News Forum - Prince Andrew asks sexual assault case be dismissed in US court

[JohninDublin]

4 hours ago, Stonker said:

You've missed a small but key part: it's only valid if "the court had jurisdiction under English rules".

They don't.

Why do I think he's defending the case?

My guess would be because he'd sooner wriggle out of it than have his sexual history and preferences discussed in public, but I prefer not to speculate as I don't know.

 

4 hours ago, Stonker said:

 

But you have no problem speculating on something else you don't know. Which rules of jurisdiction do you think have been breached. Did you not see the title of the article itself: Enforcement of US Court Judgments in England. And if you missed that, did you see the part which read

"Jurisdiction English courts will normally recognize a foreign court’s jurisdiction to pronounce a judgment capable of recognition and enforcement in England if either: 

At the time the proceedings were commenced, the defendant was present in the country of the foreign court;

or  If the defendant submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court, either by agreement or by taking part in the proceedings".?

BTW, your explanation of why you believe he might be defending the case, holds no water. By going to court, his sexual history and preferences will be discussed in public, and that is notwithstanding that the view that the public have of him already is beyond rehabilitation. 

[Rookiescot]

29 minutes ago, Transam said:

I thought near all the Royals did their bit at some time in the military.

Did you forget Andy doing his bit in the Falklands.....?......

Yes they all have to serve in the military but few see conflict. Phil the Greek, Andrew and Harry being the exceptions.

I saw a picture a while back of William and Harry in their dress uniforms. William had more medals than Harry.

[Rookiescot]

11 hours ago, Stonker said:

If true, which I find extremely unlikely as nothing about this rings true, he should never have been on the square. 

Indeed he should never have been on the square but it was maximum attendance and the MO was not handing out any light duties that week.

I have other anecdotes about Princess Anne but you will simply dismiss those as well so pointless posting them.

[Stonker]

4 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Indeed he should never have been on the square but it was maximum attendance and the MO was not handing out any light duties that week.

I have other anecdotes about Princess Anne but you will simply dismiss those as well so pointless posting them.

I'm not "dismissing" it, but having been on quite a few parades with assorted royal inspecting officers, foreign and domestic, some of whom I've accompanied, and held more than a few OC's and CO's orders dishing out "awards" (as fines and jail time are euphemistically known), none of it is remotely credible in any way and it's just the normal anecdotal nonsense passed down by 'old sweats'.

If it was a battalion Scale A Parade, considerable numbers would still have been needed for guards and duties elsewhere around the area, off the square, who would have been the sick, lame, lazy and gungy.

If she / any inspecting officer had "said to the CO this man needs medical attention. Please see him off the square" that would have been open criticism of the CO in front of his battalion for failing to do his job, as it would have been open criticism of the soldier's OC, CSM, platoon commander, platoon sergeant and section commander for failing to do theirs.

That criticism may well have been justified, but under absolutely NO circumstances would or should it have been given in public in front of their subordinates.

Under absolutely NO circumstances would he have been "marched off" the square after "she said "Well then stand up straight" " as that would have been gross insubordination by whoever gave the order as they would have been countermanding and over-ruling her instruction to "stand up straight" right in front of her, and in front of the entire battalion and assorted media which would have been totally unacceptable as it would have been openly disrespectful to her authority and position.

There is no such charge as "being picked up on inspection by Her Royal Highness the Princes Royal." If he had been charged with anything it would probably have been under Section 69.

Under absolutely NO circumstances would or could he have been sentenced to "28 days jail" without it being noticed and widely reported, which for those who are unaware of it is not only the maximum punishment a CO (commanding officer) is authorised to award but also means the loss of 28 days pay. It would have been picked up by the ARU (annual review of the unit) as being way beyond permitted guidelines, meaning a black mark and possibly a reprimand for both the CO and the OC (company commander) for exceeding their authority. As it's over 14 days detention, then unless it was several decades ago he would have spent it in the MCTC at Colchester in A Wing where it would have been known and those in D Wing, being discharged, would have sold the story to the Sun or Daily Mail who would have lapped it up and published it.

Sorry, no offence and I'm sure that you posted it in good faith, but it's simply not remotely credible.

 

 

[Stonker]

6 hours ago, Transam said:

I thought near all the Royals did their bit at some time in the military.

Did you forget Andy doing his bit in the Falklands.....?......

Correct, @Transam, most do. Prince Edward, rather unwisely, tried out for the Royal Marines but dropped out during training which was a bit embarrassing for his father who was Captain General Royal Marines.

[Stonker]

6 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

I saw a picture a while back of William and Harry in their dress uniforms. William had more medals than Harry.

That's not possible.

Both have Golden and Diamond Jubilee medals, which don't necessarily require military service, and Harry also has an Afghanistan campaign medal which he's had since his first tour there in 2007.

Harry has three medals and William two, and at no time has William ever had more medals than Harry.

[Stonker]

10 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

But you have no problem speculating on something else you don't know.

That's simply untrue as I haven't done so.

10 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

 Which rules of jurisdiction do you think have been breached

This is simply becoming absurd as well as tedious. Neither of us are lawyers so all we're doing is cherry picking the parts of an article on commercial law which in my view has no relevance to the case.

10 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

... your explanation of why you believe he might be defending the case, holds no water.

I've never given any "explanation". You asked me, and I gave you what I said was a "guess ... but I prefer not to speculate as I don't know".

... contrary to holding "no water", it absolutely DOES since if his lawyers' application is approved then the court will dismiss the case without hearing ANY evidence of "his sexual history and preferences".

[JohninDublin]

26 minutes ago, Stonker said:

That's simply untrue as I haven't done so.

This is simply becoming absurd as well as tedious. Neither of us are lawyers so all we're doing is cherry picking the parts of an article on commercial law which in my view has no relevance to the case.

I've never given any "explanation". You asked me, and I gave you what I said was a "guess ... but I prefer not to speculate as I don't know".

... contrary to holding "no water", it absolutely DOES since if his lawyers' application is approved then the court will dismiss the case without hearing ANY evidence of "his sexual history and preferences".

You wrote regarding speculation: 

"Only where the countries have the same laws, for example the same age of consent.

In this case, as no British law has been broken, that doesn't apply". That was clearly an (uniformed) opinion.

Regarding "explanation", you are splitting hairs. By way of an explanation, you made a guess, but that is nonetheless an opinion. Pretending that  your opinion does not qualify as a possible explanation is clearly disingenuous. Now let me give you a more credible guess: His Lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic have warned him that if he loses, and bearing in mind the astronomical damages awards made by US courts, the awards are enforceable and this might cost him millions.

Very conveniently in your posts, you choose to ignore the facts presented by legal minds who know a lot more about this subject than I do, and clearly far more than you. There are only two matters that have any bearing in this case. The first is jurisdiction, and he has already lost that point. The second is in who's favour the court rules. As for cherry-picking, I note that you are doing so simply excluding anything that hurts you case, which in this case, is pretty much the entire article. 

 

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

I'm not "dismissing" it, but having been on quite a few parades with assorted royal inspecting officers, foreign and domestic, some of whom I've accompanied, and held more than a few OC's and CO's orders dishing out "awards" (as fines and jail time are euphemistically known), none of it is remotely credible in any way and it's just the normal anecdotal nonsense passed down by 'old sweats'.

If it was a battalion Scale A Parade, considerable numbers would still have been needed for guards and duties elsewhere around the area, off the square, who would have been the sick, lame, lazy and gungy.

If she / any inspecting officer had "said to the CO this man needs medical attention. Please see him off the square" that would have been open criticism of the CO in front of his battalion for failing to do his job, as it would have been open criticism of the soldier's OC, CSM, platoon commander, platoon sergeant and section commander for failing to do theirs.

That criticism may well have been justified, but under absolutely NO circumstances would or should it have been given in public in front of their subordinates.

Under absolutely NO circumstances would he have been "marched off" the square after "she said "Well then stand up straight" " as that would have been gross insubordination by whoever gave the order as they would have been countermanding and over-ruling her instruction to "stand up straight" right in front of her, and in front of the entire battalion and assorted media which would have been totally unacceptable as it would have been openly disrespectful to her authority and position.

There is no such charge as "being picked up on inspection by Her Royal Highness the Princes Royal." If he had been charged with anything it would probably have been under Section 69.

Under absolutely NO circumstances would or could he have been sentenced to "28 days jail" without it being noticed and widely reported, which for those who are unaware of it is not only the maximum punishment a CO (commanding officer) is authorised to award but also means the loss of 28 days pay. It would have been picked up by the ARU (annual review of the unit) as being way beyond permitted guidelines, meaning a black mark and possibly a reprimand for both the CO and the OC (company commander) for exceeding their authority. As it's over 14 days detention, then unless it was several decades ago he would have spent it in the MCTC at Colchester in A Wing where it would have been known and those in D Wing, being discharged, would have sold the story to the Sun or Daily Mail who would have lapped it up and published it.

Sorry, no offence and I'm sure that you posted it in good faith, but it's simply not remotely credible.

He was not marched off the square then and there it was only after the parade finished he was hauled up to the monkey house.

No idea what the rules are now but back then you could serve a maximum of 56 days in jail in the guardroom. Any more than that and its Colchester. He was awarded 28 days by the CO.

Being picked up on inspection by Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal was what was written in the SUS section of the guardroom handover book. But you are right he probably was hung for conduct unbecoming because everyone was too lazy to actually find the specific rule which had been broken. There would have been one.

The guardroom would have been filled with guys who were shit hot at arms drill given they have to salute her car as it comes on camp.

The cookhouse would have been full of guys doing panbash who marched like a pregnant duck.

Now I have no idea when this guy started to feel ill. Could have been the night before or indeed the one hour and 30 mins standing on the square waiting for her to arrive.

As to your comments regarding annual review or the media. Please. Do you think anyone cared?

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

That's not possible.

Both have Golden and Diamond Jubilee medals, which don't necessarily require military service, and Harry also has an Afghanistan campaign medal which he's had since his first tour there in 2007.

Harry has three medals and William two, and at no time has William ever had more medals than Harry.

Apologies. My memory is not what it once was. It was Prince Harry standing next to his "dad".

[Stonker]

43 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

You wrote regarding speculation: 

"Only where the countries have the same laws, for example the same age of consent.

In this case, as no British law has been broken, that doesn't apply". That was clearly an (uniformed) opinion.

Well that's your uninformed opinion. In mine it's both informed and blindingly obviously correct.

No sovereign country comes under the jurisdiction of any other, and the idea that any do is in my view simply delusional.

51 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Regarding "explanation", you are splitting hairs. By way of an explanation, you made a guess, but that is nonetheless an opinion. Pretending that  your opinion does not qualify as a possible explanation is clearly disingenuous.

Of course my "guess" is my "opinion" !

GAFM - how could it be anything else! !

58 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Very conveniently in your posts, you choose to ignore the facts presented by legal minds who know a lot more about this subject than I do, and clearly far more than you.

No, I'm not "ignoring the facts presented by legal minds", etc, simply ignoring your article because it's i) not about jurisdiction and ii) only about commercial law as all the examples and cases cited confirm .

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

There are only two matters that have any bearing in this case. The first is jurisdiction, and he has already lost that point. The second is in who's favour the court rules. 

Well, that's your view.

If you were a little better informed about it you may realise that the current case centres solely around a point of law, which is whether the 2009 NDA applies or not.

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

 As for cherry-picking, I note that you are doing so simply excluding anything that hurts you case, which in this case, is pretty much the entire article. 

No, I'm excluding the entire article because in my view it's of no relevance. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Byeee ...

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

No idea what the rules are now but back then you could serve a maximum of 56 days in jail in the guardroom. Any more than that and its Colchester. 

Sorry, but that's also not correct. Princess Anne only became Princess Royal in June 1987.

By that time the previous maximum of 56 days had already been reduced to 28 since even with extended powers no CO had the authority to award 56 days and only a District Court Martial could do so. 

I can recall the memo .

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

As to your comments regarding annual review or the media. Please. Do you think anyone cared?

Well, since the CO's, Adjutant's and OC's careers and promotion depended directly on a positive annual review / ARU otherwise they'd come to a grinding and irreversible halt, and from the 70's through to today the Army and particularly the infantry have been badly recruited due in no small part to adverse reports in the media ... umm ... well ... 'yes'.

[Yinn]

20 minutes ago, Stonker said:

If

 

20 minutes ago, Stonker said:

If you were a little better informed about it you may realise that the current case centres solely around a point of law, which is whether the 2009 NDA applies or not.

So you think he do it? Is Pricne telling the truth?

if is not illegal why he lie about it? 
 

 

[gummy]

1 minute ago, Yinn said:

So you think he do it? Is Pricne telling the truth?

if is not illegal why he lie about it? 
 

So you are making the accusation that Prince Andrew lied !!  What proof do you have please ?

[Stonker]

2 minutes ago, Yinn said:

So you think he do it? Is Pricne telling the truth?

if is not illegal why he lie about it? 
 

As I said I'm not speculating, but at the moment his lawyers aren't trying to establish his guilt or innocence but simply trying to avoid it going to court at all.

[Poolie]

4 minutes ago, gummy said:

So you are making the accusation that Prince Andrew lied !!  What proof do you have please ?

No she's not. She's asking for an opinion. Calm down.

[Yinn]

On 10/31/2021 at 6:30 PM, Thaiger said:

Virginia Giuffre

In September 2002, at the age of 19, Giuffre flew to Thailand and attended the International Training Massage School in Chiang Mai. Maxwell provided her with tickets to travel to Thailand, and instructed her to meet with a specific Thai girl to bring her back to the United States for Epstein.

Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre

 

Pictured: Prince Andrew surrounded by topless women on Thai holiday with paedophile billionaire Epstein as friend says Duke 'has always been a t**s and bums man'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2900632/Pictured-Prince-Andrew-surrounded-topless-women-Thai-holiday-paedophile-billionaire-Epstein-friend-says-Duke-tits-bums-man.html

Typical.

 

 

 

 

 

[JohninDublin]

10 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Well that's your uninformed opinion. In mine it's both informed and blindingly obviously correct.

No sovereign country comes under the jurisdiction of any other, and the idea that any do is in my view simply delusional.

Of course my "guess" is my "opinion" !

GAFM - how could it be anything else! !

No, I'm not "ignoring the facts presented by legal minds", etc, simply ignoring your article because it's i) not about jurisdiction and ii) only about commercial law as all the examples and cases cited confirm .

Well, that's your view.

If you were a little better informed about it you may realise that the current case centres solely around a point of law, which is whether the 2009 NDA applies or not.

No, I'm excluding the entire article because in my view it's of no relevance. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Byeee ...

Wow! I've just discovered you have access to a  nuclear version of the obfuscation bomb. 

The 2009 NDA, as far as I am aware, does not specifically name HRH. But even if it did, the issue that we are specifically talking about, is whether in the event of him losing the case, the judgement is enforceable in the UK. Time will tell.

Neither of us are lawyers, but in the absence of such qualifications, I have put forward evidence from people who specialise in such cases. What have you offered to counter that? Your uninformed opinion? And where does it say in the article that it is specific to commercial law? That's just another example of your obfuscation bomb.

As for the issue of jurisdiction, again more obfuscation from yourself. This issue is not about sovereignty but the law that decides whether a defendant places themselves within the jurisdiction of another country's court, which he clearly has done. The English courts have decided that in such a case, any award made against a defendant is enforceable. 

I've seen your style on here, and though you are usually right, you come across as one of those posters that when you are wrong, will not concede the point and reverts to obfuscation. I take it from your your final word, that you no longer want to argue the unarguable, so we shall wait and see if Andrew loses the case, and then we will wait to see all the experts in the media concur with you, or if Andrew says, "It doesn't matter. I don't have to pay it anyway". No doubt when that doesn't happen and you are reminded of this thread, you will explain that Andrew doesn't need to pay it, but is only doing so because he is an honourable man.

[Rookiescot]

54 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Sorry, but that's also not correct. Princess Anne only became Princess Royal in June 1987.

By that time the previous maximum of 56 days had already been reduced to 28 since even with extended powers no CO had the authority to award 56 days and only a District Court Martial could do so. 

I can recall the memo .

Well, since the CO's, Adjutant's and OC's careers and promotion depended directly on a positive annual review / ARU otherwise they'd come to a grinding and irreversible halt, and from the 70's through to today the Army and particularly the infantry have been badly recruited due in no small part to adverse reports in the media ... umm ... well ... 'yes'.

Well if you got the memo you should know a court marshal could award 56 days detention which would be served in your regimental nick.

Hence my statement that the maximum you could serve in regimental cells was 56 days.

Now we get to the second part of your statement. Given army structure and discipline do you honestly think a CO would have been penalized for jailing someone for having been picked up on parade by Princess Anne?

Dont make me laugh. It would have been a positive on his resume.

[Stonker]

27 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

The 2009 NDA, as far as I am aware, does not specifically name HRH.

It's sealed by court order!

28 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

... the issue that we are specifically talking about, is whether in the event of him losing the case, the judgement is enforceable in the UK. Time will tell.

Well, you might be but I'm not and I don't think anyone else is!

31 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

What have you offered to counter that? Your uninformed opinion?

I thought the premise that no country has jurisdiction over another sovereign country was so blindingly obvious that it didn't need any "evidence" to support it, but if you want some so badly and think it's only my "uninformed opinion", try:

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/internl-judicial-asst/Enforcement-of-Judges.html

General

There is no bilateral treaty or multilateral convention in force between the United States and any other country on reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments.

That's from the US Department of State, so I think they probably have some idea of what they're talking about.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-law/Jurisdiction

International law particularly addresses questions of criminal law and essentially leaves civil jurisdiction to national control. According to the territorial principle, states have exclusive authority to deal with criminal issues arising within their territories;
 

 

Or particularly about US jurisdiction:

United States Jurisdiction Abroad

Presumption - U.S. Law Does Not Apply Abroad
In general, absent a clear indication of intent for a statute to apply abroad, there is a
presumption that U.S. laws do not apply abroad.

In general, there is a presumption that U.S. laws do not apply outside of the United States; thus, absent a clear intent for a U.S. statute to be applied abroad, U.S. courts will ordinarily interpret U.S. statutes to apply domestically, and not abroad. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. V. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 164
(2004). The purpose is to avoid unintended conflict with laws of foreign nations.
E.E.O.C. v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248.

 

51 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

As for the issue of jurisdiction, again more obfuscation from yourself. This issue is not about sovereignty but the law that decides whether a defendant places themselves within the jurisdiction of another country's court, which he clearly has done. The English courts have decided that in such a case, any award made against a defendant is enforceable.

Well, that's your view of both "the issue" and "the law".

54 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I've seen your style on here, and though you are usually right, (snip) ...

Thank you - I'm flattered.

55 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

... (snip) you come across as one of those posters that when you are wrong, will not concede the point and reverts to obfuscation.

No, when I'm right and accused of obfuscation, I revert to irrefutable expert opinion.

See above, including from the US Department of State about their jurisdiction.

57 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I take it from your your final word, that you no longer want to argue the unarguable,

Wrong assumption

[mickkotlarski]

27 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Wow! I've just discovered you have access to a  nuclear version of the obfuscation bomb. 

The 2009 NDA, as far as I am aware, does not specifically name HRH. But even if it did, the issue that we are specifically talking about, is whether in the event of him losing the case, the judgement is enforceable in the UK. Time will tell.

Neither of us are lawyers, but in the absence of such qualifications, I have put forward evidence from people who specialise in such cases. What have you offered to counter that? Your uninformed opinion? And where does it say in the article that it is specific to commercial law? That's just another example of your obfuscation bomb.

As for the issue of jurisdiction, again more obfuscation from yourself. This issue is not about sovereignty but the law that decides whether a defendant places themselves within the jurisdiction of another country's court, which he clearly has done. The English courts have decided that in such a case, any award made against a defendant is enforceable. 

I've seen your style on here, and though you are usually right, you come across as one of those posters that when you are wrong, will not concede the point and reverts to obfuscation. I take it from your your final word, that you no longer want to argue the unarguable, so we shall wait and see if Andrew loses the case, and then we will wait to see all the experts in the media concur with you, or if Andrew says, "It doesn't matter. I don't have to pay it anyway". No doubt when that doesn't happen and you are reminded of this thread, you will explain that Andrew doesn't need to pay it, but is only doing so because he is an honourable man.

Hi John

I'm not sure there will be a definitive conclusion as (at least it seems that way) no substantial definitive evidence has been presented and Prince Andrew's Solicitors are requesting further evidence from Virginia Giuffre or dismissal of charges within the UK. If the evidence is not solid enough then most likely case closed.

The main issue is should Andrew be extradited to the US and face involvement of charges of sex trafficking of non consenting individuals, forced persuasion/grooming and sexual abuse of minors (under the age of consent)?

I strongly doubt that the accused will appear in US courts. The number of famous and influential people caught up in this on US soil and the Virgin Islands (under US jurisdiction) will literally throw the kitchen sink at this case to keep a lid on some very delicate revelations.

Jeffrey Epstein's convenient suicide (for better description of the occurrence) was a loud message sent out to sever the tangled web that Prince Andrew is also caught up in. However wacking (please excuse the crudeness) of a Prince of England is not a viable option. Blocking legal proceedings in US courts is.

Hillary and Bill Clinton are 2 major players and Donald Trump although not a "participant" on Epstein's Island was very chummy with the late Epstein. All have all distanced themselves. There are countless others that do not want bad press.

The Epstein Island investigations may continue for years still. The eye witnesses on Epstein's Island and data now kept in New York that Epstein gathered for leverage against his clients if required will take a long time to decipher in a politically correct manner.

With regard to Prince Andrew his actions have caught up with him. Even if no further legal proceedings transpire, the old boy will forever now be know as Randy Andy.

 

 

[JohninDublin]

11 hours ago, Transam said:

I thought near all the Royals did their bit at some time in the military.

Did you forget Andy doing his bit in the Falklands.....?......

What I always was dubious about his "service" in The Falklands, was the claims that he flew a helicopter as decoy for Exocet missiles. 

I am not sure how you can decoy what I believe is a guided missile in a helicopter. I also thought it somewhat mystifying, that in spite of the large media presence that covered that war, nobody ever filmed these heroics, and the story about "Decoy Andy", never made the news, until after that war was won. Then of course, I am not aware of any of his shipmates conforming these events either.

That's a lot of missing corroboration that makes me wonder how true this really is.

[Yinn]

1 hour ago, Poolie said:

No she's not. She's asking for an opinion. Calm down.

Gummy try to act like my question is shocking?
Because nobody else say Andrew is a liar right???
well, Virginia say he lie.

and.....experts

 

[Stonker]

20 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Well if you got the memo you should know a court marshal could award 56 days detention which would be served in your regimental nick.

Hence my statement that the maximum you could serve in regimental cells was 56 days.

Sorry, but you're simply wrong and this is incorrect - exceptions were possible but unusual, but they were served in another "regimental nick", not your own for reasons that should be obvious.  You're way out of your depth with this absurd story as is becoming very clear.

22 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Given army structure and discipline do you honestly think a CO would have been penalized for jailing someone for having been picked up on parade by Princess Anne?

Beyond any doubt. 

It not only shows their ignorance of / disrespect for the sentencing guidelines laid down in JSPs, but it shows their incompetence and lack of checks in putting anyone "picked up on parade by Princess Anne" on the parade in the first place and their willingness to blame others for their own mistakes.

If you can't see that, it explains a great deal.

Byeee.

 

 

[Stonker]

32 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

What I always was dubious about his "service" in The Falklands, was the claims that he flew a helicopter as decoy for Exocet missiles. 

I am not sure how you can decoy what I believe is a guided missile in a helicopter.

Maybe a little research would have helped:

https://web.facebook.com/RealAirPower/photos/did-you-know-that-during-the-falkland-war-the-royal-navy-used-helicopters-as-bai/1596226740515187/?_rdc=1&_rdr

A helicopter equipped with electronic decoys would position itself to lure an incoming Exocet missile towards itself (and away from the targeted ship). The helicopter would hover at 27 ft, and as the missile neared, would rise to 100 ft making the sea skimmer pass harmlessly below.

https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-265470.html

In the early days of the conflict after the shooting had started we received a signal advising us of a method of providing decoys. We had to make a cube but with only three side, so much like a cone, and mount it out ahead of a helicopter and fly fairly low somewhere behind the ship. We cobled together such a cone made out of 18swg Dural and using a long girder mounted from a weapons hard point managed to get the device to be sturdy enough to actually be airworthy (of a sort). Off they flew every day from both Hermes and Invince.

The funny thing about it was that after the first few days we got another signal that told us that the dimensions were wrong in the first and that it should be bigger. So we had to quickly make a bigger one.

If the pilot pointed the thing in the direction of the threat the radar return of the cone appeared bigger than the ship and the Exocet would go after the Helo. When the pilot saw it coming he simply hauled up on the collective and climbed above the missile which simply passed beneath.

Whether it actually ever seduced a missile I don't know. After a few weeks of use we actually received some electronic gear which was fitted to a couple of Lynx which then took over the duty.

That's the RN Forum discussing it, including one who supported it, so they probably have a reasonably good idea of what they're talking about.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/HJA.htm

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/air-war-in-the-falklands-32214512/

https://revistamarina.cl/en/articulo/ataque-al-hms-invincible-el-destino-del-ultimo-exocet

32 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I also thought it somewhat mystifying, that in spite of the large media presence that covered that war, nobody ever filmed these heroics, and the story about "Decoy Andy", never made the news, until after that war was won.

The military, for reasons I would have thought were obvious (let's not waste time going there), took a rather dim view of telling the media what they were doing to avoid the opposition being told in advance.