“Britain’s Prince Andrew is refusing to cooperate with U.S. investigators overseeing deceased Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation, according to Manhattan’s top prosecutor.

“Contrary to Prince Andrew’s very public offer to cooperate with our investigation into Epstein’s co-conspirators, an offer that was conveyed via press release, Prince Andrew has now completely shut the door on voluntary cooperation and our office is considering its options,” U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman said at a press conference on Monday.
Neither Berman, nor his spokesman, James Margolin, would elaborate on what options are under consideration to impel Prince Andrew’s cooperation. The top Manhattan prosecutor previously noted the Duke of York’s non-involvement in the matter, saying in January that FBI had contacted the royal’s lawyers and requested to interview him. “To date, Prince Andrew has provided zero cooperation,” he said.

Andrew announced last year that he was withdrawing from his royal duties amid renewed attention of his friendship with Epstein and a woman’s claim that she had several sexual encounters with the prince, starting when she was 17.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre says that after meeting her in Florida in 2000, Epstein flew her around the world and pressured her into having sex with numerous older men, including Andrew, two senior U.S. politicians, a noted academic, wealthy financiers, and the attorney Alan Dershowitz, who is now part of President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team.

All of those men have denied the allegations.

Giuffre has said she had sex with Andrew three times at Epstein’s request, including once in London in 2001 at the home of Epstein’s girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Andrew and Maxwell have both denied any knowledge that Epstein was sexually abusing teenage girls.

The Associated Press contributed to this report”

So he should, quite happy for him to be traded for the American woman who knocked down the lad and then managed to claim diplomatic immunity.

my sentiments exactly chatty..

Here here !

Chatty and Billinge Biker I agree. Unfortunately it would set a dangerous precedent. If we abolished diplomatic immunity, the Chinese or the Russians or any other hostile country would be able to seize and imprison any of our diplomatic corps in their country whenever they fancied, holding them for ransom if they wished.

I would like to see a deal worked out, but it is unlikely. We swap the American involved in the accident in exchange for Brit Christopher Steele.

wheres the ventilators you said trump was sending liar?

According to Google, he sent the 200 requested.

Nearly every authority this side of the 'pond' says she wasn't entitled to diplomatic immunity (Her husband wasn't listed as a diplomat) and was spirited out of the country on a US Airforce aircraft before the investigation could be completed.
She has since been charged with death by dangerous driving (She has a previous driving infraction against her back in the USA for "failing to pay full time and attention")
Extradition proceedings against her were denied by the USA despite interventions from both Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab to Donald Trump for her to return to face justice (So much for the 'special relationship')
Earlier this month Interpol issued a 'Red Notice' indicating she is wanted for questioning should she ever step foot outside of the USA.

So it's less about setting a "dangerous precedent" and more of a two fingered salute from the good ol' US of A.
No country in the world could use the return of her back to Britain as an excuse to renege on the diplomatic system we have in place at the moment.

Most eloquently structured chatty.

What would be your take on the Assange situation ,always assuming you have one of course.

Personally I would tell the Yanks where to go with their extradition application of Assange especially after the above case, but we wont just like the good puppy we are we'll do what our master wants.

Well said chatty.

I don’t know who your “experts” are, Chatty, but they are dead wrong; read the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Like it or not, Mrs. Sacoolas is entitled to that immunity.

I do not blame her for leaving. Any British jury would vote unanimously and in a heartbeat for guilty charges and for the severest punishment possible for her. Osama bin Laden would stand a better chance of a fair trial in England than any American. Just look at the hatred for America on these threads and imagine their authors on a jury.

The decision not to return Mrs. Sacoolas was ultimately decided by the State Department. It is quite possible that in their findings they remembered Britain’s long, long history of not returning British murderers, spies and paedophiles to the US for trial.

As is happens one incident took place a few miles from where I live. An immigrant Irishman poisoned his American wife with a laced cocktail. It was an agonizing death that the coroner said lasted several hours. When he found the cops were on to him, he disappeared. For a year his whereabouts were a mystery. Then he confessed to his priest in Northern Ireland who promptly called the FBI to see if he could claim a reward for the information. (Priests commonly sell information learned in the confessional). The FBI said they could not arrest him on Irish soil but concocted a plan where the priest lied to the murderer that his sister was deathly ill in her home town of Bristol and he needed to fly there at once. The priest accompanied him to the airport to make sure he did not try to call his sister. (This was before cell phones). The guy arrived at Bristol, the FBI arrested him, and notified British authorities who promptly ordered him released. As far as I know, he is still happy and free somewhere in the UK. The priest still got a nice check, tho.

The 'experts' include The Washington Examiner who reported that Jonathan Sacoolas did not work for the National Security Agency thus wasn't entitled to diplomatic immunity, irrespective of what it says in the "Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations".
Specialist lawyers on Diplomatic Immunity Mark Stephens and Geoffery Robertson who advised that Sacoolas didn't qualify for it and contended diplomatic immunity no longer applied upon Sacoolas's return to her home country; therefore, it would be possible to take civil action in the US courts.
Northamptonshire Police who later on the same day they interviewed her and she mentioned immunity applied for an immunity waiver but was later told it had been declined and she had already left the country.
One person I don't regard as an 'expert' though is Steven Mnuchin Secretary Of The Treasury in Washington who when the Dunn family visited Trump in the Whitehouse was said to be in the next room standing by ready to write a cheque!

They advised that Anne Sacoolas was not entitled to diplomatic immunity, as her husband was not listed as a diplomat. Furthermore, they contended, diplomatic immunity no longer applied upon Sacoolas's return to her home country; therefore, it would be possible to take civil action in the US courts.
She should be tried.

The goalposts can be moved to suit any situation....politics...not what we can give...what can we take ? And by god...they all pee in the same pot...sacked from one position..start another tomorrow...marvellous.

Firefox. I agree. A civil trial would be the way to go.

firefox have you any other proof on the ventilators? not from a liar trump or gutter press

Google it, then ignore the headlines you don't like and find one you like, then post the 'proof' you found here. I'll wait.

Chatty:

So your diplomacy “experts’ turn out to be a newspaper reporter and a couple of left wing British lawyers of whom Stephenson’s main claim to fame it seems to me, is that he doesn’t like American military bases in England and he toured with the rock band, Pink Floyd.

Assange has been mentioned on this thread; worth noting in 2010 Robertson tried to defend Julian Assange, in extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom but failed.

I find no reports on their standing as experts on diplomacy laws. I stand by what I wrote.

In all fairness, these worthy gentlemen are correct, in Stephenson's desire, I think, to remove American military bases from England. England can certainly afford to defend itself, and in any case, new wars will not be guns and bombs but, as we have seen, creeping infiltration by the Chinese. They already have a strong voice in South America, millions of them are in - and exploiting - Africa, (they own Ethiopia for all practical purposes) , have a million Chinese in Italy - a number growing every day, and China's entre to Europe - and are already scooping up minerals from the moon in preparation for establishing a colony there. So I think the US can spend its money more wisely elsewhere, combating Chinese plans to dominate the world by 2035 with Belt and Road projects.

All you actually wrote was "read the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations"

No need to, all that gives you is the whys and wherefores, I'm not disputing those I'm disputing that she had diplomatic immunity.
You forgot to mention the Northamptinshire police force, Foreign Secretary Dominc Raab and Prime Minister Boris Johnson who I have all referred to previously has having taken steps to try and ensure she returns and faces up to her crime.
I did find your inference that if someone's "left wing" they can't be right quite comical though.

You finished your previous post with: "I agree a civil trial would be the way to go"
I wonder if you would feel the same if it was your son who was six feet under!

I stand by what I wrote.

Chatty .

Chatty

So in short, you are aware of the requirements and tenets of the long established law but you prefer an interpretation of it by Brits that supports your desire.

I wonder if you would feel the same way if a daughter of yours was involved in a traffic accident in Teheran and the Iranians wanted to try her? Think she'd get a fair trial?

Like most laws (long established or not) the 'requirements and tenants are open to interpretation (hence the multitute of rich lawyers) but in this case there is no grey area she was not entitled to diplomatic immunity!
It has nothing to do with me 'preferring' the British side if the roles where reversed I would argue for her to be extradited to America.

There's plenty of countries in the world I would try and dissuade my daughter from visiting in the first place full stop, Iran being one of them!
I am quite shocked though that you are comparing Britains judicial system (one of the most well respected in the world) and their "special relationship" with Trumps USA akin to Britains being on a par to Iran.

The worst example of the abuse of the Diplomatic Immunity system, was I think the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher, outside of the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984
The killer and weapons were taken out of this country under Diplomatic Immunity

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50334287