USA :Palace Denies Prince Andrew Sex Claims

[arista]

Claims he had a minor
to feck.


http://news.sky.com/story/1401086/palace-denies-prince-andrew-sex-claims

[Sticks]

It must be all true, because it has been officially denied

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Bernard (Yes Minister)

[arista]

Could be true
but they cannot prove it
as its USA

[erinp5]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30659629


Buckingham Palace has denied "any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors" by Prince Andrew, after he was named in US court papers.

A woman named him in documents she filed in a Florida court over how prosecutors handled a case against financier Jeffrey Epstein.

She claims that between 1999 and 2002 she was forced by Epstein to have sex with the prince when she was a minor.

The palace said it would not comment in detail on the legal proceedings.

But a Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "This relates to long-standing and ongoing civil proceedings in the United States, to which the Duke of York is not a party.

"As such we would not comment on the detail. However, for the avoidance of doubt, any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue".

[arista]

he will get away with it

[Livia]

I'llbe surprised if there's one single shred of evidence.

[kirklancaster]

Surely it is now a matter of some urgency for the law to be changed in all Democratic countries, where, if a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, then his/her identity should not be made public until - at the very least - the most rigorous of pre-charge investigations have been carried out into the merit of the allegations.

Once an identity is made public in such a manner as this, it does not matter if the person accused is comprehensively cleared of any wrongdoing and no charges are therefore brought, there are always those so ready to still believe in that person's guilt, and no one totally escapes the stigma of being wrongly accused.

Even now there are considerable numbers of people who still 'believe' that Sir Cliff Richard was "guilty of something" because "there's no smoke without fire".

[Shaun]

Have to agree with Kirk - off topic was Cliff completely cleared? Because if so it's a crying shame because I feel guilty for having that very idea ("Oh, he must be dodgy...") in my head to this day. Anonymity really should be used until they're proven guilty.

[Ninastar]

I wish the bloody media would leave these people alone until they are actually found guilty by the court.

Accusations like these can totally ruin someones lives, not to mention people jumping on the 'they abused me' bandwagon

of course its awful if it happened, but it's not anyone business until it's been agreed by the court or whatever.

[Sticks]

So when was Cliff cleared? I missed that news report, and as far as I am concerned he is still under investigation as a child molester

Identities of the accused must be made public, so other victims of the accused can come forward to assist the prosecution, that is why the identity is made public of those arrested for rape.

Getting back to topic, I was quoting from the comedy series "Yes Minister" where Bernard tells Jim Hacker, never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

[Mystic Mock]

Even if it's true he can pay the courts off.

But if his innocent then I feel sorry for him as being accused of any sex crime (especially paedophilia) is a tag that you can never get rid of.

[Ammi]

I'llbe surprised if there's one single shred of evidence.

...yep, but I'm sure that he'll be tried by the media anyway..already the pics of him are the most unflattering ones and to make people think....hmmm/he does look a bit dodgy type thing...and so may of the public are so eager to think badly with things like this...

[joeysteele]

I'llbe surprised if there's one single shred of evidence.

Yes, Here we go again it seems.

[Sticks]

Jimmy Saville will be seen as a saint in comparison... :rolleyes:

[Nedusa]

Wasn't he involved with some Porn star back in the day ?

[kirklancaster]

So when was Cliff cleared? I missed that news report, and as far as I am concerned he is still under investigation as a child molester


Yes, you’re correct Sticks; I cannot find any up-to-date news on this matter so we don’t know whether any investigation is ongoing or not, but I’m quite certain that if Cliff had been charged, or if other ‘victims’ had come forward - ‘Jimmy Savile’ style - with additional allegations, then we would most certainly have heard all about it over the past 5 months.

“Identities of the accused must be made public, so other victims of the accused can come forward to assist the prosecution that is why the identity is made public of those arrested for rape.”

I think that it absolutely essential that we distinguish between a person who has had an - as yet – unsubstantiated allegation made against him and who is therefore - as yet – still innocent, as in Cliff’s case, and someone who has been charged, tried, and proven guilty.

In Cliff’s case he has had one solitary allegation made against him for an alleged incident in 1985, with no other allegations ‘surfacing’ in the 30 years since and there was absolutely no justifiable reason to divulge his identity to the public.

The ‘case’ against anyone accused of any crime should succeed or fail on its own individual merits by proper investigation into the facts specific to that particular case, without being influenced by any other allegations.

Once such investigation has been rigorously completed, and sufficient evidence discovered which results in the alleged perpetrator being charged with the alleged offence, then - and only then – can publicising the alleged perpetrator’s identity in the interests of enticing other alleged victims to come forward, be justified.

Cliff has already suffered embarrassment and shame, and his image and legacy has been irreparably tarnished, in addition to his lively-hood adversely suffering, because his identity was revealed as a result of this allegation but, as yet, he has not been charged with anything.

[Northern Monkey]

Surely if somebody else comes forward with allegations.Then that should be a seperate case.If anybody has allegations then it is down to them to come forward on their own without media pressure.The media should not be able to print anyones name until they are found guilty.Innocent people are innocent until proven guilty,All that printing the name of innocent people does is encourage all the loonies to come out and make false allegations.

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/1/2/360422/default/v2/front3-1-720x960.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/1/2/360430/default/v1/030115-papers-daily-express-1-720x960.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/1/2/360433/default/v1/the-sun-front-page-03.01.15-3-1-720x960.jpg

[Livia]

So when was Cliff cleared? I missed that news report, and as far as I am concerned he is still under investigation as a child molester

Identities of the accused must be made public, so other victims of the accused can come forward to assist the prosecution, that is why the identity is made public of those arrested for rape.

Getting back to topic, I was quoting from the comedy series "Yes Minister" where Bernard tells Jim Hacker, never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

Hope you're never falsely accused. I really do. But if you were... it would be kind of poetic justice.

[Kizzy]

What a strange thing to say...

I hope he's innocent and despite the media nobody is as ghoulish as to want anyone to be an abuser surely?
What is the truth is that celebrities and the royal family are mere mortals and have the same deviances as the rest of us.

[user104658]

Unfortunately, in the digital / internet age anonymity is impossible without huge levels of censorship and massive controls over the flow of information (e.g. Things like Twitter / Facebook, and forums like this one, could not exist). Currently, even where anonymity is preserved, it's only preserved in the media... E.g. We all know who "the other celebrity that paid Helen Wood for sex that isn't Wayne Rooney" is. We're not allowed to say it, but we all know anyway, because Google. This information gets out whether it's "supposed to" or not. In many cases, that's a good thing.

As awful as it is, I don't think mass censorship is a price worth paying. Not for anything. Let alone to stop a few potentially false allegations.

[Livia]

Unfortunately, in the digital / internet age anonymity is impossible without huge levels of censorship and massive controls over the flow of information (e.g. Things like Twitter / Facebook, and forums like this one, could not exist). Currently, even where anonymity is preserved, it's only preserved in the media... E.g. We all know who "the other celebrity that paid Helen Wood for sex that isn't Wayne Rooney" is. We're not allowed to say it, but we all know anyway, because Google. This information gets out whether it's "supposed to" or not. In many cases, that's a good thing.

As awful as it is, I don't think mass censorship is a price worth paying. Not for anything. Let alone to stop a few potentially false allegations.

Keeping someone's name out of the press until they are found guilty is not censorship. If they're going to name suspects because they're famous, then they should name everyone who is accused of anything. We are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.

[joeysteele]

So when was Cliff cleared? I missed that news report, and as far as I am concerned he is still under investigation as a child molester

Identities of the accused must be made public, so other victims of the accused can come forward to assist the prosecution, that is why the identity is made public of those arrested for rape.

Getting back to topic, I was quoting from the comedy series "Yes Minister" where Bernard tells Jim Hacker, never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

Cliff wasn't cleared in any sense of the word because it would appear,there is nothing for him to answer for never mind be cleared of anything.

He had his home searched after an allegation from someone, he then in his own time, visited the Police station and talked to them they let him go with no bail or charges or dates to talk to him again.

Therefore,it would seem to be a non starter anyway, he,it is rumoured,is threatening to sue over this issue,(I hope he does), and really it does bring into question any info going out as to police activities concerning someone after allegations are made.

The sad thing is allegations,even untrue and unfounded ones, cause immeasurable stress and inconvenience to people who likely have not done anything to answer for anyway.
I think that is the case with Cliff and it really does no service whatsoever to genuine cases of abuse when people come forawrd with false allegations.

I also believe, this with Prince Andrew will also turn out to be unfounded and it is really annoying that people get dragged through the mud in the press, when it is far from certain that there is even any reason to be reporting on the issue anyway, at a particular time.

[kirklancaster]

Cliff wasn't cleared in any sense of the word because it would appear,there is nothing for him to answer for never mind be cleared of anything.

He had his home searched after an allegation from someone, he then in his own time, visited the Police station and talked to them they let him go with no bail or charges or dates to talk to him again.

Therefore,it would seem to be a non starter anyway, he,it is rumoured,is threatening to sue over this issue,(I hope he does), and really it does bring into question any info going out as to police activities concerning someone after allegations are made.

The sad thing is allegations,even untrue and unfounded ones, cause immeasurable stress and inconvenience to people who likely have not done anything to answer for anyway.
I think that is the case with Cliff and it really does no service whatsoever to genuine cases of abuse when people come forawrd with false allegations.

I also believe, this with Prince Andrew will also turn out to be unfounded and it is really annoying that people get dragged through the mud in the press, when it is far from certain that there is even any reason to be reporting on the issue anyway, at a particular time.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[Kazanne]

Cliff wasn't cleared in any sense of the word because it would appear,there is nothing for him to answer for never mind be cleared of anything.

He had his home searched after an allegation from someone, he then in his own time, visited the Police station and talked to them they let him go with no bail or charges or dates to talk to him again.

Therefore,it would seem to be a non starter anyway, he,it is rumoured,is threatening to sue over this issue,(I hope he does), and really it does bring into question any info going out as to police activities concerning someone after allegations are made.

The sad thing is allegations,even untrue and unfounded ones, cause immeasurable stress and inconvenience to people who likely have not done anything to answer for anyway.
I think that is the case with Cliff and it really does no service whatsoever to genuine cases of abuse when people come forawrd with false allegations.

I also believe, this with Prince Andrew will also turn out to be unfounded and it is really annoying that people get dragged through the mud in the press, when it is far from certain that there is even any reason to be reporting on the issue anyway, at a particular time.

Agreed Joey,it must be awful to live with the stigma of abuse if you are innocent,some people make their minds up at the first mention of a name,for example,Cliff will always have this hanging over him now,jokes will be made and it's so unfair if someone is innocent,is it so hard for the press to keep their mouths shut until at least after anything is confirmed?

[user104658]

Keeping someone's name out of the press until they are found guilty is not censorship. If they're going to name suspects because they're famous, then they should name everyone who is accused of anything. We are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law.

No, but like I was saying (...in the entirety of the rest of my post...) "the press" is a dying medium and "news" (gossip, hear say, whatever you might call it) now gets around by a multitude of other means... so whether or not people are named in the press, people know who it is anyway. Whether or not it's in the papers is sort of moot, if it's all over social networking and freely available with a quick google search. I used the example of the "un-named Helen Wood punter from a BBC drama", who can't be named but we all know who it is. Another would be Rolf Harris, who was identified online months before his name was released, in the press he was being listed as "a famous person of a certain age". Everyone knew it was Rolf.

My point is that this would be all over the internet whether or not it was "allowed" to be in the printed press, and that already, a large number of people get most of their knowledge of world events online. As the generations roll on (easily within the next two), the printed press will be all but obsolete anyway. And you can't keep this sort of thing out of the "online grape vine" without a huge and unprecedented effort to "censor the internet". Which would be fundamentally damaging, for everyone.

[Northern Monkey]

Cliff wasn't cleared in any sense of the word because it would appear,there is nothing for him to answer for never mind be cleared of anything.

He had his home searched after an allegation from someone, he then in his own time, visited the Police station and talked to them they let him go with no bail or charges or dates to talk to him again.

Therefore,it would seem to be a non starter anyway, he,it is rumoured,is threatening to sue over this issue,(I hope he does), and really it does bring into question any info going out as to police activities concerning someone after allegations are made.

The sad thing is allegations,even untrue and unfounded ones, cause immeasurable stress and inconvenience to people who likely have not done anything to answer for anyway.
I think that is the case with Cliff and it really does no service whatsoever to genuine cases of abuse when people come forawrd with false allegations.

I also believe, this with Prince Andrew will also turn out to be unfounded and it is really annoying that people get dragged through the mud in the press, when it is far from certain that there is even any reason to be reporting on the issue anyway, at a particular time.
Exactly.Well said:clap1:

[Gstar]

He has aged so much :o look at his teeth

[Ammi]

No, but like I was saying (...in the entirety of the rest of my post...) "the press" is a dying medium and "news" (gossip, hear say, whatever you might call it) now gets around by a multitude of other means... so whether or not people are named in the press, people know who it is anyway. Whether or not it's in the papers is sort of moot, if it's all over social networking and freely available with a quick google search. I used the example of the "un-named Helen Wood punter from a BBC drama", who can't be named but we all know who it is. Another would be Rolf Harris, who was identified online months before his name was released, in the press he was being listed as "a famous person of a certain age". Everyone knew it was Rolf.

My point is that this would be all over the internet whether or not it was "allowed" to be in the printed press, and that already, a large number of people get most of their knowledge of world events online. As the generations roll on (easily within the next two), the printed press will be all but obsolete anyway. And you can't keep this sort of thing out of the "online grape vine" without a huge and unprecedented effort to "censor the internet". Which would be fundamentally damaging, for everyone.

...yeah I agree that it wouldn't stop internet speculation etc the same as if it was compared to a local new story and people would speculate and indeed some would know who that person was/and gossip etc.. but that person still wouldn't be allowed to be officially named... and why should anyone famous/in the public eye.. have any lesser rights..because as Liv said, we are all equal in the eyes of the law and should be treated as such and that's far from being censorship, surely it's the exact opposite in a way...I just don't think that we can say...oh well, they would be known anyway..and that be a reason for it being allowed for their names to be published when charges haven't even been brought against them...

[kirklancaster]

No, but like I was saying (...in the entirety of the rest of my post...) "the press" is a dying medium and "news" (gossip, hear say, whatever you might call it) now gets around by a multitude of other means... so whether or not people are named in the press, people know who it is anyway. Whether or not it's in the papers is sort of moot, if it's all over social networking and freely available with a quick google search. I used the example of the "un-named Helen Wood punter from a BBC drama", who can't be named but we all know who it is. Another would be Rolf Harris, who was identified online months before his name was released, in the press he was being listed as "a famous person of a certain age". Everyone knew it was Rolf.

My point is that this would be all over the internet whether or not it was "allowed" to be in the printed press, and that already, a large number of people get most of their knowledge of world events online. As the generations roll on (easily within the next two), the printed press will be all but obsolete anyway. And you can't keep this sort of thing out of the "online grape vine" without a huge and unprecedented effort to "censor the internet". Which would be fundamentally damaging, for everyone.

I believe that it also 'fundamentally damaging' to continue to allow certain vile websites and individuals to make the most vicious attacks on people and peddle deliberate lies on the internet without some form of official concerted effort to close them down and punish them.

Democratic 'Free Speech' and 'Informed Opinion' is one thing, but undemocratic, unjust, and unpalatable, malicious slander and libel against innocent people, is wholly another.

The internet is a truly great innovation which is invaluable, but it is also the refuge of evil and very psychologically disturbed entities who inflict very real damage on innocent people and their families with their spewing of evil unsubstantiated bile against them, and this criminality should not be tolerated.

I have seen websites which contain comprehensive, well written and compelling articles which would have us believe that Cliff Richard was Lord Boothby's gay lover, Ronnie Kray's gay lover, that Cliff was actively involved in the murder of Jill Dando, and that Cliff has already been arrested for counts of pedophilia but that intervention by MI5 had forced the police to drop charges and destroy all documentation and 'evidence'.

The same horse**** website states that Tony Blair is a cross-dressing paedo who attended sordid parties with his cross dressing paedo friend Cliff where they .... Yawn. ZZZZ.

The point is, that this - and other poison pen articles on other sites - are written in such an authoritative style with photos and other quasi - authentic evidence, that many 'mentally dim' readers are going to be convinced of the truth of the lies, and come away to repeat such dross. And as 'birds of a feather flock together' their equally as 'mentally dim' cronies listening to the BS, are going to go away and repeat and embroider the 'facts' to their equally as 'mentally dim' cronies.

Before you can say 'Freedom of Speech' huge numbers of people are saying the same things so it must be true.

[arista]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/03/article-2895735-2465B45F00000578-448_964x429.jpg
Virginia Roberts, whose story was first uncovered in 2007
She told extraordinary story of three years working for billionaire Epstein
Said that she was paid to give erotic massages to tycoon and associates

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895735/The-account-masseuse-centre-explosive-Prince-Andrew-sex-slave-drama-telling-truth.html#ixzz3NqGj77oC


Virginia honey
are you Sure you knew who was Up You
back then?

[Kizzy]

She was 17 so not that long ago to remember, if you're judged by the company you keep then for a prince Epstein the convicted peadophile was not the wisest choice.

[kirklancaster]

...yeah I agree that it wouldn't stop internet speculation etc the same as if it was compared to a local new story and people would speculate and indeed some would know who that person was/and gossip etc.. but that person still wouldn't be allowed to be officially named... and why should anyone famous/in the public eye.. have any lesser rights..because as Liv said, we are all equal in the eyes of the law and should be treated as such and that's far from being censorship, surely it's the exact opposite in a way...I just don't think that we can say...oh well, they would be known anyway..and that be a reason for it being allowed for their names to be published when charges haven't even been brought against them...

:clap1: More sense there Ammi as usual.

[arista]

She was 17 so not that long ago to remember, if you're judged by the company you keep then for a prince Epstein the convicted peadophile was not the wisest choice.


Yes in Florida
thats a minor


And the Prince, of course
will claim he did not know about
Epstein's private life.

[bots]

The problem is that there has been an establishment cover up regarding senior figures and minors for years. We are now seeing the backlash to that unfolding. It is likely to dominate the news in 2015. With regard to the said prince, there have been rumours circulating about his behaviour for more than 20 years already, so at the very least he has been completely naive in his choice of friends

[Nedusa]

The problem is that there has been an establishment cover up regarding senior figures and minors for years. We are now seeing the backlash to that unfolding. It is likely to dominate the news in 2015. With regard to the said prince, there have been rumours circulating about his behaviour for more than 20 years already, so at the very least he has been completely naive in his choice of friends

I even heard a malicious and extremely distressing rumour that he once had a serious relationship with a "Ginger" , Urrugghhh !!!!

[bots]

I even heard a malicious and extremely distressing rumour that he once had a serious relationship with a "Ginger" , Urrugghhh !!!!

:joker::joker: I won't even start on some of the rumours relating to Ginger :laugh:

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/1/4/360749/default/v1/mail-1-720x960.jpg

[MB.]

I mean... I'm not going to say anything about what the background of that photo looks like, but...

[Kizzy]

:joker: :joker: :joker:

[the truth]

it should all remain 100% anonymous until a prson is charged

[arista]

it should all remain 100% anonymous until a person is charged


Sure
but its out of the bag now

[lostalex]

He probably did it. Shame on him.

[Niamh.]

The problem is that there has been an establishment cover up regarding senior figures and minors for years. We are now seeing the backlash to that unfolding. It is likely to dominate the news in 2015. With regard to the said prince, there have been rumours circulating about his behaviour for more than 20 years already, so at the very least he has been completely naive in his choice of friends

Yeah that's the otherside of it of course, the same thing has been happening with all the child abuse by priests who would have been almost above the law over here up until recently

[Crimson Dynamo]

i could care less about him

[Niamh.]

couldn't*

[Crimson Dynamo]

couldn't*

i could care less about him couldn't

[Niamh.]

That's better

[kirklancaster]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/03/article-2895735-2465B45F00000578-448_964x429.jpg
Virginia Roberts, whose story was first uncovered in 2007
She told extraordinary story of three years working for billionaire Epstein
Said that she was paid to give erotic massages to tycoon and associates

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895735/The-account-masseuse-centre-explosive-Prince-Andrew-sex-slave-drama-telling-truth.html#ixzz3NqGj77oC

Virginia honey
are you Sure you knew who was Up You
back then?

:clap1::clap1::clap1::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: True and funny Arista.

[kirklancaster]

it should all remain 100% anonymous until a prson is charged

Well said Truth as usual.

[Nedusa]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/1/4/360749/default/v1/mail-1-720x960.jpg

The Duke of York (above) strenuously denies he has had 10,000 men.





.

[kirklancaster]

The Duke of York (above) strenuously denies he has had 10,000 men.

.

:joker::joker::joker: Very witty Nedusa.

[Northern Monkey]

The Duke of York (above) strenuously denies he has had 10,000 men.





.

:joker::laugh:

[jennyjuniper]

When they say 'underage', how old was this young woman? I ask because underage in Britain is under 16, in the US I believe it's 18.
Not that I agree with anyone of any age being forced to have sex, but the US can be very hypocritical about some things. Having sex with a 17 year old is wrong, yet they imprison children in adult institutions (and they don't imagine those children are going to be abused??)

[kirklancaster]

I'm sorry - and I know that I'm going to receive the Forum equivalent of 'Hate Mail' for this - but I equate this particular case to the painted, vacuous, gold-digging sluts who allow themselves to be picked up by 'high-profile' married Footballers/Actors/Pop Stars in fashionable nightclubs, then go on to service their every sexual whim no matter how deviant, during everything from 'one night stands' to lengthy 'mistress' type relationships, welcoming and enjoying all the trappings of the wealthy lifestyle such relationships afford, only then to 'weep and wail' of how they've been 'used and abused' in sensational 'kiss and tell' articles sold for huge fees to the gutter press once their married 'boyfriends' terminate the relationship.

Innocent young girls who are abducted, then spirited away and forcibly kept drugged and imprisoned in Eastern European closed brothels - Liam Neeson 'Taken' style - are one thing, this is altogether another.

In My Opinion.

[Alf]

2015 this thread. Tibb was ahead of the times.

New York Times are today reporting that prosecuters and the FBI want to interview Randy Andy about Epstien. He has not yet responded to the request.

[bots]

The Duke of York has provided "zero cooperation" over the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking inquiry, a US prosecutor has said.

His lawyers have been contacted by prosecutors and the FBI, who want to interview him, according to US Attorney Geoffrey Berman.

Prince Andrew has said he did not see or suspect any suspicious behaviour when visiting Epstein's homes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51271871

[arista]

https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/jQ_gL8ApBnILR50U0D7rlA/https/media.fyre.co/KQdr9oFrSqGyytROislA_mirror.PNG

[arista]

https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/2uqMcHOBr4Yx4CCIL5gatg/https/media.fyre.co/ccksdhrzTmuV65kXKdm0_mail.PNG

[Alf]

Crimes of the 70s?

I bet they don't mention Jimmy Saville in it. They look after their own.

[arista]

https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/N4IikWkrx3Slt4aPEHun2w/https/media.fyre.co/hMtvS3OQVrFa3vzSXYdQ_sun.PNG

[arista]

https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/G_U0xGTjiC_fOKfIuHtZmA/https/media.fyre.co/R6Q7bmwPSk6ouzbYr6cg_tele.PNG

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/13E32/production/_110685418_dailyexpress.jpg