Is there even any such condition? That sounds like a really bizarre sort of lie. Especially in response to an “accusation” of sweating in a nightclub-- Why would anyone even care if he was sweating in a nightclub?
It’s worth noting that review sites have had to suspend review submissions about the Pizza Express in Woking because… well, you know what the internet is like.
I think he was trying to call into question her truthfulness in general. If she were lying about him sweating maybe she was lying about him being with her in the nightclub.
I thought the most draw-dropping thing was when he was asked whether he regretted knowing Epstein, he said no, because he learned some valuable things about business from him.:smack: Whether you do or not, in an interview you need to say you wish you had never met the guy.
Today it was announced that the Prince was stepping down from all his Royal duties.
This comes on the back of ridicule and also a number of high profile businesses withdrawing their names/brands from his charitable enterprises. Few Universities talking of removing him from their boards.
The Queen has also withdrawn his yearly allowance of £250k from the Royal Fund. This is a big blow as his other income is a measly naval pension.
There is talk of cooperation with any FBI enquiry.
I read one newspaper article that said he is worth something like 30 million pounds. Whatever the pound is worth these days, and whatever interest rate you can get on investments, that ought to be enough to keep a sixty year old guy in luxuries for the rest of his life.
Anhidrosis is a real condition; it can be congenital or a side effect of various other issues, including diabetes, burns, and taking certain anti-psychotics.
Does it go away? Didn’t Andrew say he is now able to sweat again, or is it a miracle?
It depends on what caused the problem. If it is a reaction to medication, e.g., changing the meds will probably help; if it’s congenital, not so much. (A burst of adrenaline from the Falklands, which is what he said was the cause, is not generally recognized by the medical community as a trigger, but stress will do funny things to the human body, so I suppose it’s possible.)
Since I don’t follow this case in detail - is she alleging close encounters of the fourth kind in Florida too, or just London?
What charges could someone face for unknowingly having sex with someone who was trafficked?
See post #11.
If I had to guess, I think what UDS postulates uprthread is the likely story. It’s probable that Andrew did not know that the girl was being compelled and it very likely she did not know whether or not he knew that she was being.
Checking another article, she alleges three encounters with Andrew, one in London, one in New York, and one in the Caribbean.
The pizza thing was, he suggested, at around 4pm or 5pm.
No reason at all why he couldn’t be in Tramp nightclub later. Actual “alibi” boils down to his being at home with the children that night
If this is the case, does it matter that he didn’t know she was being trafficked or is it like statutory rape where ignorance of age is no excuse?
I’m sure in Andrew’s and the wider family’s minds will be the fate of Edward VIII. While opinion on his abdication because of his marriage was one thing that was probably mixed among the public, once his strong connection to Hitler and attraction to fascism generally became public knowledge he was royally shunned by everyone.
Andrew has had his allowance for doing his princely duties suspended, and is being disinvited from charities, boards etc. Increasingly he will not be invited when the family hangs out in the public gaze, and become the readily identifiable focal point for any discussion about whether the Royal Family has outlived its usefulness, which won’t win him any sympathy from his relatives. Not statutory sanctions, in the OP’s terms, but a pretty significant blow for a guy with few tradeable skills or assets beyond a radiant smile and family connections.
Brilliantly summed up.
It’s going to depend (a) on exactly what acts took place where, because laws on trafficking vary quite widely in ways that, say, laws on age-of-consent may not; and (b) the state of the law in that place at the time. Which, remember, is going on 20 years ago. There has been increasing public awareness, much public concern and a good deal of legislative activity in this field in the past 20 years. As far as York’s legal exposure is concerned, what matters is what the law provided in 2001 or thereabouts.
Well worth the 250,000/yr allowance cut to a person worth as much as he is, IMO.
A net worth variously reported as GBP 34 million and GBP 57 million is nothing like enough to sustain the billionaire lifestyle that he apparently believes himself entitled to - especially as a large chunk of it is tied up in residential properties which generate no income, and probably are a considerable recurring expense. Much of the suspicions about sleaze and corruption revolve around the fact that his known earnings simply cannot be reconciled with his accumulated wealth or his expensive lifestyle. The blow to him now will not simply be the loss of the income associated with his official and representative activities, but also the reduction of the networking opportunities which they created, which in turn could be leveraged in various lucrative ways.
I have trouble imagining that without any other evidence besides he-said-she-said that anything more will come of it (Think, Supreme Court nominations). It needs the testimony of someone who saw then going at it, or something similar. Frankly, the worst damage has probably been done.