The case against Anne Sacoolas wasn’t a private law suit. She was charged with causing death by dangerous driving, a criminal charge for which she (with the backing of the US government) refuses to answer. If the case in the US against Prince Andrew takes place and Ms Giuffre wins, firstly good luck trying to enforce the judgment ( https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-publications/latest-news/2019/transatlantic-litigation-enforcing-us-judgments-in-england-and-wales ) and further more he should ignore any settlement proposed. Anne Sacoolas should be placed on an extradition list of as many countries as the UK have a treaty with which I believe is around 116, or 115 if you discount the US.

Whilst governments have been making the decisions and advising telling us how to go about our business and lives for the last 20 months, has the pain been shared out equitably. My view is there are 3 types of individual involved. The first category are, surprise ,surprise, politicians. This group also includes anyone working for the government including police, army, etc. Then included in this group are the large corporations: oil companies, insurance companies, supermarket chains and anyone else the government deem to be essential. This group have had their salaries dividends, pensions and bonuses paid and have been largely (finacially) unaffected by the pandemic. The next group are the employed. Choose whatever career / job you wish from a long list and some of this group have had various financial assistance. In some countries eg the UK I understand that was up to 80% for sitting at home. Now some have also been made redundant and have no income whatsoever. This group are missing some or all of their income which is obviously a blow. Finally there are the millions of small businesses that are not being paid as per group 1 but have lost their income like group 2 . But unlike group 2 when you operate a business you have overheads and they do not stop and have not stopped . In a nutshell they are losing money. They are then forced to meet those overheads at the same time as being forced to not operate. Equitable ? We ( Thai wife and Brit) have been running an Export/Import business here for 9 years and had recently bought land and built a 400 Sq M shop and 6 bed house. We're committed, losing money and to answer your question no help either from the UK or Thai governments. Having made that final statement please refer back to my opening paras.

I stand corrected, it wasn't the policeman but someone eating. I was a few yards further back and the policeman was the next person to approach her and pin her down.

I had just walked down the travelator from the supermarket upstairs when I witnessed this. The Thais don't need an alarm, just 3 or 4 of them screaming at about 130dB, then 3 or 4 other shop owners took chase and a policeman in the eating area took her down. If this had been the UK it would have taken the police hours to turn up and then another 2 hours to take a statement all to no avail. The police take a lot of flak here, but being heavy in numbers floating around does pay dividends in incidents such as this.

I would be interested if anyone can correct me on the t's and c's of insurance contracts in los. I was a manager for one of the largest insurance (assurance) companies in the UK and claims don't work as suggested by some. One of the classic conspiracy theories with regard to 9/11 was that Silverstein had the WT centre flattened so he could walk away with a nice fat cheque courtesy of his insurers. Unfortunately that theory fails on the basis that insurance companies will only re-instate your loss , put you back to a place you were before the 'incident'. They will want to see ( as in the case of the WTC) a replacement and will only fund such, usually by stage payments. I'll welcome any correction on this, he received $4.6 Billion in insurance but the re-build is up towards $20 Billion. I doubt very much that insurance companies ( maybe international) will just send a cheque to the owners of Nashaa.

Just had another thought. Try the Eric Clapton solution. George ( Harrison) isn't here any longer to give his side of the story but a quick phone call to Eric should render you some good advice. I believe he started with a number one worldwide song that he wrote for Patty. I'm not suggesting you rip off Eric's song but I'll try to help and tell you it's in the key of 'G' and only has 5 chords. So pretty basic really. I don't know if this will effect the outcome, but Patty was blonde and presumably your 'LOVE' will have dark hair, so bear that in mind with the lyrics.

I had recently taken a break from Aseannow forum as since the Brexit debate concluded, all that was left was Covid. So I had a few days watching the puddles dry on my Moo Bahn. My interest has finally been revived with this post. What the op should do is imagine he has finally hooked up with his 'LOVE' and fast forward 5 years when she starts to limit conjugal activity, spends money on ridiculous unnecessary items and nags for him to fix all the things she's broken. Then the novelty will wear off.

Hi wine lovers. I don't know if this is a 1 off, but I went into my local Big C a few days ago and found a bottle of Australian white for 200 Baht. It's basically a Chardonnay and obviously not in any way a 'special' occasion drink, it was palatable enough. What I would call a 'glugging' wine, better than a lot of French table wine I've had in the past and certainly better than some of the home (Thai) production.