QUEEN STRIPS ANDREW OF HRH TITLE
is Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, now in
her platinum year at the age of 95. Charles and William are next in line
to the throne, as Kings in waiting. Prince Andrew would have been a
contender, but that is now not a possibility, even if he is vindicated,
as the sex scandal involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell has
rocked the credibility of the Royals, trial by media.
Following a disastrous year for the Monarchy in 2021, in 2022, things took more of a downturn, with District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruling that Virginia Guiffre's claim of non-consensual sex with Prince Andrew may proceed, in the wake of Jeffrey Epstein's conviction as a pedophile, and Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction of sex trafficking. All this in the lead up to the Queen's Platinum Jubilee.
In a shock decision by Buckingham Palace, the Queen took the extraordinary step of stripping the Duke of York of his 'HRH' title and military honours. Some may see this as a pre-emptive measure, suspecting that a guilty verdict might result from the allegations, but anyway you look at it, the steer is plain, the Palace is taking steps to protect the Monarchy, by removing his royal name. In so doing it prevents Ms Guiffre from obtaining an Order against a royal, where he now continues to fight the civil case as a private citizen.
In a civil claim the standard of proof is "on the balance of probabilities," whereas in a criminal court it used to be "beyond all reasonable doubt." That was until the changes in the law brought about by David Blunkett with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, who was made a 'Lord' for that little gem of human rights abuses - all designed to increase the conviction rate, by dashing the rights of the innocent under Article 6, so increasing the number of (men in particular) being wrongfully convicted.
Added to those HR wrongs, the Crown failed to ensure a safety net, indeed, cut the ropes to that net, by excluding Article 13 from domestic legislation: Human Rights Act 1998. Thus, preventing injustices from being corrected, and in effect, doing to those unfortunates, what may happen to Andrew, making them exiles from normal commercial enterprise, by tarnishing their character forever. The Royals in taking the extraordinary step of cutting Andrew off, have shown that they know how damaging such allegations can be. But now imagine being wrongly convicted, and having no avenue back to any Court to look again at how a conviction was obtained.
What this means, is that if Andrew were to be tried in the UK for rape, he would be convicted, unless, he could roundly disprove the allegation. The former Prince has an advantage over the ordinary man, in the he is not reliant on Legal Aid. Because, if he were, he'd find that limitations prevented even the basic right to independent forensic medical evidence.
With such an unbalanced justice system in the UK and it appears, in the US, you may consider it is unsafe for men to put themselves in positions of jeopardy, in having sexual relations, or any kind of social interaction, where a claim of assault or rape might be fabricated. The latest technology may come to the rescue, in the form of sex dolls. Life size replicas of women and men, complete with skeletons to mimic human positions, warm skin and fully functional (lubricated washable and hygienic) sexual organs (vaginas, penis, anus, mouth). And get this, the latest offerings have artificial intelligence (AI) so they can talk to their human owners. This would constitute 'risk-free' sexual relief, until such time as robots acquire legal rights. Or they introduce a sex tax.
Think also on the reduction in unwanted teenage (and other) pregnancies - as population birth control. You might imagine that having lobbied for virtual witch trials in sex cases, that women's lobbies would object strongly to Fembots - and you'd be right! They hate the idea, especially prostitutes. Held to be the oldest trade in the world.
Prostitution could cease or reduce, with brothels being filled with a choice of hygienic Fembots. There would be no chance of catching the clap, or other infectious diseases. The operators of these houses would not be classed as pimps or madams, and nobody could be prosecuted for sex trafficking. Okay, so you might think a lot of women would be out of work. But there is nothing stopping them operating sex salons. Then women might get lonely and want a companion (same for men) but they could get themselves a synthetic male to AI abuse.
As women's right is all about equality and opportunities, they cannot argue that if is unfair they may have to work to support themselves. Because, in the modern world we have created, an ordinary working couple needs two incomes to stand any chance of ever owning a home of their own. By promoting synthetic companions, we may be taking away to opportunity to claim rape, but we are also creating a fairer society, with fewer traps for the unwary. On that basis, sexbots should be available on the NHS, and part of the sustainability agenda or the United Nations.
ROYALS GALLERY 2018
A TO Z OF ROYAL FAMILY MEMBERS
Andrew Duke of York, Prince
Beatrice of York, Princess
Charlotte of Cambridge, Princess
Edward Earl of Wessex, Prince
Elizabeth Queen II Windsor
Eugenie of York, Princess
George of Cambridge, Prince
Louis of Cambridge, Prince
LINKS & REFERENCE