So what do we think will happen to Andrew, could he actually go to prison?

It's true lots of high profile were friends with JS, but also "everyone" knew what he was doing. John Lydon was banned from the BBC in 1978 for trying to speak out.

There's a few on this thread. Someone else, unbelievably, used " " marks, ie "victims" "trafficked girls".....there is definitely a nasty whiff of white male mediocrity on here at times.

FFS just about EVERYONE was "very good friends" with Saville. He was an expert at hiding in plain sight.

Are you are suggesting or even alluding that King Charles committed the same offences as Saville?

@LivingTheDreamish I greatly suspect Charles will be pulling strings to make sure AMW never gets anywhere near a courtroom let alone a trial.
The King’s statement about letting justice take its course is just to placate the plebs and make it look as if he’s fully supporting the criminal system. AMW knows far too much about who else in the family is implicated in one way or another.
We all know that the likelihood of AMW landing up in jail is zero, if he gets anywhere near a punishment it’ll be house arrest with all mod cons and luxuries somewhere on the Sandringham estate.
He’s as guilty as hell in my eyes but he’ll get away with it. Give it 5 years and he’ll be back smirking at royal events.

Getting a conviction is never a given. I do believe the king will let justice take its course and we have to be satisfied with that. Andrew’s reputation will never recover and we won’t have to tolerate his gurning face on tv any more. For that we can be thankful. The RF have huge reputational damage to recover from but that is insignificant compared to the recovery faced by the Epstein victims (and I think they would acknowledge this).

Charles doesn’t care it’s all show, remember he was very good friends with Jimmy Savile

Earlier in the thread someone said he was groomed into “whatever he has done”. I’m just saying that is what many families / friends of criminals say, they still get convicted.

He hasn't been convicted of any crimes and nothing has been proved in a court of law. He's been arrested over sharing documents and that is being investigated. At present, he isn't being investigated for grooming crimes. It is all media frenzy so far - trial by media.

Wrongly, I’m sure we can agree.

As it would be wrong to do to any alleged victim. Including the ones trafficked by rich men.

Unless we’re going to start assuming (which we absolutely shouldn’t) that victims of UK grooming gangs shouldn’t have been so easily lead, should have known better, might have been just off the rails

We don't need to "start". This was and is exactly the justification used by the authorities to avoid prosecuting rape gangs.

@manywanderings
Lots of criminals are groomed into committing crime. That is how organised crime,( drugs, prostitution, theft ) works. It is still crime and people get sent down every day, they don’t get let off, they lose their families, home and freedom. That is the criminal justice system. This SHOULD apply to everyone.

I have looked Carl Beech up, yes. I’m aware that in some cases, people are falsely accused and that has an obvious impact on their reputation and wellbeing etc.

But - I don’t think that’s an acceptable reason to assume that’s the case in all cases.

I also don’t think implying that if VG was trafficked it’s because she was complicit, or “should have known better” is in anyway acceptable, particularly when PP mentioned grooming gangs just a few sentences later.

Unless we’re going to start assuming (which we absolutely shouldn’t) that victims of UK grooming gangs shouldn’t have been so easily lead, should have known better, might have been just off the rails - we shouldn’t be doing that for any other potential victims either.

Do you remember Carl Beech? Didn't it turn out that people he accused were actually his victims? They were powerful too. I think this is a very dangerous route to take.

@Granddama

Can we stop with the victim blaming?

Was Miss Dupree so innocent and naïve as not to know what to expect from a 'Freeby trip to Buckingham Palac?

Why would a free trip to the palace be expected to be beyond anything a trip to a palace.

If anyone said “what did they expect when older men started buying them alcohol and inviting them to flats?” about victims of grooming gangs, people would be rightfully appalled.

Let’s not go down the same avenue with Epstein’s victims.

No. What I mean is that Virginia Guiffre, to take an example, was sent on a Thai massage course in Thailand. She met and fell in love and married right away, which tells you a fair bit about her character. She rings Epstein to say she's not coming back after years of recruiting girls for him. He says 'okay, have a nice life' and puts the phone down. She then tries to sell a version of her life as a sexy novel, at the time of 50 shades of grey. Only after that does she identify as a victim.

I have endless sympathy for true victims, but Carl Beech showed how easy it is to self identify as a victim and have people eager to believe you because it involves the great and the good. Again, using Virginia as an example, when she sued an American judge he pushed back and she decided that she must have been mistaken. She went off the rails very young and never got back on again, but was she what we used to call a good time girl (I think they're yacht girls now) or trafficked and threatened? We're never going to know, are we? Basically, I don't like witch hunts so I'd like to see justice run its course, although I can't see how Prince Andrew gets a fair trial. I'm also very curious about why Peter Mandelson hasn't been arrested...

Why has the criminal justice system changed. It used to be 'Innocent until proven guilty' now it's guilty unless you prove your innocence' Strange that the only person who really knew the truth is dead, Suicide or silenced? Ironically the 'sex with a Minor ' in Britain offence, is a person under 16years but in America 20 I believe. Even if it is proved he had sex with Miss Dupree when she came to England, English law was not broken. Was Miss Dupree so innocent and naïve as not to know what to expect from a 'Freeby trip to Buckingham Palac?.' Frankly I think the cost of this case is going to be an outrageous and sickening waste of public funds when there are far more unsolved serious crimes happening here. Was our Country really endangered by business negotiations? Andrew wouldn't have need of money made from dodgy dealing. What about the enormous cost to the economy of keeping one such bloke in prison, just to appease the scream for compensation from the Yanks who thrive on the compensation culture. I am sure that news of war in Ukraine and Israel are more newsworthy? Grooming gangs and the rise of militant Islam , the rise of British Nationalism; rising violence in school; internet scams are just a few things the media and police should be focussing on.
What a wonderful smoke screen this Andrew-gate is proving to be. There is, of course, the sub-plot of discrediting the Royal Family in the drive to get rid of the Monarchy.
.
.

What so as long as you’re trafficked by a rich man, that’s okay?

He also used his status and connections to threaten the girls when they said they wanted to leave.

Er, they were brought to the island then their passports taken away. Pleas to be allowed to leave were ignored. One girl tried to swim away but was found and brought back.

Surely it's not hard to understand that on an island and with your passport removed, you can't just leave?

Can you define 'trafficked' please? I'm thinking of people who were brought to this country in search of a new life, paying off their debt to their traffickers with prostitution. Arriving on a luxury jet and being given money to go shopping and free to leave whenever they chose to feels an odd definition of the word. Show me some proof that women were left with no way to leave and I'll happily change my mind, but till I get it then I think the resources should be concentrated on the first group.

I don’t know, obviously, but it will need to be figured out before any decision can be made whether or not he can be charged with the offence.

I don’t think Andrew can claim he wasn’t a public servant though can he ? Who did he work for ? Was he paid by the state ? Granted that could raise more questions if he wasn’t working for anyone directly.

But if he was employed as envoy to trade , presumably he’d know the rules and was a paid employee? I don’t know

I think what’s meant is that proving AMW of holding public office could potentially be tricky. Unlike with Mandelson, who was a government minister at the time. (Hopefully he’ll be arrested too soon.)

Yes, I’m suprised at people saying it’s ’hard to prove’. It’s relatively easy to prove if this information was sent via email.

If there are emails or letters from
Andrew to Epstein , misconduct in public office wouldn’t be that hard to prove.

Theres a reason people sign the official secrets act. It’s to stop giving out information that is secret/ classified or confidential.

Public servants go to jails almost daily for this.

But sending Andrew to jail would be an administrative nightmare.