# Prince Andrew is a bad liar



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Presumably most of you have seen at least some of the grand old duke's desperate interview/arse-covering the other night. Surely even the staunchest of royalists can't defend this one

Edited for clarity


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

He has no excuse whatsoever. He was a mature adult and *must* have realised that spending time with a convicted peadophile was not acceptable.
Even if he did not join in he was give that loathsome man some sort of respectability, standing and to some extent untouchabilty. Stupid, arrogant and sickening beyond belief

.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

rona said:


> *Even if he did not join in* he was give that loathsome man some sort of respectability, standing and to some extent untouchabilty. Stupid, arrogant and sickening beyond belief
> 
> .


I'm not convinced about that part either. Watching him squirm and laugh nervously and say oh that couldn't have been me because I couldn't sweat at the time because of the Falklands anyway I was in Pizza Express in Woking which I remember with absolute clarity almost twenty years on but I don't recall meeting this girl oh is that me in the photo, maybe, I can't say for sure anyway sex is a positive act I'm definitely innocent
Total car crash and yet he's not going to face any real consequences


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I've not see it yet, must try & watch it tonight. He has always been a smug, arrogant man with extravagant tastes who seems to think he deserves so much. He has always had dealings with shady people & it really wouldn't surprise me if he was a lot more 'involved' than has so far been reported


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Cleo38 said:


> He has always been a smug, arrogant man with extravagant tastes who seems to think he deserves so much.


This about describes him for me, too.

Haven't watched the programme. No wish to to be honest. I mean what can you say if you've repeatedly visited a known, convicted paedophile and have been places where there were underage girls (and been photographed). Try and squirm your way out of it? Yup - that about covers what he is doing.

J


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Cleo38 said:


> I've not see it yet, must try & watch it tonight. He has always been a smug, arrogant man with extravagant tastes who seems to think he deserves so much. He has always had dealings with shady people & it really wouldn't surprise me if he was a lot more 'involved' than has so far been reported


And not the brightest spark in the universe either!


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Interesting that many have used the word ''arrogant''. I got a text from a friend after the interview and sent one back to the effect of ''IMO he's an arrogant fat pr***''. Wasn't Emily Maitlis amazing . . . she certainly didn't beat around the bush.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I agree, I've never liked the Duke of York he has always been arrogant, but I did believe some of what he said, yes he made a grave error of judgement but I'm sure if he said he was in Woking he most likely was, surely he would have had a body guard close by.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Wealthy, privileged middle aged man has sex with young, pretty escorts and attends sex parties, aka orgies. Who would’ve thought it? 

Why are people pretending to be so shocked and surprised by it?  As for the ‘I’d taken my daughter to Pizza Express, stayed at home that night and couldn’t sweat back then’ rotfl. So you don’t remember going to Epstein’s parties, or dancing at Tramp’s. Are you sure you don’t drink? 

It sounds as though Epstein’s crowd made sure the girls they gave to Andrew were 16+ , but one girl says she was paid $15,000 for it, so I expect Andrew thought they were willing, if he gave them any thought at all.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Elles said:


> Wealthy, privileged middle aged man has sex with young, pretty escorts and attends sex parties, aka orgies. Who would've thought it?
> 
> Why are people pretending to be so shocked and surprised by it?  As for the 'I'd taken my daughter to Pizza Express, stayed at home that night and couldn't sweat back then' rotfl. So you don't remember going to Epstein's parties, or dancing at Tramp's. Are you sure you don't drink?
> 
> It sounds as though Epstein's crowd made sure the girls they gave to Andrew were 16+ , but one girl says she was paid $15,000 for it, so I expect Andrew thought they were willing, if he gave them any thought at all.


I think he meant, though didn't say in so many words, that he remembered going to Pizza Express on a precise date as it wasn't the sort of thing he would normally do, being so grand: he doesn't normally mix with plebs. I feel sorry for the Queen - another gem for the Christmas speech. I sometimes think the monarchy might fizzle out after she's gone.

ETA: At least it will give DM someone different to criticise for a while instead of Harry and wife.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Calvine said:


> Interesting that many have used the word ''arrogant''. I got a text from a friend after the interview and sent one back to the effect of ''IMO he's an arrogant fat pr***''. Wasn't Emily Maitlis amazing . . . she certainly didn't beat around the bush.


I was watching TV this morning & someone said they thought he was 'brave' to do this but IMO this only demonstrated his arrogance & stupidity as am sure he honestly thought that us peasants would believe his excuses & not notice his lack of remorse or empathy for the victims in this.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I know I've answered this thread, but really shouldn't the country be more worried about the election and brexit than what some spoil Duke has or hasn't done.


----------



## Dave S (May 31, 2010)

One problem is that the general public would not be satisfied unless he said that he did have sex, then he would be dammed for evermore. If he did not, as he says then he will be called a liar because it does not suit our way of thinking.
Who is not to say these "girls" are not in it or their 15 minutes of fame,
What has Ms Maxwell said about it, after all, she was in *that* photograph, did she really procure young ladies?, did she offer one or two to Andrew?
If she says yes she did then Andrew is a liar, if she says no then she could be telling the truth or she is a liar, if she says nothing then it leads to much more speculation about her involvement as well as his in which case she could also be tried in court.

Either way, I believe that a diary record is kept of Royal movements and who says what for future reference so if he did take his daughter for a pizza then there would be a record of it and possibly a credit card receipt as well as a separate security record. Then a further record if he went out elsewhere after, with or without a security guard.
Even if there is a record it would not be published as it would be deemed to be not in the public interest.

He is born into one of the most dysfunctional and aloof families in the UK and seems to be unaware and uninterested of situations and peoples feelings so when something like this hits the headlines yes it is car-crash TV but it was stupid of him in the first place to agree to the interview.

Quite rightly he should not have had any involvement with Epstein even though he did pay off his ex-wife's debts, so how and why did it take a trans-Atlantic 4 day trip and a stay at his house to say "we are not friends anymore". 
I reckon he was "social climbing and networking" so ensure his own future.

I reckon the Queen is not amused this morning - morning tea, toast and a grilling for Andrew.

Now, for conspiracy theorists everywhere, these revelations could not come at a better political time due to Brexit, election, the shambles which is parliament, I would suggest for these people that it is a way of taking public pressure and attention off politics, driven by the career politicians who work in the background for whichever party happens to be governing at the time.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Happy Paws2 said:


> I know I've answered this thread, but really shouldn't the country be more worried about the election and brexit than what some spoil Duke has or hasn't done.


You can care about more than one thing at a time.

And an international conspiracy involving sexual trafficking of children, rape of children, providing drugs to children and y'know, possibly the murder of J Epstein before he could talk I think is worthy of a bit of concern. Not usually a conspiracy theorist btw, I know I'm new here, but I don't know why you would want to help minimise what this man/ these men have been accused of when they're already working very hard to do that themselves.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Happy Paws2 said:


> I know I've answered this thread, but really shouldn't the country be more worried about the election and brexit than what some spoil Duke has or hasn't done.


Well, it is possible you know, to be able to care about more than one thing at a time. One can care about the election, brexit, AND the women abused and terrorized by Epstein and his cronies...

Edit: LOL @Smolmaus I guess we were on the same wavelength


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I did say is wasn't, but I think to much TV time has been given to it, and I'm more worried about whats going to happen here in the future. I'm sure the USA are capable of sorting out what Epstein and his cronies did and get justice for these poor women and girls that suffered by his hands.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

O2.0 said:


> Well, it is possible you know, to be able to care about more than one thing at a time. One can care about the election, brexit, AND the women abused and terrorized by Epstein and his cronies...
> 
> Edit: LOL @Smolmaus I guess we were on the same wavelength


Agree, personally I find the abuse & trafficking of women incredibly important & if a member of our royal family was involved that this is very much a subject for discussion on many levels.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Happy Paws2 said:


> I did say is wasn't, but I think to much TV time has been given to it, and I'm more worried about whats going to happen here in the future. I'm sure the USA are capable of sorting out what Epstein and his cronies did and get justice for these poor women and girls that suffered by his hands.


But the trouble is that it wasn't just the US and the UK that are involved in the case. He also owned property in Paris (and presumably elsewhere in the world) where he practiced his debauchery which involved French business men and aristocrats.

The French government have now opened an enquiry.

https://www.france24.com/en/2019081...inisters-seek-investigation-paris-child-abuse

*French ministers seek investigation into Epstein's activities in France*

Also of interest a new book has just come out which "implies" that DT who was a friend of Epstein, could also be involved.

https://www.france24.com/en/20191117-ladies-and-the-trump-the-making-of-a-sexual-predator-1

*Ladies and the Trump: The making of a sexual predator*

"I think a lot of men have dodged a bullet with Epstein's death and, yes, Trump was definitely one of them," says El-Faizy.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Is anyone actually surprised? These people have always been rumoured to be pervs. DT doesn’t exactly have a good reputation around women and girls and neither does Andrew. I think a lot of people were really surprised about Saville, but this is hardly news really, other than to say we knew it, you bunch of privileged lechers and perverts.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Elles said:


> Is anyone actually surprised? These people have always been rumoured to be pervs. DT doesn't exactly have a good reputation around women and girls and neither does Andrew. I think a lot of people were really surprised about Saville, but this is hardly news really, other than to say we knew it, you bunch of privileged lechers and perverts.


Perv and lecher I think also minimise what's happening here. Saville was a child rapist and that is also what Andrew is accused of here. Sex with a minor who has been coerced into "prostitution" is not lechery, it's rape.

It is one thing to "know" that someone is dangerous but quite another to have evidence (circumstantial or not) and some people willing to speak out. Anything other than consistent media attention and a push for a full investigation and criminal charges only teaches people like this that they are in fact untouchable.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Smolmaus said:


> Perv and lecher I think also minimise what's happening here. Saville was a child rapist and that is also what Andrew is accused of here. Sex with a minor who has been coerced into "prostitution" is not lechery, it's rape.
> 
> It is one thing to "know" that someone is dangerous but quite another to have evidence (circumstantial or not) and some people willing to speak out. Anything other than consistent media attention and a push for a full investigation and criminal charges only teaches people like this that they are in fact untouchable.


Andrew is accused of having sex with 16 and 17 year olds who were procured, groomed and paid by someone else. There is no evidence he raped anyone, or that he had sex with what would be considered minors in the U.K.. Jimmy Saville and Epstein did of course. I didn't say that having sex with minors is lechery, I called it out as perverted, which of course it is. Or do you not think that rapists and paedophiles are perverts? I said they were lechers and perverts, which is what we always thought they were, where on earth did I say that raping children is lechery? 

You completely missed the point I was making, which is that I doubt anyone is actually surprised. A lot of people were very surprised at Jimmy Saville (probably not the people in his circle ofc), but I'm doubting that anyone is surprised that this kind of thing goes on in wealthy, privileged circles and Hollywood. I think we'd be more surprised if it didn't.

It's about time it was called out.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Elles said:


> Andrew is accused of having sex with 16 and 17 year olds who were procured, groomed and paid by someone else. There is no evidence he raped anyone, or that he had sex with what would be considered minors in the U.K.. Jimmy Saville and Epstein did of course. I didn't say that having sex with minors is lechery, I called it out as perverted, which of course it is. Or do you not think that rapists and paedophiles are perverts? I said they were lechers and perverts, which is what we always thought they were, where on earth did I say that raping children is lechery?
> 
> You completely missed the point I was making, which is that I doubt anyone is actually surprised. A lot of people were very surprised at Jimmy Saville (probably not the people in his circle ofc), but I'm doubting that anyone is surprised that this kind of thing goes on in wealthy, privileged circles and Hollywood. I think we'd be more surprised if it didn't.
> 
> It's about time it was called out.


If he did have sex with minors (in the US where this happened, he should be prosecuted in the US) who were *groomed* and were not doing this of their own free will then yes, what he did was rape. Suggesting that he thought these women were legitimate, of age sex workers is stretching the bounds of believability in my mind considering he knew Epstein personally but that is what should be investigated in court.

Lecher and pervert are different words that mean different things. I think when he are talking about a crime it's important to use the correct words. It's not a crime to be a pervert or a lecher.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I think there is a difference between having sex with a young woman you believe is into it and getting paid a lot of money, which is what Andrew is alleged to have done and what Epstein did, which is have his female accomplice bring him 10 and 11 year olds. Andrew is an old lech in my book, Epstein and Saville were child molesters, rapists and paedophiles. 

If Prince Andrew was alleged to have sex with prepubescent children and minors under 16, he should be arrested immediately, but no one has said that. In fact it’s being said that he was careful to find out the girls’ ages before doing the deed, so I don’t doubt that he and others suspected what Epstein was into and thought there was a chance the girls smiling and fawning over them were too young. Andrew is an arrogant Royal, brought up to think he’s better than anyone else and with his attitude probably thought they should be grateful.

We aren’t in court, we’re having a discussion and I won’t spend an hour worrying about whether I’m using PC or legal terms to discuss paedos and privileged pervs.

You’re saying that someone paying a groomed 17 year old $15,000 to have sex, is the same as climbing on top of a 10 year old, I’m giving my opinion and I don’t agree.

I doubt very much that Prince Andrew, or anyone else would be extradited from the U.K. to stand charges over having sex with a 17 year old, unless they violently raped them. These young girls were groomed, coerced and pimped out by Epstein and his cohorts, it’s unusual for ‘clients’ to be prosecuted. They couldn’t even get Polanski and he drugged and raped a 13 year old.

It’s about time this was called out, parents became more concerned about their kids and laws were tightened. No one can say they didn’t know any more. When you look at Corey Feldman and Heim, the Jackson thing, what happened to River and Joachim Phoenix as kids and all the rest of it, it’s a cess pit and we’re arguing semantics.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

I did not say that raping a 17 yo and raping a 10 yo were the same thing. I said that what Andrew is accused of is rape, not lechery and not being a pervert. To use those words is to minimise what he is accused of and you are continuing to minimise it by comparing it to rape of a prepubescent child or rape with additional violent assault as if those are the only crimes we should be worried about. I am not suggesting we charge him for Epstein's crimes, just the ones he may have committed. I also don't think we should let him off the hook because what Epstein did was worse. 

I also don't think it is just semantics or "PC language" really since what language is used to describe crimes like sexual assault and rape can have a serious affect on conviction rates and sentencing.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Do you think that Prince Andrew would be prosecuted in this country? Technically the girl was 17 and trafficked, but there would have to be proof that he knew it and people have got away with far worse. Am I saying he should be allowed to do what he likes? No, I’m being pragmatic on a forum. People are having hysterics because Prince Andrew had sex with a 17 year old and denied it. Some people even believe him. 

I didn’t say they were the only crimes we should be concerned about either. At the moment, as the law stands it would be difficult to prosecute Andrew for anything. Everyone suspected this kind of thing has been going on since the Greeks and Romans, earlier probably, Neanderthal. Kids have been trying to call it out and asking for help for decades, but money and power wins out and parents still take their kids to these people. 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused according to research.

I’m calling out this fake surprise. No one should be surprised any more. 

I don’t think there’s much point in the Royals and I agree that they will probably start to fade away after the Queen dies. Unless the newer generations are better than the weirdo, perverted brothers who both seem wrong to me in so many ways. Probably in some way related to their world and being fawned over by sycophants. Fergie is as bad imo. She’s defending it and took money from Epstein herself, when she herself has two daughters. Don’t try to say she didn’t know either, even if she didn’t then, she certainly does now. 

Honourable my a**. *spit*


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Elles said:


> I'm calling out this fake surprise. No one should be surprised any more.


What fake surprise are you referring to? Here? On the forum? In the general public?

I think some people genuinely are surprised that a father with daughters himself would even be attracted to such young women. Yes, there are still people that innocent and naive thank goodness. 
I think others are surprised that he addressed it at all. 
I think some might be surprised at his stupidity in continuing his relationship with Epstein after Epstein was accused and being investigated. 
And sure, the more jaded among us are not surprised at all that there are so many men and women accomplices who take advantage of young women. It's not just men in positions of power either, they're just the ones we hear about.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Journalists and Sarah Ferguson for a start @O2.0 Some are faking surprise that such things happen, just as they were surprised at the me too, surprised at the priests, surprised at the sports master, surprised at the religious cults, they can't believe it. Surely not Prince Andrew. 

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised. Especially given his randy Andy reputation.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> I was watching TV this morning & someone said they thought he was 'brave' to do this but IMO this only demonstrated his arrogance & stupidity as am sure he honestly thought that us peasants would believe his excuses & not notice his lack of remorse or empathy for the victims in this.


 I don't think he was brave; think someone (one of his advisors) said he'd better say something as the story was not going anywhere soon. Judging from the reactions in various places, it looks like he managed to make it worse by acting the part of the innocent accused. Loved it when EM mentioned to him the fact that ''he has two daughters of his own''; and the look on her face as she spoke, a mixture of disdain and disbelief. I doubt she'll be getting a damehood in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Do you think it’s like the Pakistani grooming gangs, they think the girls have no value as human beings and are different to their own wives, sisters, daughters, mothers etc? Why am I even asking? Take it as rhetorical. *doh*


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

People who say that they are "surprised" usually have a vested interest. The media has both a vested interest in generating clicks with all the salacious details and also in moving on the media cycle as quickly as possible so they can continue to have access to the royal family in the future.

I did see someone on twitter point out that the British media has been amazingly silent on Prince William's affair. Out of "respect"? Or because they know they'll get sued to oblivion and never get access to anything connected to any of the royals ever again? The only reason the Prince Andrew thing has traction now is the connection to Epstein and reporting by American sources.



Elles said:


> Do you think it's like the Pakistani grooming gangs, they think the girls have no value as human beings and are different to their own wives, sisters, daughters, mothers etc? Why am I even asking? Take it as rhetorical. *doh*


Usually you find the wives and daughters have value primarily as property. Not actually as people. I don't think there's an off-switch for misogyny. That goes across all cultures.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Prince William’s affair? If it’s not reported on petforums I probably missed it lol. I have no interest in the Royals usually.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Smolmaus said:


> Prince William's affair.


 Not heard that one.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Elles said:


> Prince William's affair? If it's not reported on petforums I probably missed it lol. I have no interest in the Royals usually.


I only heard about it as a comparison to the British medias foaming-at-the-mouth every time Meghan neé Markle steps foot out of doors. Not a peep when they might embarrass William and his lovely white wife who is the acceptable variety of "commoner".

Kind of proves my point though. Most of my media sources are American and it's generally spoken of as accepted fact. William had an affair with one of Kate's friends and thats part of why him and Harry don't speak.

I'm northern irish so you cannot imagine a person less personally interested in the Royals but when it comes to media double standards, I do care.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Elles said:


> Prince William's affair? If it's not reported on petforums I probably missed it lol. I have no interest in the Royals usually.


Here you go ........ It was an "alleged" affair with nothing proven!

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entert...leton-affair-rumors-rose-hanbury-rural-rival/

*Here's What's Really Going On With Those Prince William and Kate Middleton "Rural Rival" Rumors*


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Magyarmum said:


> Here you go ........ It was an "alleged" affair with nothing proven!
> 
> https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entert...leton-affair-rumors-rose-hanbury-rural-rival/
> 
> *Here's What's Really Going On With Those Prince William and Kate Middleton "Rural Rival" Rumors*


I was googling this myself, thank you! I also took note that it was the bottom of page 2 of my google results before I saw a .co.uk website address! And that was the Express


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Magyarmum said:


> Here you go ........ It was an "alleged" affair with nothing proven!
> 
> https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entert...leton-affair-rumors-rose-hanbury-rural-rival/
> 
> *Here's What's Really Going On With Those Prince William and Kate Middleton "Rural Rival" Rumors*


I read about this some time ago and it just said the two women were no longer friends: no suggestion of any affair.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

It honestly doesn't matter if it's true or not to make the point I was trying to make. It was widely and convincingly reported in America, viral on twitter (and is picking up again today actually) and it's crickets from certain tabloids who would rip the seat of their trousers trying to get this kind of thing on Harry or Meghan or any other "celeb" for that matter. I only brought it up to illustrate that "the media" has it's own agenda when they report these things.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Smolmaus said:


> It was widely and convincingly reported in America,


First I've heard of it was today on this thread - we're talking about William's affair I'm guessing? Sorry, alleged affair. 
I'm in the US, granted not a huge tabloid follower but not entirely under a rock either.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

There are so many conspiracies theories surrounding Jeffrey Epstein right now and all of it sounds like wild speculation to me. I'll let the authorities investigate and a thorough investigation is definitely needed.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Elles said:


> Prince William's affair? If it's not reported on petforums I probably missed it lol. I have no interest in the Royals usually.


There's been rumours on Twitter etc . ETA If you google lots of stuff comes up.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> There's been rumours on Twitter etc . ETA If you google lots of stuff comes up.


Well didn't you know that that's how "facts" start these days


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> Well didn't you know that that's how "facts" start these days


though some rumours are true . That's where I found out about Ryan Giggs before he was named in parliament.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

An interesting article about the Prince Andrew interview in Politico

https://www.politico.eu/article/pri...POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=0bf48ca9c9-EMAIL_CAM

*The art of holding your tongue*


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Andrew Windsor Esq. knows fine well no one will touch him. Next month the public will love him as they always do when he bothers to go on his exhausting duties with flag waving and huge crowds of worship.

But, hasn't this been a nice little distraction from the increasing controversy surrounding Johnson with the suppressed Russian Dossier and the Jennifer Arcuri scandals?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

KittenKong said:


> the Jennifer Arcuri scandals


Have you seen her interviewed?

This is more a press made scandal. In the interview I saw she was saying how driven and committed that Boris was and how he has never done anything unhand concerning her. All she was upset about was that he was not helping to protect her reputation and refusing to talk to her, which she says was not his true nature. Seems he may be steered a little off course by advisors. She was a hurt woman not an angry woman


----------



## 5r6ubertbe6y (Dec 5, 2017)

Happy Paws2 said:


> I know I've answered this thread, but really shouldn't the country be more worried about the election and brexit than what some spoil Duke has or hasn't done.


The Royals are representatives of our country and are funded by our taxes. We expect exemplary from them.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MissMiloKitty said:


> The Royals are representatives of our country and are funded by our taxes. We expect exemplary from them.


Many of the royal family (and politicians) are hardly decent role models, are they - except the Queen.


----------



## 5r6ubertbe6y (Dec 5, 2017)

KittenKong said:


> Andrew Windsor Esq. knows fine well no one will touch him. Next month the public will love him as they always do when he bothers to go on his exhausting duties with flag waving and huge crowds of worship.
> 
> But, hasn't this been a nice little distraction from the increasing controversy surrounding Johnson with the suppressed Russian Dossier and the Jennifer Arcuri scandals?


----------



## 5r6ubertbe6y (Dec 5, 2017)

Calvine said:


> Many of the royal family (and politicians) are hardly decent role models, are they - except the Queen.


Of course not but they are meant to be aren't they.
I wonder what the attitude toward the Royals will be when the Queen dies. I think people might be only tolerating them because of their respect for her. We'll see.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

MissMiloKitty said:


> The Royals are representatives of our country and are funded by our taxes. We expect exemplary from them.


Look at the appalling gaffs Philip has got away with? Seems it's OK for them to spout such rubbish, as the masses believe it is for Johnson, but he's posh too....

Why do the British people put themselves down so much? These people aren't superior, nor deserve the millions they get on benefits with a free education and luxury accommodation while others, through no fault of their own are penalised by the bedroom tax.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

The Royals bring in a lot of money from tourism, which I suppose offsets some of the expense. Not enough of it though, in my opinion. 

The "gaffes" are one thing but this is another level. I can accept that the queen can drive without a driving license but Andrew gets a license to partake in human trafficking?? I think we can draw a line somewhere.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Smolmaus said:


> The Royals bring in a lot of money from tourism, which I suppose offsets some of the expense. Not enough of it though, in my opinion.
> * Andrew gets a license to partake in human trafficking??* I think we can draw a line somewhere.


That hasn't been proved that he knew anything about trafficking.

He may or may not have had sex with a seventeen year old but he didn't pay for it, (she has already said the that Epstein paid her thousands after)


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Happy Paws2 said:


> That hasn't been proved that he knew anything about trafficking.
> 
> He may or may not have had sex with a seventeen year old but he didn't pay for it, (she has already said the that Epstein paid her thousands after)


I was being glib but yes, he _may or may not have_ actively and knowingly had sex with a trafficked, coerced, abused and victimised young girl. Whether or not it was a "freebie" doesn't really matter. He actually has to prove that he had a "reasonable expectation" that she was *not* trafficked, abused, coerced or otherwise victimised. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.


----------



## 5r6ubertbe6y (Dec 5, 2017)

KittenKong said:


> Look at the appalling gaffs Philip has got away with? Seems it's OK for them to spout such rubbish, as the masses believe it is for Johnson, but he's posh too....
> 
> Why do the British people put themselves down so much? These people aren't superior, nor deserve the millions they get on benefits with a free education and luxury accommodation while others, through no fault of their own are penalised by the bedroom tax.


The British are afraid of upsetting them. The Australians are afraid of voting them out because I think they are frightened of offending them. I will be interested in seeing what happens when the Queen is no longer around especially regarding Australia. The Queen is the only one I have any real respect for because she put her duty to this country before anything else since 1952.
She has all of the wealth and privileges but the work she's has done is exhausting.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Smolmaus said:


> I was being glib but yes, he _may or may not have_ actively and knowingly had sex with a trafficked, coerced, abused and victimised young girl. Whether or not it was a "freebie" doesn't really matter. *He actually has to prove that he had a "reasonable expectation" that she was not trafficked, abused, coerced or otherwise victimised. *Ignorance is not a valid excuse.


WHY????

and how is he going to do that, the main person who knows everything is dead!!!


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Happy Paws2 said:


> WHY????
> 
> and how is he going to do that, the main person who knows everything is dead!!!


Prince Andrew is not dead, he can provide evidence that he had a reasonable expectation that she was not a victim before he had sex with her. I honestly don't think that's a very high bar to set. Juries are actually very easy to convince that an assumption of consent was reasonable, look at the conviction rates for sexual crimes. But he should definitely be made to convince a jury, or at least the CPS.

It might be difficult for him in particular to prove though, not because he shouldn't have to, but because she *was* a victim and he almost certainly knew full well.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

I think people should take a little care in things they perhaps write on the interweb.

I know it's a free country, but some of the unproven accusations here are a little close to the bone.


----------



## 5r6ubertbe6y (Dec 5, 2017)

The problem with the interview is that he came across as cold and emotionless. He didn't express sorrow and concern for Epsteins victims and he just didn't come across as a warm likable person. He even refered to his ex wife by her title, "The Duchess". We all know her name is Sarah or even "their mother" would have been what a normal man would say.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Smolmaus said:


> Prince Andrew is not dead, he can provide evidence that he had a reasonable expectation that she was not a victim before he had sex with her. I honestly don't think that's a very high bar to set.
> 
> It might be difficult for him to prove that of course, not because he shouldn't have to, *but because she was a victim and he almost certainly knew full well.*


and you can prove that can you??

Lots of girls hang out with very rich men for that reason, money, how do you tell the difference.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Happy Paws2 said:


> and you can prove that can you??
> 
> Lots of girls hang out with very rich men for that reason, money, how do you tell the difference.


Apologies, I thought it was clear that was my opinion. It's not my job to prove anything, that's for the prosecution.

These young women and girls aren't being accused of any crime. I also don't think enjoying money should carry forced prostitution (rape) as a punishment.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

MissMiloKitty said:


> He even refered to his ex wife by her title, "The Duchess". We all know her name is Sarah or even "their mother" would have been what a normal man would say.


This is exactly how a royal would refer to her in an interview I would have thought.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

MilleD said:


> I think people should take a little care in things they perhaps write on the interweb.
> 
> I know it's a free country, but some of the unproven accusations here are a little close to the bone.


If Prince Andrew wishes to sue for libelous "unproven" accusations he has to prove the allegation is false, which is probably why he's not suing anybody.


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

MilleD said:


> I think people should take a little care in things they perhaps write on the interweb.
> 
> I know it's a free country, but some of the unproven accusations here are a little close to the bone.


Good point.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Smolmaus said:


> Apologies, I thought it was clear that was my opinion. It's not my job to prove anything, that's for the prosecution.
> 
> These young women and girls aren't being accused of any crime. I also don't think enjoying money should carry forced prostitution (rape) as a punishment.


Well you shouldn't accuse someone of something if you have no proof, you are just going on a interview which he never said he did know and the hyped press out for blood.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Happy Paws2 said:


> Well you shouldn't accuse someone of something if you have no proof, you are just going on a interview which he never said he did know and the hyped press out for blood.


I didn't make an accusation. I'm giving my thoughts based on information that's been widely circulated in the media.


----------



## 5r6ubertbe6y (Dec 5, 2017)

MilleD said:


> This is exactly how a royal would refer to her in an interview I would have thought.


Diana refered to Charles as 'my husband' and it's one of the reasons women related to her.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Smolmaus said:


> I didn't make an accusation. I'm giving my thoughts based on information that's been widely circulated in the media.


I stand to be corrected but I don't remember Prince Andrew being asked about Ghislaine Maxwell who was a long time friend of his, and the person said to have introduced him to Epstein.

She's also the woman police believe procured underage girls for Epstein and since his arrest and subsequent suicide, has disappeared.

Here's some more information circulated by the media which you might like to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...rious-figure-in-the-epstein-scandal-1.4088038

*Ghislaine Maxwell: mysterious figure in the Epstein scandal*


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

MissMiloKitty said:


> Diana refered to Charles as 'my husband' and it's one of the reasons women related to her.


That's a sweeping statement. I for one never liked her much.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Magyarmum said:


> I stand to be corrected but I don't remember Prince Andrew being asked about Ghislaine Maxwell who was a long time friend of his, and the person said to have introduced him to Epstein.
> 
> She's also the woman police believe procured underage girls for Epstein and since his arrest and subsequent suicide, has disappeared.
> 
> ...


Are you addressing me in particular here? I don't understand what particular thing I'm supposed to take from this.


----------



## 5r6ubertbe6y (Dec 5, 2017)

MilleD said:


> That's a sweeping statement. I for one never liked her much.


I didn't say "all women" I said "women". She was very popular with women. Diana was good at appealing to people


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

rona said:


> Have you seen her interviewed?
> 
> This is more a press made scandal. In the interview I saw she was saying how driven and committed that Boris was and how he has never done anything unhand concerning her. All she was upset about was that he was not helping to protect her reputation and refusing to talk to her, which she says was not his true nature. Seems he may be steered a little off course by advisors. She was a hurt woman not an angry woman


Johnson's private life is of no interest to me. What does concern me are the allegations of public funds being misused.

Rather like the Mr A Windsor in question, both could well be innocent of any wrongdoing.

There's a saying, "If you have nothing to hide, you'll have nothing to fear". Johnson avoiding the issue and surpressing these issues should be considered suspect.

An interesting slip of the tougne from one of his closest allies here.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Smolmaus said:


> Are you addressing me in particular here? I don't understand what particular thing I'm supposed to take from this.


Yes, otherwise why would I have quoted you?

You also said you based your thoughts on information you read in the media..

As the article is only a matter of a few hours old and as no one, including you, has ever mentioned Ghislaine Maxwell who's pivotal to the case, I thought you might find it interesting


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Magyarmum said:


> Yes, otherwise why would I have quoted you?
> 
> You also said you based your thoughts on information you read in the media..
> 
> As the article is only a matter of a few hours old and as no one, including you, has ever mentioned Ghislaine Maxwell who's pivotal to the case, I thought you might find it interesting


Oh I see! It was interesting! And I don't usually read the Irish Times so thanks! I may not have seen it otherwise  I thought I caught a "tone" in your post that was perhaps undeserved, sorry.

The part at the end about Andrew becoming "the face" of the case is a good point. Will it go one way and the narrative becomes that Andrew has also made her disappear like Epstein before she can give evidence that he knew about all of it? Or will it swing the other way, that she is the only real mastermind here and has left poor innocent Andrew to take the fall?


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MissMiloKitty said:


> Of course not but they are meant to be aren't they.


I know that: which is why I ''liked'' your post (and included politicians in mine). And re. the future of the RF - I think it's high time they were streamlined.



Smolmaus said:


> I was being glib but yes, he _may or may not have_ actively and knowingly had sex with a trafficked, coerced, abused and victimised young girl. Whether or not it was a "freebie" doesn't really matter. He actually has to prove that he had a "reasonable expectation" that she was *not* trafficked, abused, coerced or otherwise victimised. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.


What was really mind-boggling was the fact that he acted as tho' he was completely in denial with all the ridiculous ''I don't recollect this/that/the other''. But he did, amazingly, recollect a Pizza Express visit on a definite date 18?? years ago. He also described himself as being ''too honourable'' at one point, I recall, which I found rather comedic. And the wide-eyed expression of injured innocence. Every article I have read about the interview describes it as 'disastrous'. And don't forget, the only reason he went to see Epstein on one occasion was, er, to tell him he was not going to see him again; but he did (go again) , because it happened to be a handy place to stay.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MissMiloKitty said:


> "The Duchess".


I wondered if he might start calling her ''My Old Dutch'' or ''The Trouble and Strife'' at one point. He also referred to himself as ''we'' a couple of times, the royal plural, but hastily changed it . . . ''We - er, I, that is, my staff and I''.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MissMiloKitty said:


> Diana refered to Charles as 'my husband' and it's one of the reasons women related to her.


Sure Wills refers to his wife as ''Catherine'' (he certainly has done when I've heard him speak sometimes).


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Magyarmum said:


> Yes, otherwise why would I have quoted you?
> 
> You also said you based your thoughts on information you read in the media..
> 
> As the article is only a matter of a few hours old and as no one, including you, has ever mentioned Ghislaine Maxwell who's pivotal to the case, I thought you might find it interesting


post #23 the female accomplice I referred to is Ghislaine Maxwell.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Calvine said:


> What was really mind-boggling was the fact that he acted as tho' he was completely in denial with all the ridiculous ''I don't recollect this/that/the other''. But he did, amazingly, recollect a Pizza Express visit on a definite date 18?? years ago. He also described himself as being ''too honourable'' at one point, I recall, which I found rather comedic. And the wide-eyed expression of injured innocence. Every article I have read about the interview describes it as 'disastrous'. And don't forget, the only reason he went to see Epstein on one occasion was, er, to tell him he was not going to see him again; but he did (go again) , because it happened to be a handy place to stay.


I know, it is absolutely bizarre! But he's probably never had to face even a potential consequence for anything in his life before. How the mind works in a person like that is not going to be how a normal person's mind works.

The "Who me? I am Respectable, I could never" thing has worked in the past. Priests, teachers, fathers, uncles, doctors, entertainers (thinking Cosby in particular here) literally anyone who abuses their position tries that one first. And even 10 years ago that probably would have been all he needed to say, if others didn't say it for him and just shut down the accusers/ victims immediately. These days it doesn't have the same effect. His press team will have been screaming in the background when he said that.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Maxwell was a madam. Epstein died without help??? Hmmm...

I somehow thought he is going to... considering who went to his parties...
Then Maxwell vanishes...

IMO they became very dangerous.


I am sure it is possible to stage suicide and even make sure it will be recognized as such.

I think Prince Andrew did very much what all who attended did.

The whole point of attending.


Are teenagers gullible and could be groomed pretty easily?

Was it an abuse of social position?

But if we look at history of any monarchy... were the royals everywhere above the law? Or morality? Were princes indulging their appetites?

Maybe we don’t need the monarchy after all?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Remember Indecent Proposal and the discussions about “would you?” $15k is probably a lot to a teenager. Unless they’re Royalty or heiresses, or Social media influencers or something. Some of the children involved and not just with Epstein’s little enterprise are extremely young.  

Does anyone think this has stopped with Epstein? That there are no children being abused right now? I think Andrew is a deflection from more than just Brexit. He’s keeping his mouth shut isn’t he.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

https://www.euronews.com/2019/11/19...prison-guards-charged-with-falsifying-records

*Jeffrey Epstein: Prison guards accused of not checking on inmates around time he committed suicide*

And for those who don't know the history of Robert Maxwell and article from earlier this year

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...well-and-how-it-shaped-his-daughter-ghislaine

*The murky life and death of Robert Maxwell - and how it shaped his daughter Ghislaine*


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...-making-offensive-remarks-about-a4290576.html

Now this; not his best week, all in all, publicity-wise.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Calvine said:


> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...-making-offensive-remarks-about-a4290576.html
> 
> Now this; not his best week, all in all, publicity-wise.


My first thought seeing this was "Ah, here is the distraction"


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

The interview was a disaster and one of Andrew’s making. He has a staggeringly high opinion of his own ability.

As to the accusations, at first I only heard about a girl who was seventeen at the time and thought hang on, it’s almost impossible to tell if someone is seventeen or twenty five once they’re dressed up with a face full of slap. Since then I’ve heard about girls as young as fourteen being involved. Surely anyone would question their presence, wonder who they were, even if you didn’t know what was going on.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Smolmaus said:


> My first thought seeing this was "Ah, here is the distraction"


 Why? It's not as if being (allegedly) a racist is going to take people's minds off the Epstein affair. OK, if he'd dived into the Thames to save someone's life, one might think he was half decent. But being branded (allegedly) a racist won't make people forget about the rest. in fact, it will just compound matters, surely?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

If it's a distraction it's been very well planned. It's been in the public domain since before the election was called.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MissMiloKitty said:


> Diana refered to Charles as 'my husband' and it's one of the reasons women related to her.


And the Queen: ''My husband and I'' . . .


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Calvine said:


> Why? It's not as if being (allegedly) a racist is going to take people's minds off the Epstein affair. OK, if he'd dived into the Thames to save someone's life, one might think he was half decent. But being branded (allegedly) a racist won't make people forget about the rest. in fact, it will just compound matters, surely?


I think it will take minds off it, or it contributes to a general lack of focus. Turns into "Prince Andrew Bad Man Cancelled" instead of about his alleged crimes. You can't go to prison for being a racist, but if people are talking about the racism they're NOT talking about the crimes.

You see the same thing with media coverage of Trump. Every new "scandal", gaffe or awful interview shifts focus from the last terrible thing he is accused of. A rambling press conference where he says something stupid or weird about toilets will get the same coverage as the Ukraine bribery hearings when they are not at all on the same level!


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Smolmaus said:


> I think it will take minds off it,


 I don't: I think it will add to it.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Calvine said:


> I don't: I think it will add to it.


Add to what? You can't add "Said the n-word" to a charge of conspiracy, endangering a minor or a sexual assault charge.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Smolmaus said:


> Add to what?


Add, if it were possible, to the already lousy opinion that most people now have of him. What did you think I meant? It's hardly a ''diversion''; he is fast becoming a social pariah.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Calvine said:


> Add, if it were possible, to the already lousy opinion that most people now have of him. What did you think I meant? It's hardly a ''diversion''; he is fast becoming a social pariah.


Okay if someone needs to hear that someone has said a racist word before they will "Pariah" a man accused of what he is accused of I honestly despair. And realistically public opinion only matters in how effective it is in convincing either the CPS or the FBI that investigating and bringing charges is in the public interest, which has nothing to do with him being a racist.

Racism is an easier and simpler thing to be concerned about I guess? I just don't think it even registers in comparison to the real story here.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Smolmaus said:


> Okay if someone needs to hear that someone has said a racist word before they will "Pariah" a man accused of what he is accused of I honestly despair. And realistically public opinion only matters in how effective it is in convincing either the CPS or the FBI that investigating and bringing charges is in the public interest, which has nothing to do with him being a racist.
> 
> Racism is an easier and simpler thing to be concerned about I guess? I just don't think it even registers in comparison to the real story here.


I can't be bothered to reply to any more of your posts; you are deliberately missing the point and hence becoming tedious. I'll put you on ignore so I no longer have to read or reply to them.



Smolmaus said:


> I honestly despair.


Can't help you there.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

So this is getting boring, none of us know what he did or didn't do and if we will ever know the truth.:Bored


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

havoc said:


> As to the accusations, at first I only heard about a girl who was seventeen at the time and thought hang on, it's almost impossible to tell if someone is seventeen or twenty five once they're dressed up with a face full of slap. Since then I've heard about girls as young as fourteen being involved. Surely anyone would question their presence, wonder who they were, even if you didn't know what was going on.


Depends on the girl. When I was fourteen, I was already 5'9" and, with my figure and given (in)appropriate clothes and styling, could easily have passed for 17+ if I had been that way inclined. I also remember a TV program where they challenged several experienced bounceres to spot underage wannabe clubbers from a lineup amongst approriately aged girls once they had applied their 'going out' attire and face. If memory serves, they didn't do all that well...

Not excusing anything, of course, just saying it can be done.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Calvine said:


> I can't be bothered to reply to any more of your posts; you are deliberately missing the point and hence becoming tedious. I'll put you on ignore so I no longer have to read or reply to them.


Absolutely feel free! I like getting into details, I am a pedant for language, I have very strong feelings about a lot of the aspects of this case in particular. That doesn't suit some people and that's grand. Whether you see this or not, I was posting in good faith and I am sorry if you took anything I posted as aggressive or personally snarky, it was honestly not intended.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

You are saying that we should ignore that the guy is also racist? How about if we find out something else unsavoury, or criminal? Ignore it too? Or maybe just not mention it, in case someone thinks we think it more important? It all points to his character.

It's funny how I didn't read what you did into @Calvine post.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Elles said:


> You are saying that we should ignore that the guy is also racist? How about if we find out something else unsavoury, or criminal? Ignore it too? Or maybe just not mention it, in case someone thinks we think it more important? It all points to his character.
> 
> It's funny how I didn't read what you did into @Calvine post.


Criminal is important. But I think putting attention on him saying awful words sometimes is a distraction. Whether or not the timing is deliberate, who knows!

To bring it back to one of your earlier points, who amongst us is really surprised that he likes to make racist jokes? If I'd been asked to put my life savings on Prince Andrew liking jokes with the n-word in them even 10 years ago before ANY of this was known I would have slammed the cash down so hard it'd strike sparks.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

A lot of people when mentioning the Royals say think of the tourism. Do we really think that if they were gone, no one would go to London for Big Ben, Trafalgar Square, Buck Palace and all the famous historical landmarks? King Arthur doesn’t live at Tintagel, but people still visit it. I honestly don’t think it would make even a dent. I do think the Royals will become less significant once the Queen has gone, but I think the impact on the tourist industry is exaggerated.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Elles said:


> It all points to his character.


 That's the point I was forlornly trying to make; that so far there appears to be no redeeming feature (except that he described himself as ''too honourable''!).


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Calvine said:


> That's the point I was forlornly trying to make; that so far there appears to be no redeeming feature (except that he described himself as ''too honourable''!).


I was pretty stunned at the 'honourable' thing. If I remember it right he used that as his reason for knowingly going to stay with a man convicted of sex crimes. I cannot for the life of me work out where the honour is in that.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Prince Andrew - From hero to zero.  He piloted a helicopter in the Falklands war and risked his life luring missiles away from his ship.
I think this is do with money , he didnt want to lose a rich friend. He and Fergie had little income and spent buckets.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Depends on the girl. When I was fourteen, I was already 5'9" and, with my figure and given (in)appropriate clothes and styling, could easily have passed for 17+ if I had been that way inclined. I also remember a TV program where they challenged several experienced bounceres to spot underage wannabe clubbers from a lineup amongst approriately aged girls once they had applied their 'going out' attire and face. If memory serves, they didn't do all that well...


A lineup is a very different thing to a houseparty. I completely understand the difficulty in telling a girl's age if she's just stood there all dressed up but it would take a very mature 14 year old to come across as so much older once there was any form of social dialogue. Maybe if they were wheeled in to line up Chicken Ranch style and never spoke you wouldn't question their age - maybe. However, if they were just wheeled in like that then it's pretty unsavoury whatever their ages don't you think?


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Apparently he's now stepping down from official duties?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

O2.0 said:


> Apparently he's now stepping down from official duties?


It looks like it . 
https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-steps-back-from-public-duties-11865854


----------



## Jaf (Apr 17, 2014)

Sooo...extended holiday in other words. Great. Probably be all forgiven in time for his daughter’s wedding.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

havoc said:


> I was pretty stunned at the 'honourable' thing. If I remember it right he used that as his reason for knowingly going to stay with a man convicted of sex crimes. I cannot for the life of me work out where the honour is in that.


I know! He really is deluded, isn't he. The interviewer's face was a picture.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

kimthecat said:


> Prince Andrew - From hero to zero.  He piloted a helicopter in the Falklands war and risked his life luring missiles away from his ship.
> I think this is do with money , he didnt want to lose a rich friend. He and Fergie had little income and spent buckets.


Little income? Maybe in comparison to Epstein but that is very strange thing to say about a member of the literal landed gentry.

He could probably have found a rich friend who wasn't a convicted child molester. Hardly lacking in network contacts as a member of the royal family.



havoc said:


> A lineup is a very different thing to a houseparty. I completely understand the difficulty in telling a girl's age if she's just stood there all dressed up but it would take a very mature 14 year old to come across as so much older once there was any form of social dialogue. Maybe if they were wheeled in to line up Chicken Ranch style and never spoke you wouldn't question their age - maybe. However, if they were just wheeled in like that then it's pretty unsavoury whatever their ages don't you think?


Yes! Honestly people will twist themselves in knots to try and excuse people abusing children. Maybe the child was dressed slutty, maybe the child really enjoyed money, maybe it was just so crazy a party the poor man didn't have time to ask what age she was before he had sex with her. Absolutely wild.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Jaf said:


> extended holiday in other words.


 That's right - he's not going to be signing on, is he!

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1205390/prince-andrew-net-worth
I realise this is DE, but there's something in The Times as well for those of us who can write in joined-up letters, which I can't get into - and DM was full of it yesterday (of course).


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Jaf said:


> Sooo...extended holiday in other words.


Are you sure he doesn't lose his sovereign grant? I'm sure mummy will help out if he's struggling but I don't think he can continue to be paid if he's stepped down from all official duties.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

havoc said:


> A lineup is a very different thing to a houseparty.  I completely understand the difficulty in telling a girl's age if she's just stood there all dressed up but it would take a very mature 14 year old to come across as so much older once there was any form of social dialogue.


Oh, absolutely. Although, once again, I could have managed that part as well without much effort had I been so inclined - when I was 14 I got on with adults a lot better than I did with my own peer group, and had the mature conversational skills to match. If these unfortunate girls were similar lonely, eager to please misfits (and we KNOW the predators that hunted and provided them would have been experts in targetting  ), then their 'handlers' wouldn't have had too much trouble training them in the required ettiquette, especially if they'd been trapped and groomed from a much earlier age. Abusers of this nature know how to use all this to their advantage, and then some. Their victims never stood a chance, especially as no-one among the guests appears to have been willing to look closely enough at the gift horses they were being offered - or call their host out on it if they did.

Of course, there's also a side element to consider of what kind and depth of conversation was actually expected from them...



havoc said:


> Maybe if they were wheeled in to line up Chicken Ranch style and never spoke you wouldn't question their age - maybe. However, if they were just wheeled in like that then it's pretty unsavoury whatever their ages don't you think?


I never said it wasn't. The whole thing stinks, whatever the practical details were and whatever age the girls were. I know how this horrible system works thanks to being there for friends who have been through sexual abuse and manipulation, including at a young age, not because in interests me intellectually.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Epstein was the child molester. Andrew (allegedly) had sex with a girl when she was 17 and again a month later when she was 18. She wants him to back her up. She says she thought an English Prince would come forward for her. She says she was coached and paid by Epstein and Maxwell. She wants Andrew to say what he saw at Epstein’s. 

Technically in this country he hasn’t done anything illegal. He was considered quite the catch back in the day and accustomed to flattery and attention from girls. He probably did think he’s special and they were into him. Look at the guy. He probably still believes it.

His major failing is remaining friends with Epstein and not calling him out and for that I think he should suffer. Sarah Ferguson stayed friends with Epstein and Maxwell and took money and I think she’s just as bad.


----------



## oliviarussian (Sep 2, 2010)

The funniest thing I've seen in ages!


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Elles said:


> Epstein was the child molester. Andrew (allegedly) had sex with a girl when she was 17
> 
> Technically in this country he hasn't done anything illegal.


It was illegal in America where it happened though. And since this young woman was a victim of grooming and sex trafficking, that would also be illegal here. I am all for legalized and safe sex work but a 17yo who has been manipulated and groomed cannot freely consent to becoming a sex worker, so that is criminal on a few levels both here and in America.

He also can't come forward and admit to knowing or seeing anything at Epsteins since covering up or not reporting child abuse is also a crime. 


Jesthar said:


> no-one among the guests appears to have been willing to look closely enough at the gift horses they were being offered - or call their host out on it if they did.


There is no reason for Epstein to procure underage children for his guests if those guests did not want underage children or adolescents. Consenting, 18+ sex workers are freely available and won't land you in jail forever.


----------



## Dave S (May 31, 2010)

Looking at other perspectives and I do not think these have been explored here or made public.

One conclusive piece of proof could be if this young lady, and anyone else who claim to have had sex or anything else of an intimate nature with Prince Andrew could make public any "distinguishing" marks or features on his torso that really only his mother/wife/lover would know, be it a mole, birthmark or whatever.
- Certainly worked for Rebecca Loos when David Beckham said they did not have an affair.

Secondly, I am sure that Miss Roberts has a family. Why did her parents let her go down the path of being trafficked and groomed, they would know full well that a young 17 year old lady who stays out all night and day and comes home with expensive presents is up to no good - she sound every parents nightmare.
Did they not question here at that time?
If not her parents, what about brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts etc?

I suspect Andrew is partly guilty but coming from a privileged position but without resources I think he is easily led and thought it was his birthday and Christmas all come together.
Now he has completely embarrassed the royal family one wonders where he will end up - perhaps the first "man" on a mission to Mars? After all it would be difficult for him to be prominent in public life either in the UK or overseas, who would have any faith in him to not line his own pockets etc. Seems most of his sponsors have cast him adrift.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Dave S said:


> a young 17 year old lady who stays out all night and day and comes home with expensive presents is up to no good - she sound every parents nightmare.


What a disgusting thing to say about a young girl who has been purposefully manipulated and abused. 


Dave S said:


> I suspect Andrew is partly guilty but coming from a privileged position but without resources I think he is easily led and thought it was his birthday and Christmas all come together.


Of course, the *grown adult man* couldn't have known any better and is easily led but the adolescent girl is a nightmare who is up to no good? Take a look at yourself.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

oliviarussian said:


> The funniest thing I've seen in ages!


Probably not too dissimilar to what his handlers were actually feeling



Smolmaus said:


> It was illegal in America where it happened though. And since this young woman was a victim of grooming and sex trafficking, that would also be illegal here.* I am all for legalized and safe sex work* but a 17yo who has been manipulated and groomed cannot freely consent to becoming a sex worker, so that is criminal on a few levels both here and in America.
> 
> He also can't come forward and admit to knowing or seeing anything at Epsteins since covering up or not reporting child abuse is also a crime.
> 
> There is no reason for Epstein to procure underage children for his guests if those guests did not want underage children or adolescents. Consenting, 18+ sex workers are freely available and won't land you in jail forever.


Regarding 'sex work' (as much as I hate that term), the vast majority of adult prostituted women are first coerced into it when they are underage, and have usually already been victims of sexual abuse. It doesn't magically become 'empowering' (another term I loathe in this context) and hunky dory when they turn eighteen. The pimp lobby love propagating the idea that 'sex work is work' just like any other and that it would be anti feminist to oppose it but in no other context is it considered acceptable to buy another person whether they consent or not, and consent is dubious when you're offering money to someone poor and desperate so you can have sex with them. In addition, wherever prostitution is legalised demand increases and trafficking has gone up.
https://nordicmodelnow.org/2018/06/...ation-is-the-only-way-to-end-sex-trafficking/
Just look into the horrors of the megabrothels in Germany and consider whether you would want to work there


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

picaresque said:


> Regarding 'sex work' (as much as I hate that term), the vast majority of adult prostituted women are first coerced into it when they are underage, and have usually already been victims of sexual abuse. It doesn't magically become 'empowering' (another term I loathe in this context) and hunky dory when they turn eighteen. The pimp lobby love propagating the idea that 'sex work is work' just like any other and that it would be anti feminist to oppose it but in no other context is it considered acceptable to buy another person whether they consent or not, and consent is dubious when you're offering money to someone poor and desperate so you can have sex with them. In addition, wherever prostitution is legalised demand increases and trafficking has gone up.
> https://nordicmodelnow.org/2018/06/...ation-is-the-only-way-to-end-sex-trafficking/
> Just look into the horrors of the megabrothels in Germany and consider whether you would want to work there


Making the work legal for those who are already engaged in it is important for their safety, so they can access police resources the same as the rest of us when they are victims of crime (theoretically at least, since police reform is also vitally needed, which has not been done sufficiently anywhere). The argument as to whether sex work is selling "yourself" or selling your labour is a conversation that could do with its own thread probably and honestly I'm not really qualified to speak on it, never having been a sex worker. Coercive labour and the human trafficking associated with it doesn't just involve the sex industry tho. "Modern slavery" as it were affects a lot of different industries and is it's own problem with it's own solutions (the social safety net and immigration reform mostly) which aren't necessarily linked to the ethics of sex work.

EDIT: Having read that article, it is a surprise to see it supports the nordic model as most of what I hear (coming from within northern ireland where we do have it) is that it is not working to keep women safe.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Dave S said:


> Looking at other perspectives and I do not think these have been explored here or made public.
> 
> One conclusive piece of proof could be if this young lady, and anyone else who claim to have had sex or anything else of an intimate nature with Prince Andrew could make public any "distinguishing" marks or features on his torso that really only his mother/wife/lover would know, be it a mole, birthmark or whatever.
> - Certainly worked for Rebecca Loos when David Beckham said they did not have an affair.
> ...


I find this so sad .. yet again the victim is blamed rather than the privileged, adult (mainly) men who were involved.

So Prince Andrew is 'easily led' yet the young woman involved is a 'nightmare' …. just disgusting!!


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Elles said:


> He was considered quite the catch back in the day


He certainly was . . . of the Queen's three sons he was definitely the most personable - tho' maybe not much competition. One thing I did notice the other evening was that he speaks far more ''normally'' than Charles, who, to me, always sounds very affected and somewhat eccentric. I don't think I've ever heard Edward speak, so not sure what he sounds like.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Dave S said:


> Secondly, I am sure that Miss Roberts has a family. Why did her parents let her go down the path of being trafficked and groomed, they would know full well that a young 17 year old lady who stays out all night and day and comes home with expensive presents is up to no good - she sound every parents nightmare.
> Did they not question here at that time?
> If not her parents, what about brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts etc?


I have not been following the story nor have I researched it, but I can comment as one who has worked with teenagers for a very long time, often from very troubled and troubling backgrounds.

I'm not sure if you are blaming the teenager here or the family? 
Of course she would have a family, but not all families, even those from seemingly respectable homes, are functional. And predators and abusers know this well. They know exactly who to prey on. 
Being easy or easier prey doesn't make this teen a 'nightmare'. It makes her a victim.

I'm very glad that there are enough people who can't conceive of a parent allowing their child to be in this position, but the reality is, not all parents love their children. Not all parents protect their children as they should, not all parents function in any capability as parents despite appearing as functioning adults to the rest of the world.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Can anyone prove that Andrew paid her (he didn’t) or knew she was being paid? I’m sorry, but unfortunately some young women do throw themselves at wealthy older men, so I’m not surprised Andrew had sex with young women at parties without even thinking about how they got there. He was probably flattered. The girl says she was coached into how to behave. 

Once he and Fergie knew what Epstein was up to, then it was different. We know that when he was pictured walking with Epstein and visiting him for 4 days, he knew by then the guy was a paedophile. There is doubt about beforehand, abusers and paedos are very clever at hiding what they’re up to, but that he carried on visiting the guy and seemingly has no sympathy or remorse, then it becomes a problem and we start suspecting that he’s hiding a lot more.

There is a difference between having sex with 17 and 18 year olds and 10 and 11 year olds. Epstein is the real criminal here and Maxwell, if she was involved as is said. Andrew is an enabler and a selfish idiot, but for his part he’s unlikely to get more than a slapped wrist even if he did hand himself over. 

There are other men involved and some had sex with the children that were much younger than 17, but everyone is so horrified at Prince Andrew they aren’t even in the spotlight. That’s what makes me suspicious about the interview and the focus on Andrew. Could there not be worse that’s being hidden? DT knew the guy too, as did others in positions of power. Maybe Prince Andrew being relatively and comparatively insignificant is out there as deflection.

For me this isn’t about sex work, or about prostitution, it’s about 10 and 11 year old children being groomed and coerced by a paedophile, who once they’re older and he’s done with them, gets more for himself and passes them on to his wealthy friends. Children procured for his use by his female co-conspirator and others in his employ. Prince Andrew was useful to him. Epstein was a major manipulator, we have no idea what was said and done.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Smolmaus said:


> Making the work legal for those who are already engaged in it is important for their safety, so they can access police resources the same as the rest of us when they are victims of crime (theoretically at least, since police reform is also vitally needed, which has not been done sufficiently anywhere). The argument as to whether sex work is selling "yourself" or selling your labour is a conversation that could do with its own thread probably and honestly I'm not really qualified to speak on it, never having been a sex worker. Coercive labour and the human trafficking associated with it doesn't just involve the sex industry tho. "Modern slavery" as it were affects a lot of different industries and is it's own problem with it's own solutions (the social safety net and immigration reform mostly) which aren't necessarily linked to the ethics of sex work.
> 
> EDIT: Having read that article, it is a surprise to see it supports the nordic model as most of what I hear (coming from within northern ireland where we do have it) is that it is not working to keep women safe.


Sex cannot be compared to standard labour. We are talking penetration and bodily fluids here, it's not the same as working in Mc Donalds. If we treat it just like any other job we can look forward to a future where job seeking women are sanctioned by the DWP for refusing to apply for advertised work in a brothel. 
Prostitution is a very dangerous profession regardless but full legalisation does not make it safer. It actually increases trafficking because of the higher demand, as I said above. The Nordic model criminalises the buyers, not the women (and men) being bought. Re: the term sex worker btw, another reason I'm not so fond of it is that it encompasses all those in the industry, including pimps (as well as say 'camgirls' who are not exposed to the same physical danger as those who have actual contact with johns). And of course pimps will want to sanitise prostitution. Look at the gross men who operate mega brothels in countries where it is legal to do so. There is a lot of money at stake, and isn't it funny that there is so much propaganda to the effect that selling sex is so fun and freeing and is just like any other job. Women who have left the industry are the most vocal about ending it. Rachel Moran's book Paid For is a huge eye opener, well worth reading. 
​


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

How about the women get protection from the law the same as the rest of us without legalising it.

omg @picaresque What a thought?! Women being refused welfare, because they wouldn't take a job in the local brothel. :Jawdrop


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Elles said:


> How about the women get protection from the law the same as the rest of us without legalising it.
> 
> omg @picaresque What a thought?! Women being refused welfare, because they wouldn't take a job in the local brothel. :Jawdrop


That's what the popular mantra 'sex work is work' will get us.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

picaresque said:


> Sex cannot be compared to standard labour. We are talking penetration and bodily fluids here, it's not the same as working in Mc Donalds. If we treat it just like any other job we can look forward to a future where job seeking women are sanctioned by the DWP for refusing to apply for advertised work in a brothel.
> Prostitution is a very dangerous profession regardless but full legalisation does not make it safer. It actually trafficking because of the higher demand, as I said above. The Nordic model criminalises the buyers, not the women (and men) being bought. Re: the term sex worker btw, another reason I'm not so fond of it is that it encompasses all those in the industry, including pimps (as well as say 'camgirls' who are not exposed to the same physical danger as those who have actual contact with johns). And of course pimps will want to sanitise prostitution. Look at the gross men who operate mega brothels in countries where it is legal to do so. There is a lot of money at stake, and isn't it funny that there is so much propaganda to the effect that selling sex is so fun and freeing and is just like any other job. Women who have left the industry are the most vocal about ending it. Rachel Moran's book Paid For is a huge eye opener, well worth reading. ​


I take my nod from sex workers, I'm using language I have been told is the preferred language and I'm respecting the experience of those sex workers who have said the Nordic model does not work and who are pushing for full decriminalisation. Those are the people who are most vocal in my community. Obviously this is not a monolithic group so I do respect where you're coming from and the experiences of those you have contact with, even if I disagree that anyone considers cam-work and full sex the same thing, or that pimps are considered as being under the sex-work umbrella.

I do agree with Elles though, this isn't really about sex work. Just a point to be made that if they just wanted young women, they could have found young women legally. They weren't underage by accident.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Smolmaus said:


> I take my nod from sex workers, I'm using language I have been told is the preferred language and I'm respecting the experience of those sex workers who have said the Nordic model does not work and who are pushing for full decriminalisation. Those are the people who are most vocal in my community. Obviously this is not a monolithic group so I do respect where you're coming from and the experiences of those you have contact with, even if I disagree that anyone considers cam-work and full sex the same thing, or that pimps are considered as being under the sex-work umbrella.
> 
> I do agree with Elles though, this isn't really about sex work. Just a point to be made that if they just wanted young women, they could have found young women legally. They weren't underage by accident.


Yes I do feel like I've dragged the thread off topic a little, although not very as prostitution and trafficking (a la Prince Andrew's mate Epstein) are inextricably related


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBX67AQ?m=en-gb&referrerID=InAppShare

Buckingham Palace has risked reigniting the controversy surrounding Prince Andrew a day after he stepped down from public duties by announcing he would continue his work with a business mentoring initiative.
The Duke of York will continue to be involved with [email protected], which has held events at Buckingham and St James's palaces, according to the statement, "but will look at how he takes this forward outside of his public duties, and outside of the palace"."Naturally there will be a transition period while this takes place," said Buckingham Palace.
The move to retain Prince Andrew's links to the initiative, which corporate partners such as BT have been abandoning in recent days, muddies the water of what had appeared to be a clean break from royal duties.
It also signals a desire on the part of the palace to protect what was seen by some as a successful scheme, which builds ties between the corporate world and tech startups. At least one backer had suggested to the Guardian that Andrew could make way for another royal, such as Prince Harry or William.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

picaresque said:


> Ah, pearl clutching, the standard insult for anyone disturbed by the commodification of sex and the pornified atmosphere teenagers are now being raised in.
> 
> Decriminalisation protects pimps and sex buyers, no one else. Decrim _increases_ trafficking, as I keep saying. Women are abused and murdered and raped in huge numbers. The small handful of 'happy hookers' that do exist should surely give a shit about the majority of prostituted women who are underage and/or coerced and/or trafficked and not want to make things worse for them. There is a definite class divide as well - most of the liberal feminists advocating sex work as work are never going to be in a position where they have to be penetrated by multiple strangers every day so that they can pay rent and feed their kids, and yes, in many cases support their habit which is usually something they got into because of the grim reality of their line of work.
> As for anal sex, the message I would give teenage girls is don't let boys who have been raised on internet porn force you into doing something painful and potentially quite dangerous (see the rates on injury and tearing that have increased a lot in young women in recent years). If teenagers are going to have anal sex they should know how to do so safely, I can't disagree there but I'm afraid Teen Vogue's approach reeks of grooming to me. Who is benefiting here?


That's just not the reality I'm seeing I'm afraid. The Nordic model is not working. Sex workers here are pushing for decrim and I'm going to listen to them. As far as being forced into prostitution, that is less related to sex workers rights and more about the absolute state of our social safety net, lack of a real living wage and a decade of austerity that's decimated the benefits system. Which is another HUGE topic we probably shouldn't get into. Making sex work illegal isn't going to stop a woman doing it if she feels it's her only option, it's just going to make it harder for her. If a person does feel forced into prostitution to feed their family, I don't want that to be the case of course for anyone, but I especially want them to be as safe as possible if that is the case. The Nordic model does not make women safer, statistically, as it precludes working in "brothels" and the danger men might feel about possibly being caught gets passed on to the women they contact. Not that there is much evidence it being illegal actually puts anyone off paying for sex.

It's not grooming to give girls information. Information is power. It is dangerous to treat any information about sex and relationships as taboo. We need children and teenagers to feel able to talk about these things!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

https://liftworcester.org/
https://liftworcester.org/
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...tution-nordic-model-trafficking-a9113436.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...reduction-sex-work-exploitation-a8120631.html

https://nypost.com/2019/06/02/former-sex-worker-dont-legalize-prostitution-in-new-york/

You're talking about people still trapped in the life. I think it's more relevant to talk to those who got out.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Can we try to keep our children innocent? They need information to protect them, they don’t need information on every deviant behaviour, unless we want to keep the therapists busy. Some things are too much for young minds to process and they shouldn’t be exposed to it. If they are, they should feel safe to ask questions and get support, but there are answers and there’s answers. 

Regarding teen vogue, young people often already feel pressured. I didn’t read the article, but hopefully it was supportive without encouraging young girls into behaviour they aren’t comfortable with, or normalising it. I don’t remember reading those kind of articles in Diana or Jackie back in the day. :Angelic


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Elles said:


> https://liftworcester.org/
> https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...tution-nordic-model-trafficking-a9113436.html
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...reduction-sex-work-exploitation-a8120631.html
> ...


Me and Julie Bindel are not on the same wavelength about many things I'm afraid, but I did read them and I do appreciate that decrim wont solve every problem. Personally I dont think complete abolition is realistic, not at this point in time. It's not called the oldest profession in the world for nothing. Rather than seeking directly that no woman is involved in sex work I want those involved to be safe and listened to.

Again, I'm just supporting the position that my local community advocates. The last link is incredibly sad and I hope that woman finds peace. I cant say what would have helped her as it seems no laws were heeded at all by the people that victimised her.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Smolmaus said:


> Me and Julie Bindel are not on the same wavelength about many things I'm afraid, but I did read them and I do appreciate that decrim wont solve every problem. Personally I dont think complete abolition is realistic, not at this point in time. It's not called the oldest profession in the world for nothing. Rather than seeking directly that no woman is involved in sex work I want those involved to be safe and listened to.
> 
> Again, I'm just supporting the position that my local community advocates. The last link is incredibly sad and I hope that woman finds peace. I cant say what would have helped her as it seems no laws were heeded at all by the people that victimised her.


Did you read the first link to LIFT?

Clearly the problem is multifaceted and requires addressing in more than one way. Giving the women a way out is better than legalising pimps and brothels imo.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

For a lot of people all kinds of things are not seen as deviant or abnormal, that doesn’t mean we need to tell the kids about it. 

People need to feel weird and abnormal sometimes btw. People like Jeffrey Dahmer and the cannibal who advertised on the Internet don’t feel weird or abnormal and were just enjoying themselves lol. It depends on where you want to draw the line, but lines must be drawn sometimes even when it is consensual, or appears to be.


----------



## Smolmaus (Oct 3, 2019)

Elles said:


> For a lot of people all kinds of things are not seen as deviant or abnormal, that doesn't mean we need to tell the kids about it.


Well we do if we want them to be safe about it! Age appropriate sex education is incredibly important for preventing child abuse by adults for one thing and allowing young people to be aware of safe, consenting relationships. I dont mean reading that Vogue article to 5yos like, but if they're looking for that information it's good that it's out there, factual and non judgemental. 


Elles said:


> Did you read the first link to LIFT?
> 
> Clearly the problem is multifaceted and requires addressing in more than one way. Giving the women a way out is better than legalising pimps and brothels imo.


I did! I am glad that they provide support where its needed and I do agree that getting women more opportunities and support for mental health issues is incredibly valuable. I'm just looking at different statistics and coming to a different conclusion. If there is a better solution to the Nordic model that doesn't prevent women who are still in the sex industry from doing what they need to do to be safe then I'm all for it.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

picaresque said:


> If we treat it just like any other job we can look forward to a future where job seeking women are sanctioned by the DWP for refusing to apply for advertised work in a brothel. ​


they already said that they could be strippers or dancers in an adult context
short step to prostitution being touted as a reasonable job situation

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...eople-are-wondering-if-it-can-sink-any-lower/

as for Andrew and Epstein
wasnt Charles friends with Saville and the pair photographed together on several occasions?


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

I


mrs phas said:


> they already said that they could be strippers or dancers in an adult context
> short step to prostitution being touted as a reasonable job situation
> 
> https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...eople-are-wondering-if-it-can-sink-any-lower/
> ...


 But not photographed with one of the victims? 
Prince Andrew did participate in Epstein's entertainment it seems..


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

cheekyscrip said:


> I
> 
> But not photographed with one of the victims?
> Prince Andrew did participate in Epstein's entertainment it seems..


I find all of this totally reprehensible and absolutely undefendable, if true
but dont we still have to say alleged victims?
I ask this, because, until this all hit the news with prince andrew, after the interview, which i didnot watch, I refused to invite the whole sordid episode into my livingroom
since the interview I cannot avoid it, anywhere
I wholeheartedly apologise, if any of this has been judged to be true, after a trial by a jury of his ( epsteins) peers


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

We've come a long way off topic !
Please remember this is a family forum.


----------



## lullabydream (Jun 25, 2013)

SusieRainbow said:


> We've come a long way off topic !
> Please remember this is a family forum.


Yes sorry @SusieRainbow


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Whether Prince Andrew paid, knew she was getting paid, knew the young woman's age or not, meh... Whatever.
To me there is a certain "ick" factor of a man who would have been what? 40's? Finding any sexual attraction to someone so young. Even if he thought she was in her 20's that's still kind of gross especially considering his daughters would have been mid teens by then.

I know, I know, there are wonderful relationships out there with giant age differences, but I'm not talking about a relationship that developed over time, based on mutual respect and love. That's certainly not what happened here. 

I think most of us, if we're truly honest about it, realize that giant age differences generally put a damper on any sexual feelings - as they should!


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

O2.0 said:


> To me there is a certain "ick" factor of a man who would have been what? 40's? Finding any sexual attraction to someone so young. Even if he thought she was in her 20's that's still kind of gross especially considering his daughters would have been mid teens by then.


playing devils advocate, and, totally off topic
what about all the 'girls' out there ( i use apostrophes as some are more than girls)
that go out and delibirately target old/ old and rich/old and famous men
gold diggers looking for their sugar daddies, i believe theyre called in some circles,


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

I'm being a bit prosaic here after all the recent salacious (got to love that word!) posts, but: anyone else think that Andrew should no longer receive tax-payer funded security/protection as he will not be doing engagements in his capacity as a member of the RF. I personally think he should now pay for his own. I can see that it is because he is still a member of the RF and the Queen's allegedly favourite son, but it does grate more than somewhat.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

If he's been 'sacked' then all his added extras should go
Including the 'grace and favour' house, its no more than a 'tied' cottage, in reality
Kick him over to America, they'll love him, eventually, just like they came to love the grotesque he married
Its the girls I feel sorry for, they'll feel the backlash more than anyone


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

mrs phas said:


> If he's been 'sacked' then all his added extras should go


Absolutely: if you lose your ''job'' you lose the benefits/perks that go with it. Maybe we'll have a referendum asking if we want to keep them or not. Another ''once in a lifetime'' opportunity?


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Oh I'd keep the royals, down to, perhaps Louis, with the added extra of princess Anne and Sophie Wessex, as they're so hard working
Cut all the chaff out, they do sod all and live the life of Riley
For example, how many of us would love to take the next 6 weeks off, funded, on full pay, by the tax payers


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

mrs phas said:


> Oh I'd keep the royals, down to, perhaps Louis, with the added extra of princess Anne and Sophie Wessex, as they're so hard working
> Cut all the chaff out, they do sod all and live the life of Riley
> For example, how many of us would love to take the next 6 weeks off, funded, on full pay, by the tax payers


Rumour has it that Charles wants to streamline the monarchy; not sure how true that is. But the hangers-on really don't seem to contribute much, if anything.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Calvine said:


> Rumour has it that Charles wants to streamline the monarchy; not sure how true that is. But the hangers-on really don't seem to contribute much, if anything.


Imagine princess Michael of Kent working down Aldi


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

mrs phas said:


> Imagine princess Michael of Kent working down Aldi


----------



## Lynn Cardwell (Aug 10, 2017)

I thought this was a pet page! Anyhow, for my moneys worth, I'd be v surprised if this girl Roberts is the only girl who's had sex with PA. He likes the girls, and you can't tell me that he didn't sample others. Methinks more will come out of the woodwork over time. He doesn't have a good reputation among his staff and others who have contact with him - cocky, arrogant and rude was one comment I read yesterday. Perhaps PC can reduce the monarchy in time. Now perhaps, is a good time to start with the Yorks...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Lynn Cardwell said:


> I thought this was a pet page! Anyhow, for my moneys worth, I'd be v surprised if this girl Roberts is the only girl who's had sex with PA. He likes the girls, and you can't tell me that he didn't sample others. Methinks more will come out of the woodwork over time. He doesn't have a good reputation among his staff and others who have contact with him - cocky, arrogant and rude was one comment I read yesterday. Perhaps PC can reduce the monarchy in time. Now perhaps, is a good time to start with the Yorks...


She's not the only one who has come forward and it wasn't one at once. Allegedly.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Lynn Cardwell said:


> I thought this was a pet page! Anyhow, for my moneys worth, I'd be v surprised if this girl Roberts is the only girl who's had sex with PA. He likes the girls, and you can't tell me that he didn't sample others. Methinks more will come out of the woodwork over time. He doesn't have a good reputation among his staff and others who have contact with him - cocky, arrogant and rude was one comment I read yesterday. Perhaps PC can reduce the monarchy in time. Now perhaps, is a good time to start with the Yorks...


it is
but youve wandered into General Chat, which can be scary for some
welcome to PF version of the House of Commons, except everyone here has far more sense than to be, or even want to be, an mp


----------



## Beth78 (Jul 4, 2019)

Just started reading this thread on this page, shouldn't have.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Does anyone watch The Last Leg?
They have been ripping PA a new one tonight
It is very irreverent and definitely over 18 viewing, but very very funny


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

Beth78 said:


> Just started reading this thread on this page, shouldn't have.


It's not pleasant reading is it ?


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

SusieRainbow said:


> It's not pleasant reading is it ?


Is there no way to remove those posts from the thread?
They really add nothing to the discussion and, by following the link, under 18s can access some rather unnecessary articles
I'm 40 yrs past that age and wish I hadn't


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

mrs phas said:


> Is there no way to remove those posts from the thread?
> They really add nothing to the discussion and, by following the link, under 18s can access some rather unnecessary articles
> I'm 40 yrs past that age and wish I hadn't


Yes, i'll do some editing.
My 14 yr old grandson is a member of the forum, there are things I don't want him learning from certain posts.


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

Edited.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I didn't read all the links but do we really have to censor posts just in case children read them? 

if members start to read something that they find distasteful/offensive or whatever then surely stop reading it. 

People have posted articles on here about animal abuse/neglect that is very distressing so I don't read them, it's not difficult …..


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

O2.0 said:


> To me there is a certain "ick" factor of a man who would have been what? 40's? Finding any sexual attraction to someone so young. Even if he thought she was in her 20's that's still kind of gross especially considering his daughters would have been mid teens by then.
> 
> I know, I know, there are wonderful relationships out there with giant age differences, but I'm not talking about a relationship that developed over time, based on mutual respect and love. That's certainly not what happened here.
> 
> I think most of us, if we're truly honest about it, realize that giant age differences generally put a damper on any sexual feelings - as they should!


Well my 47 year old partner cheated on me with a 19 year barmaid so I assure you, it does happen.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> if members start to read something that they find distasteful/offensive or whatever then surely stop reading it


This is what I always think too, but you read of people (normally young) killing themselves because they are being bullied online . . . I always wonder why they don't just stop reading the nasty things about themselves; but they can't stop, it seems. They just have to know what people are continuing to say about them.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

It’s easy enough to not follow links, but how do you unread something? There are plenty of uncensored areas of the Internet, this isn’t one of them, so I think we can expect a bit of censoring ever now and then. Thank Heaven!


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Elles said:


> It's easy enough to not follow links, but how do you unread something? There are plenty of uncensored areas of the Internet, this isn't one of them, so I think we can expect a bit of censoring ever now and then. Thank Heaven!


Surely if you start to read something & realise it's not for you then don't carry on ….. 

I think bullying is different but articles that may have an adult content then surely what's the problem? Do we have to sanitise a forum completely in case children read things? Then maybe that would apply to a whole load of threads


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I can’t unread it once I’ve read it. This is the only forum I read and I’ve come to expect that I’m in polite company where I’m not going to read an instruction manual on the unusual in one sentence when I’m having my breakfast. Hence good job moderators. If you want graphic discussion on those matters, I’m sure there’s plenty of places on the Internet you can find it and some with moving pictures. :Vomit


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

Elles said:


> I can't unread it once I've read it. This is the only forum I read and I've come to expect that I'm in polite company where I'm not going to read an instruction manual on the unusual in one sentence when I'm having my breakfast. Hence good job moderators. If you want graphic discussion on those matters, I'm sure there's plenty of places on the Internet you can find it and some with moving pictures. :Vomit


My thoughts exactly ! It iwas my decision to edit the thread after a few complaints, I make no apology for doing so .
If you wish this thread to remain open please get it back on track.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> Surely if you start to read something & realise it's not for you then don't carry on …


I once had a thread title changed (on PF) as it might upset someone. I had actually made a point of saying there was content which some might find upsetting.The actual content remained unedited. You can't win.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

SusieRainbow said:


> get it back on track.


 I tried to do this in post 143 but there was only one response.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

SusieRainbow said:


> My thoughts exactly ! It iwas my decision to edit the thread after a few complaints, I make no apology for doing so .
> If you wish this thread to remain open please get it back on track.


Im glad you did .

Daily mail article today

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ew-Jeffrey-Epstein-crucial-new-witnesses.html

Theres photos of people coming and going but some they havent identified.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

MilleD said:


> Well my 47 year old partner cheated on me with a 19 year barmaid so I assure you, it does happen.


I didn't say it doesn't happen, I said there was an "ick" factor to me. I'm sure you too though it was rather gross for your 47 year old partner to have sexual relations with a 19 year old?

I think it is with good reason that these giant age gaps don't feel right at the gut level.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Anyway, the point I was trying to make, apparently badly, was that even if Prince Andrew didn't know that this girl/woman was underage, he at the very least knew she was decades younger than him. And to me, the giant age gap alone should have convinced him to keep it in his pants. If he were any kind of decent human being. Which he doesn't appear to be.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

O2.0 said:


> Anyway, the point I was trying to make, apparently badly, was that even if Prince Andrew didn't know that this girl/woman was underage, he at the very least knew she was decades younger than him. And to me, the giant age gap alone should have convinced him to keep it in his pants. If he were any kind of decent human being. Which he doesn't appear to be.


Maybe so, but it's not exactly unusual. Powerful older men seem to think young, attractive women are one of the perks, and look at the names. Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Woody Allen, Prince Andrew.. all at one of the dinners at the same time, with young models provided as eye candy, if nothing else. Isn't that just the kind of dinner you'd like to be invited to? :Vomit

Andrew has never had a good reputation with females and neither have the rest of them. Looks like Leonardo DiCaprio is another who has a string of young women to his name. Some young women don't help matters having surgery to keep them young looking and thinking they're past it at 30 either. 

Horrible. :Yuck


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Elles said:


> Maybe so, but it's not exactly unusual. Powerful older men seem to think young, attractive women are one of the perks, and look at the names. Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Woody Allen, Prince Andrew.. all at one of the dinners at the same time, with young models provided as eye candy, if nothing else. Isn't that just the kind of dinner you'd like to be invited to? :Vomit
> 
> Andrew has never had a good reputation with females and neither have the rest of them. Looks like Leonardo DiCaprio is another who has a string of young women to his name. Some young women don't help matters having surgery to keep them young looking and thinking they're past it at 30 either.
> 
> Horrible. :Yuck


Well, that's a whole social/cultural entrenchment in a woman's worth being so closely tied to her potential attractiveness to men... Too much to unpack for a pet forum, but yes, interesting, sad, and noteworthy all the same.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

O2.0 said:


> Anyway, the point I was trying to make, apparently badly, was that even if Prince Andrew didn't know that this girl/woman was underage, he at the very least knew she was decades younger than him. And to me, the giant age gap alone should have *convinced him to keep it in his pants.* If he were any kind of decent human being. Which he doesn't appear to be.


But we still know if he did or have sex with this girl/woman!!
I'm not taking his side, but we are getting two sides and we really don't know who is telling the truth, and a lot of money could be involved.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

mrs phas said:


> Does anyone watch The Last Leg?
> They have been ripping PA a new one tonight
> It is very irreverent and definitely over 18 viewing, but very very funny


Dammit, I forgot it was on last night! I love The Last Leg...


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

I am not a great royalist at all, and not a huge fan of Princess Beatrice. However, I think it's a shame that she's had to change her engagement party details simply because it is imagined that the press will be waiting at the original venue, just to get a few photos of her father - the whole scandal is nothing to do with her and none of it is her fault. It's all about ''the sins of the fathers'' and was pretty much bound to happen. I thought it had all died down a bit and the impending GE taken pride of place in the headlines, but I believe DM (Mirror) has dug up another woman ''known'' to Andrew, though not read it yet. Watch this space, as they say . . .


----------



## Dave S (May 31, 2010)

Well here we are, nearly 2 years since the last entry here and we are still waiting for Andrew to prove he is innocent and all his accusers are liars and all he is doing is dodging everything.

When is this privileged ponce ever going to grow some balls and start answering the questions. 
To be fair though, he has employed loads of expensive lawyers and the case will be dismissed on a technicality, even though he is not on trial which would leave his accuser picking up a huge legal bill. 

I presume therefore he can then start returning to public life if anyone wants him.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Dave S said:


> this privileged ponce


:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious

He disappeared from the front pages during the Afghan situation, but I notice he's gradually creeping back into the _Daily Getsmuchworse. _I doubt that anyone wants him: he is apparently the least popular royal, followed by the Sussexes.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I just think his an easy target... we know he was there from the photo that doesn't make him guilty of sleeping with her, it's not easy to prove either way but it's a easy way for her to get money out of him. Hoping for an out of court settlement I would imagine.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

Happy Paws2 said:


> I just think his an easy target... we know he was there from the photo that doesn't make him guilty of sleeping with her, it's not easy to prove either way but it's a easy way for her to get money out of him. Hoping for an out of court settlement I would imagine.


The question isn't did he sleep with her, it is, 'did he rape her.' She was a 17 year old girl trafficked in to have sex with older men. Even if he did not rape her he was still at a party where young girls had been trafficked in for sex. So part of a sex trafficking ring which is disgusting and a crime.

This isn't how rape victims should be treated it's not about getting money out of him she deserves justice.


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

There’s no smoke without fire.
Yes, he could well be innocent but if so, why all the shirking around. Take the lie detector test he was offered. Stop the delay tactics and subterfuge. Stand up for yourself. Give the nation reason to believe you’re innocent.


----------



## HarlequinCat (Nov 29, 2012)

I did think, if hes innocent and hes done nothing wrong wouldnt he have co operated with the investigators etc long ago. Hiding away does not help his case at all...


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

You wonder who else slept with these girls , there must be a long list . perhaps they're not as famous as Prince Andrew. 
In this country the age of consent is 16 so it would be legal .
But yeah , it's icky and he cant hide for ever.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> You wonder who else slept with these girls , there must be a long list . perhaps they're not as famous as Prince Andrew.
> In this country the age of consent is 16 so it would be legal .
> But yeah , it's icky and he cant hide for ever.


Not legal if they were trafficked in and had no choice which is my reading of the situation. Women being traded like cattle. I agree there will be others .


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Legal or not but wholly disgusting.

Sleazy to say the least.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

HarlequinCat said:


> I did think, if hes innocent and hes done nothing wrong wouldnt he have co operated with the investigators etc long ago. Hiding away does not help his case at all...


He thought the interview with Emily Maitlis would help his case, but that backfired spectacularly. He said he had never met the girl (or couldn't remember meeting her) when everyone had seen the photo of him with her; his ''team'' then suggested that the picture of them together was ''photoshopped'' and that the hand on her waist (his) was not Andrew's, as he has fat pudgy hands and the hand on the photo was small and slim! Then of course the crackers story that he has a ''strange condition that stops him from sweating''! As arrogant as his behaviour is, I rather imagine he's sweating a bit right now.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Boxer123 said:


> 'did he rape her.' She was a 17 year old girl


I thought that if the victim was underage (which she was at the time), it was considered to be statutory rape anyway, even if there was consent; I may be wrong.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Calvine said:


> He thought the interview with Emily Maitlis would help his case, but that backfired spectacularly. He said he had never met the girl (or couldn't remember meeting her) when everyone had seen the photo of him with her; his ''team'' then suggested that the picture of them together was ''photoshopped'' and that the hand on her waist (his) was not Andrew's, as he has fat pudgy hands and the hand on the photo was small and slim! Then of course the crackers story that he has a ''strange condition that stops him from sweating''! As arrogant as his behaviour is, I rather imagine he's sweating a bit right now.


Do you remember every photo taken of you?

I would expect he has had thousands of them taken, a doubt he can remember them all!


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2021)

The whole thing stinks.

Yes I believe Prince Andrew is lying and comes across as trying to hide away from it all and wants to brush the whole thing under the carpet so it is forgotten about. This is how it comes across to me.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

Calvine said:


> I thought that if the victim was underage (which she was at the time), it was considered to be statutory rape anyway, even if there was consent; I may be wrong.


Yes absolutely although I think she was 17 is the age of consent different in America ? Either way it was rape as she didn't give constant she was supplied to have sex with these men.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

Happy Paws2 said:


> Do you remember every photo taken of you?
> 
> I would expect he has had thousands of them taken, a doubt he can remember them all!


I would remember being photographed at a sex offenders house at a party full of young women who had been groomed and bought it for sex.

He knew what this man (Epstein) was and carried on the friendship regardless. These parties were about having sex with young girls.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Boxer123 said:


> Yes absolutely although I think she was 17 is the age of consent different in America ? Either way it was rape as she didn't give constant she was supplied to have sex with these men.


I believe that the rule "innocent until proved guilty" still applies. Until one has positive proof that Prince Andrew is guilty IMO it's just trial by media.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

Magyarmum said:


> I believe that the rule "innocent until proved guilty" still applies. Until one has positive proof that Prince Andrew is guilty IMO it's just trial by media.


I agree in the case of rape, however he was photographed at a party where that young women was trafficked in for sex. This is evidence he was part of a sex trafficking ring even if he didn't rape her. You don't go to these parties not knowing what they are.

Furthermore it wouldn't be trial by media it would be a normal trial if he wasn't prince of England and if he agreed to cooperate. Of course he won't because he's a rich powerful white man. So this women gets no justice.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Boxer123 said:


> Yes absolutely although I think she was 17 is the age of consent different in America ? Either way it was rape as *she didn't give constant *she was supplied to have sex with these men.


And you know that for certain do you.

Come on, it's like Popstars how many teenagers would sleep with one just to say I've slept with ...... she says she sept with a Prince one notch up for her, now she out to make money out of it, clever girl.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Boxer123 said:


> I think she was 17 is the age of consent different in America ?


I think the whole case is based on the fact that at the time of the alleged incident, she was underage according to American law. I believe if it had happened here, there would be no case re. her and Prince Andrew.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

:Turtle


Happy Paws2 said:


> And you know that for certain do you.
> 
> Come on, it's like Popstars how many teenagers would sleep with one just to say I've slept with ...... she says she sept with a Prince one notch up for her, now she out to make money out of it, clever girl.


A 17 year old girl pimped out to a 30 something man and you blame her. Epstein was a know sex offender. How anyone can think this is remotely ok  I'm out.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Boxer123 said:


> :Turtle
> 
> A 17 year old girl pimped out to a 30 something man and you blame her. Epstein was a know s sex offender. How anyone can think this is remotely ok  I'm out.


I wasn't apportioning blame to anyone least of all the girl. All I'm saying is that until something more than a photo and someone's say so. prove otherwise Prince Andrew has to be considered innocent.

In my time I've known a few drug dealers and known criminals but that doesn't mean I took drugs or robbed banks.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

No I'm not blaming her as such but I don't think she's as naïve as she's making out to be, I think money has got a great deal to do with this.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

Magyarmum said:


> I wasn't apportioning blame to anyone least of all the girl. All I'm saying is that until something more than a photo and someone's say so. prove otherwise Prince Andrew has to be considered innocent.
> 
> In my time I've known a few drug dealers and known criminals but that doesn't mean I took drugs or robbed banks.


But if there was a photo of you with your arm around a big pile of drugs or a pile of stolen money I would probably conclude you were complicit.

This women will get no justice he will never see the inside of a court. Whilst we continue to blame and judge rape victims only 2% of rapists are convicted (I didn't see your post as apportioning blame I take your point about trial by media but let's face it it is the only one he will have whilst he hides behind mummy)


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Boxer123 said:


> rich powerful white man


I'm not sure his colour is relevant: the late Jeffrey Epstein was white and he was jailed and Ghislaine Maxwell (wealthy and apparently a close friend of Prince Andrew) is not off the hook, in fact I believe she is still in prison. Footballer Adam Johnson was jailed for ''sexual activity'' with a 15-year-old; he was white and could presumably afford a top notch legal team . . . similarly Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris.


----------



## Teddy-dog (Nov 2, 2017)

I haven't been following the case closely but I agree with @Boxer123 
i don't think you go to these parties and not know what's going on. Why those girls are there. It's a disgrace that the people who attended them didn't stand up for those young girls. I think something went on but it'll get brushed under the carpet no doubt because of who he is. Even if nothing went on he's still guilty of being there and enjoying those parties with Epstein.

As for teenage girls wanted to sleep with older, more 'superior' men or 'rockstars'. That's also wrong. That's older men taking advantage of their power over young, vulnerable women. Society tells women we must be attractive to men and our self worth is tied to how attractive we are to men. Young women are so impressionable it's awful how mature, supposedly grown up men take advantage of that instead of protecting them.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Boxer123 said:


> But if there was a photo of you with your arm around a big pile of drugs or a pile of stolen money I would probably conclude you were complicit.


The things is. I think he's so privileged that it probably wouldn't have crossed his mind. In that interview, he came over as a complete idiot when it comes to real life. 
Epstein could have been using him as much as he was using those girls



Teddy-dog said:


> supposedly grown up men take advantage of that instead of protecting them.


Do many men ever grow up?


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

rona said:


> The things is. I think he's so privileged that it probably wouldn't have crossed his mind. In that interview, he came over as a complete idiot when it comes to real life.
> Epstein could have been using him as much as he was using those girls
> 
> Do many men ever grow up?


Wouldn't it be fair to assume if the the girl was raped by P.A she was also raped by other men?

And what about all the other famous people like Trump, Clinton, et al? Why haven't they been taken to court?

https://news.sky.com/story/whos-who-in-the-jeffrey-epstein-scandal-11796254

*Who's who in the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal?*

Am I the only one who finds it strange that Prince Andrew seems to have been singled out when there must have been others equally as guilty. I'm inclined to agree with @rona in that unlike the others he's particularly unworldly and because of his position in the Royal Family far more vulnerable to scandal and this is the main reason he was chosen possibly to create as much publicity as possible


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

Magyarmum said:


> Wouldn't it be fair to assume if the the girl was raped by P.A she was also raped by other men?
> 
> And what about all the other famous people like Trump, Clinton, et al? Why haven't they been taken to court?
> 
> ...


Yes trump should see the inside of a jail cell. It doesn't make Andrew less guilty. The reason he is being pursued is because she is a strong lady who is probably the only one who has evidence (the photo). She filed on the last possible day she could. If it was about money she would have filed sooner. Her lawyers were waiting for him to Speak to the FBI like he promised. He didn't, if she didn't file now time would have run out. This is a women who works for sex trafficking charities. She has built her life around this.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Where was she trafficked from? I understand about grooming but Ive always thought of trafficking as being kidnapped and kept prisoner.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Boxer123 said:


> Yes trump should see the inside of a jail cell. It doesn't make Andrew less guilty. The reason he is being pursued is because she is a strong lady who is probably the only one who has evidence (the photo). She filed on the last possible day she could. If it was about money she would have filed sooner. Her lawyers were waiting for him to Speak to the FBI like he promised. He didn't, if she didn't file now time would have run out. This is a women who works for sex trafficking charities. She has built her life around this.


She still after a out of court settlement.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

Happy Paws2 said:


> She still after a out of court settlement.


Because this is the only justice she can get she actually wants to see him in court. He promised he would speak to the FBI he didn't. He cannot/will not be extradited to America the only hope of justice is a private lawsuit.

If she wanted money she would have filed years ago. Look at the work she does.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> Where was she trafficked from? I understand about grooming but Ive always thought of trafficking as being kidnapped and kept prisoner.


Jeffery Epstein was arrested first sex trafficking. He used young girls to recruit other girls. He would then let others use these girls. Sec trafficking isn't always kidnapping. It's the use of force or coercion. This explains it better than me.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

It seems to be a battle between their lawyers at the moment.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

Just to add look at what happened in Rochdale another example of sex trafficking girls even went to the police and no one believed them.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Boxer123 said:


> View attachment 476479
> 
> 
> Jeffery Epstein was arrested first sex trafficking. He used young girls to recruit other girls. He would then let others use these girls. Sec trafficking isn't always kidnapping. It's the use of force or coercion. This explains it better than me.


 Like the girls abused in the Rotherham scandal .

The only thing that puzzles me is that she looks happy in the photo , not someone who had been through an ordeal though perhaps she didn't have sex with him at that time.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Boxer123 said:


> Just to add look at what happened in Rochdale another example of sex trafficking girls even went to the police and no one believed them.


Posted at the same time. I believe the girls were younger and lived at home. I thought the police didnt want to know in case it stirred up racial trouble.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> Like the girls abused in the Rotherham scandal .
> 
> The only thing that puzzles me is that she looks happy in the photo , not someone who had been through an ordeal though perhaps she didn't have sex with him at that time.


And this is why girls are not believed they are groomed, threatened, plied with alcohol and drugs. Sometimes you smile to not be hurt. They will have been groomed to behave a certain way. I've completed a lot of training on this in my job.

We need to start focusing on the perpetrators behaviour and not the victims.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> Posted at the same time. I believe the girls were younger and lived at home. I thought the police didnt want to know in case it stirred up racial trouble.


Epstein targeted girls as young as 14. Yes they lived at home many were middle class nice homes. No one helped them it's heart breaking.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

kimthecat said:


> Where was she trafficked from? I understand about grooming but Ive always thought of trafficking as being kidnapped and kept prisoner.


Epstein and Maxwell had a whole scheme set up where they lured high school aged girls, 14 and up. They would bring them to their nice houses, tell them they were interested in their art or wanted them to model, or just wanted to help them out. They would befriend them and help them out. 
It wasn't just "come to this party there will be drugs and important people." It was a long process of grooming, gaining their trust, and easing them in to what eventually became having sex with men who wanted young 'nobody' girls that had no one to advocate for them and keep them safe.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

I hope Maxwell gets what she deserves.


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

Tv programmes have hi lighted this. Probably not well but shows how they play on innocence, groom and bribe until girls live in fear not to comply. Holby City at the moment and previously similar on Corrie.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

What really mortified me about Prince Andrew. and which Emily Maitlis mentioned at one point in the car crash interview: at the time of the alleged offence, Prince Andrew himself was (and, of course, still is) the father of two girls. How would he feel if he discovered that one of his daughters had been used/abused in this way?


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Happy Paws2 said:


> Do you remember every photo taken of you?


I see your point. But my point was actually that to deny it in front of millions of viewers when the photos had already been in several papers strikes me as totally naive - but then to pose happily for photos in what allegedly was a ''house of ill repute'' in the first place when you are a Prince of the Realm seems totally brainless.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

HarlequinCat said:


> Hiding away does not help his case at all.


No, that's the thing: it has simply resulted in him already being judged by the public, and in most cases found guilty, when he could have handled it so much better if he had even shown a jot of sympathy for the alleged victims or genuine profound regret for his association with Epstein. But I think he is completely arrogant - he clearly did himself no favours in the interview, so what did he do? He sacked the assistant who advised him to do it, and I think that sums him up.


----------

