To ask why it seems quiet on here regarding Prince Andrew and underage sex slave claims?

[TestNamePleaseIgnore]

Not much discussion going on or have I missed a thread?

They probably get deleted...

You have missed one. Think someone bumped it for you x

Thanks I will take a look.

Thought mumsnet had deleted, especially as in the conspiracy threads the royals were bought up..links to Jimmy savile and paediatric etc.

I had a look yesterday and there was a thread on Chat that was deleted

Why do they delete it. It's annoying that certain subjects are off bounds on here.

Certain people are out of bounds because said people are more likely to sue.

Wrt the allegations, is my understanding that the woman in question was at the time 17 years old correct?

I thinks it because its an ingoing case and mnhq is worried re being sued. Dm doesnt allow discussion i noticed either.

I have no idea whether Andrew is guilty or not but he hasn't helped himself by staying friends with a convicted sex offender, has he?

Alis - yes, the age of consent there was 18. She was over 16 but under 18.

She was 17, so not underage in London, New York or the Caribbean where she CLAIMS they had sex.

If they did, then there's no proof that he ever knew she was being provided and paid as 'entertainment'.

Not wise to stay mates with someone proved to be a sex offender, but that seems to be his only proved indiscretion so far.

That is what I was thinking Wild. I'm aware age of consent varies state by state (and by quite a few years) but thought the only state with age of consent at 18 was California.

Andrew seems to be a total liability/loose cannon/idiot.

where's the "we believe you" campaign?

He disgusts me for being chums with a convicted paedophile. The paedophile only got 13 months for raping a 14 year old girl?! I want him to stop receiving tax payers cash.

She doesn't claim to have had sex with Andrew in Florida, which I presume is why he hasn't been investigated/or charged with any criminal offence.

Nobody is saying they don't believe her, there.

There are issues with the "We believe you" campaign. Such as the fact it massively undermines the legal concept of being innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round.

While a case is under investigation it is massively unhelpful (ie can potentially cause the case to fall apart) if big media sources all people to sound off all over their sites based on gossip and prejudice.

While I'm not a fan of the royals I'm even less a fan of people spreading shit with no evidence and then using shitty cliches like 'no smoke with out fire' to 'prove'their case

I know very little about this but why are people debating age of consent when the allegation is "forced to have sex"?
Unless the poster who mentioned that got it wrong

I must say that I did have my doubts that the 'we believe you' would apply if a royal is involved. I never approved of the 'we believe you' statement. It is ambiguous. Yes I think every accusation should be investigated and taken seriously. But that isn't quite the same thing.

Just read the daily mail today if you are so interested. It is pretty clear from their articles that there is no suggestion he did anything illegal, unlike the other bloke.

You've missed at least two threads (one deleted, one going since last night).

The age of consent issue is clouded because one doc is refers to 17 being a minor in Florida, but another to incidents taking place in London, NY and the Carribean, where (it seems but agree not totally clear) she was of age.

Also, looking at her 2011 interviews to the press, it seems that coercion came from the procurer (who the lawsuit is against) and her own account shows that the 'clients' would have been totally unaware of that.

Andrew has some ego if he thinks a 17 year old would have sex without being at least paid. He's an idiot at best.