I was going to write something in long form about the Prince Andrew case but the blogger Longrider has done a far better job than I could have done. Therefore I would advise you to read Longrider’s piece on this subject. This piece is for me to point out where Longrider has got things very correct about this story. For the record Prince Andrew the Duke of York has never been my favourite member of the Royal Family, I’m much more likely to give praise for HM The Queen, the late Duke of Edinburgh or Princess Anne the Princess Royal. These members are and were far more admirable as persons than is the current Duke of York.
Whilst being praiseworthy of his service in the military during the Falklands War, I also have to accept that Prince Andrew is not exactly a likeable character. The stories I’ve heard over the years tell of his sense of self-entitlement and a man who makes bad choices with regards friends and business. To a large extent Prince Andrew comes across as a bit of an unlikeable arsehole. However as Longrider points out being unlikeable or as Longrider says being ‘a pompous arse’ is not and should not be a criminal offence.
A major pillar of the Western Anglo-Saxon justice system is that a person should be treated as not guilty of an offence unless they are proven guilty in a fair trial. There are aspects of this case that do not look to me to be completely fair. Whilst like any other respectable person I dislike paedophiles there is something iffy about ‘historic’ sexual assault allegation cases like this. The time has long passed since there would be any genuine evidence of any alleged assault. Unlike the various Islamic Rape Gang cases where there is likely to be phone evidence or other corroborative evidence to say that victim A was in the same place at the same time as perpetrator A and that perpetrator A knew that the victim was under the age of consent, or there are records of contemporaneous police complaints from the alleged victim that were ignored, there does not appear to be much in the way of similar evidence to show that Prince Andrew was an abuser. Another point is that the alleged victim in this case was above the age of consent in the UK and there seems to be little in the way of evidence, apart from the woman making the allegations, that consent was not given.
This is, as Longrider said a ‘he said she said’ case and without concrete evidence that Prince Andrew behaved in a criminal manner, it’s one that might not meet the criminal standard of proof which is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. But as Longrider pointed out this forthcoming court hearing is not a criminal trial with a criminal standard of proof required, it is a civil case where there is a much lower standard of proof needed that of ‘the balance of probabilities’. I must admit that it is troubling that the woman making the allegation is not pushing for a criminal trial with criminal standards of proof if she is so sure that what she is saying is true. Also why push for this matter to be heard in a New York court rather than a court whether civil or criminal in the UK? There are a number of aspects of this case that make me uneasy.
I fully admit that Prince Andrew has not done himself any favours. He has a long-standing reputation as a bit of a pussy hound so much so that the British Press nicknamed him ‘Randy Andy’. But being a bit promiscuous is not a criminal offence but his record of promiscuity is coming back to bite him and will be used to smear him I do not doubt. He also made a massive mistake in giving an interview on the matter of the allegations against him to the BBC and not being seen as sufficiently aggressive in his denouncements of Jeffery Epstein’s activities and proclivities. In the interview he came across pretty badly as Longrider said and showed very poor judgement in his choice to be a friend of Epstein.
Like Longrider I have some questions about the motives of the accuser in this case. Longrider said that the accuser had said that she wanted to ‘destroy’ Prince Andrew and extract so much money from him that he would be left penniless. This doesn’t strike me as being the sort of words said by someone who wants justice, this looks like the words that could be said by a vengeful gold digger.
Longrider said:
That’s not justice, that’s revenge. The justice system is supposed to be impartial with all equal before the law, not about people exacting revenge. As I said, I don’t like the man. I find him an insufferable, pompous bore and he comes across as such. Of course, not having met him in person, I could be completely wrong about him and as I said, none of this actually matters. What does matter is whether there is reliable evidence of guilt. And an alleged victim using a foreign court to sue for damages in order to extract revenge is not the route to achieve that. It says much that the accuser is not trying to go through our legal system.
If Prince Andrew’s accuser was so confident that her allegations were true then why not make a complaint to Scotland Yard or bring a civil case in the UK courts? Despite what some people may believe, the Royal Family with certain exemptions for the Monarch themselves, are not above the law but instead are subject to it.
Longrider is absolutely correct about this case and that there is a lot about it that stinks to high heaven. It’s a ‘he said she said’ case with virtually zero evidence that an offence that could be described in UK law as being of a criminal nature has taken place. Like Longrider I’m also suspicious as to why this case is being brought now so long after the alleged events? Is it because the accuser is trying to ride on the coattails of the Epstein and Maxwell cases and because she sees that the publicity that has been rightly given to these cases might help her screw some money out of Prince Andrew?
As I said at the beginning of this piece, I’m no great fan of Prince Andrew but neither am I a great fan of treating a man as being guilty of an offence without there being proper evidence to prove the accusation. I’m particular concerned that the accuser is using a legal route that requires a particularly low standard of proof especially as she is alleging criminal sexual behaviour in a US state that has a higher age of consent than that of the UK.
Prince Andrew’s private life and the choices he’s made in friendships and in business are to say the least a bit murky. But equally murky are the accusations that are being brought by the US accuser and the choice of court and evidence standard that her lawyers have made.
