RugbyRebels

Sounds like things are hotting up. Will she succumb to COVID before anyone can get anything real out of her?

I also don’t understand how there are sources claiming to have witnessed her videos of ‘prominent politicians engaging in sex with minors’ without admitting to some sort of crime themselves? I can’t really bring myself to dig in to the details though as it’s undoubtedly going to be horrific.

In a linked case, the Hungarian consul to Peru (I think) was found with 2,000 images of child porn on his computer, whereby he was immediately smuggled out of the country by the Hungarian government and sentenced in Hungary to 2 years in prison and a 540,000 forint (around £1,500) fine.

Jeez.

Did the consul not have diplomatic status?

Digby wrote:Did the consul not have diplomatic status?

Diplomatic immunity does not include child porn, as I understood. But even if it did, 2 years and a grand fine... just insanity

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Did the consul not have diplomatic status?

Diplomatic immunity does not include child porn, as I understood. But even if it did, 2 years and a grand fine... just insanity

Child porn would be a hard sell as far as core consular activity was concerned, but I don't know the consul could be prosecuted unless Hungary agreed to waive immunity. Typically being removed by the sending nation, in this case Hungary, is the action that's taken

Just as running over a kid whilst (again) driving on the wrong side of the road doesn't count as part of the core duties of a spouse of someone covered after the event by diplomatic immunity, but there's little to be done about it. There are some rare instances of forcing a sending nation to waive immunity, and some less rare instances of assassinating the individual covered by immunity

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Did the consul not have diplomatic status?

Diplomatic immunity does not include child porn, as I understood. But even if it did, 2 years and a grand fine... just insanity

There has to be an agreement that the prosecution can take place. Otherwise the offender is PNG’d and sent packing.

Not looking great for this guy...

That's just a very weird thing to say, it doesn't come close to helping him and really only makes him look worse

20 years. Hmm. Doesn't sound like a lot really but let's hope she fucking dies there.

So she goes to jail, fair enough. What about all the "guests", starting with Prince Andy. When are they going to face criminal charges?

J Dory wrote:So she goes to jail, fair enough. What about all the "guests", starting with Prince Andy. When are they going to face criminal charges?

Yep. My guess is they don’t. Too many powerful, connected, influential people involved.

There was a mention of this in the news - the US prosecutor doesn't seem to want to take this any further. Can't imagine why not?

Is that sarcasm?

Mikey Brown wrote:Is that sarcasm?

Not al all

A real shame Virginia Giuffre settled out of court with that Andrew Windsor arsehole. Sure she made a fortune and avoid the risk, but Andrew got away with it. Not found guilty of anything. Guiffre could have been a heroine of abused women but she's just another one paid off and silenced.

Sandydragon wrote:There was a mention of this in the news - the US prosecutor doesn't seem to want to take this any further. Can't imagine why not?

I imagine they found, to use the words of Sue Grey, it was not appropriate or proportionate to do so.

Their real reasons were probably similar to hers too.

cashead wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:A real shame Virginia Giuffre settled out of court with that Andrew Windsor arsehole. Sure she made a fortune and avoid the risk, but Andrew got away with it. Not found guilty of anything. Guiffre could have been a heroine of abused women but she's just another one paid off and silenced.

Hmm yes, how dare these victims not want to go through the trauma of reliving her experience in the court of law, or in some cases, risk exposure in this current political and social climate? The audacity of them.

It should never be the responsibility of the victim to do that. But the truth is: who the feck else is going to expose all these extremely powerful people.

It's one reason I've gradually changed my mind on things like the "patriarchy". These people, and they're most often men, who gain power, abuse it, and then use their power to not only subvert justice but prevent systemic change that would create a better world are pretty abominal.

cashead wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:A real shame Virginia Giuffre settled out of court with that Andrew Windsor arsehole. Sure she made a fortune and avoid the risk, but Andrew got away with it. Not found guilty of anything. Guiffre could have been a heroine of abused women but she's just another one paid off and silenced.

Hmm yes, how dare these victims not want to go through the trauma of reliving her experience in the court of law, or in some cases, risk exposure in this current political and social climate? The audacity of them.

It's her call. And not an easy risk to take. But it would have been heroic if she had, and much better for all the other victims.

cashead wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

cashead wrote: Hmm yes, how dare these victims not want to go through the trauma of reliving her experience in the court of law, or in some cases, risk exposure in this current political and social climate? The audacity of them.

It's her call. And not an easy risk to take. But it would have been heroic if she had, and much better for all the other victims.

Once again, it's not fair to put any sort of expectation or obligation on her to go through reliving the trauma of what she experienced any more than she already has, nor should it be up to anyone else to litigate the decision she made.

It's almost as if the entire system is geared against rape victims and historic cases like hers are incredibly difficult to prove, let alone get a conviction out of.

I'd imagine she was given the advice that, "Look, we can keep going, but you're almost certainly going to lose," and decided better to mar his name with him settling than to risk him spinning not proven as innocent to the public.

Puja

cashead wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

cashead wrote: Hmm yes, how dare these victims not want to go through the trauma of reliving her experience in the court of law, or in some cases, risk exposure in this current political and social climate? The audacity of them.

It's her call. And not an easy risk to take. But it would have been heroic if she had, and much better for all the other victims.

Once again, it's not fair to put any sort of expectation or obligation on her to go through reliving the trauma of what she experienced any more than she already has, nor should it be up to anyone else to litigate the decision she made.

It's almost as if the entire system is geared against rape victims and historic cases like hers are incredibly difficult to prove, let alone get a conviction out of.

She made the safe choice. It's completely understandable that she would do so. But I still wish she had done the heroic, risky thing.

It's like the Ukrainians who chose to stay and fight rather than escape the country. God knows that was the heroic, risky thing to do (much more so than the choice Giuffre faced). I don't know if I would have made that decision. But I'm glad they have.

Puja wrote:

cashead wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: It's her call. And not an easy risk to take. But it would have been heroic if she had, and much better for all the other victims.

Once again, it's not fair to put any sort of expectation or obligation on her to go through reliving the trauma of what she experienced any more than she already has, nor should it be up to anyone else to litigate the decision she made.

It's almost as if the entire system is geared against rape victims and historic cases like hers are incredibly difficult to prove, let alone get a conviction out of.

I'd imagine she was given the advice that, "Look, we can keep going, but you're almost certainly going to lose," and decided better to mar his name with him settling than to risk him spinning not proven as innocent to the public.

Puja

it was a civil case so the only outcome for her was a financial payment and a civil conviction for Andrew, which isnt a criminal one and would only have destroyed his reputation still further.

Andrews reputation couldn't get any worse.
She got a financial settlement anyway.

I completely get why she felt the deal was a good option given that any court case could be a risk.

Unless a prosecutor in the UK or US decides there is enough evidence to investigate criminal cases (can't see that happening unless Maxwell looks for a deal) then no one is going anywhere near prison.

So… that’s it then? Just a couple of lone wolves. No network, no ‘client list’, no conspiracies, just a bunch of fun holidays and no further questions.

A lot fingers pointing at Trump now, and I’m sure he’s benefited greatly from this, but you have to wonder how deep this goes.