Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Oh Prince Andrew is getting SUED by Virginia Robert's

999 replies

LaurieFairyCake · 09/08/2021 23:54

That will be interesting

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Pixxie7 · 10/08/2021 19:30

I haven’t mentioned NTOW in any of my posts I have just listened to channel 4 news and apparently a police report was passed to the Met who basically dismissed it, also PA lawyers have stonewalled any requests. So yes it would appear to be a cover up. but time will tell.

Martianworld · 10/08/2021 19:37

@Pixxie7

I haven’t mentioned NTOW in any of my posts I have just listened to channel 4 news and apparently a police report was passed to the Met who basically dismissed it, also PA lawyers have stonewalled any requests. So yes it would appear to be a cover up. but time will tell.
From what I understand from the FBI releases, PA said he'd co-operate with the FBI and answer their questions. The FBI wanted to come over and question him. PA's lawyers said, submit your questions in writing and we will answer them. The FBI said, no it has to be in person.

PA's lawyers say they are trying to cooperate;
FBI says PA is stonewalling.
Result: Mexican stand off.

Miranda15110 · 10/08/2021 19:43

Incredible that some comments paint being trafficked as a lifestyle choice. Go back to watching Pretty Woman you are an embarrassment!

FrippEnos · 10/08/2021 19:55

Surely the question shouldn't be whether VR was trafficked or groomed, as at that age she surely was.

The question should be whether PA was complicit and if he was, just how complicit was he?

LolaSmiles · 10/08/2021 19:55

Incredible that some comments paint being trafficked as a lifestyle choice
Because all these girls were jet setting and living the highlife with all the celebrities. They didn't exactly say no, and they kept getting on the planes. They knew what their job was and didn't complain at the time. It's all a bit convenient that it comes out now. They probably want to make a bit of money.
(Sarcasm obviously, I'm 100% taking the piss out of the worrying amount of victim blaming that's been on this thread)

ghostyslovesheets · 10/08/2021 20:00

@Miranda15110

Incredible that some comments paint being trafficked as a lifestyle choice. Go back to watching Pretty Woman you are an embarrassment!
yes this - also - someone saying they new a teenager who was an escort? FFS did you report that - because that was a child being abused - and you knew it.

Stop blaming women and trotting out the same old shite - women lie, she looked happy, she was 17

she was a child trafficked by a paedophile to have sex with his 'friends'

MrsFin · 10/08/2021 20:02

@LaurieFairyCake

I hope she gets justice

He hasn't been found guilty yet.

I'm not saying he's innocent, but we don't actually know if there is any need for "justice" until he's tried. And in can't see that happening.

Unsure33 · 10/08/2021 20:06

I don't think it is victim blaming to comment that the law should take its course .

There must have been lots of others like PA is she going to sue them all as well ?

If she was in the UK she would not have been considered a "child"

This is a civil case so the burden of proof is less . So If he cant prove he was not there on the dates she is accusing him then he could be in trouble as the "without consent " is going to be harder to prove - But if he was there with her the court might think he was telling lies about the consent as well.

I hope justice is done whatever the truth is .

Blue4YOU · 10/08/2021 20:07

@Mandalay246
It isn’t because in the course of history that some women lied about being raped - high life or no high life.
It’s because the world is stacked in favour of men.
The whole just think of his reputation if she’s lying, he could have anyone he wants, she didn’t mind his money blah blah blah bollox
People choose to doubt women because it’s convenient

KidneyBeans · 10/08/2021 20:09

@Pixxie7

KidneyBeans@ back with more insults I see. I agree the judicial system is warped and needs to be sorted. No I am not BAME, neither rich or poor. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I am uneducated , I just believe in innocent until proven guilty. As far as reality tv shows they are not all in their twenties some are 16 plus who have very active sex lives.
Which TV shows @Pixxie7? Reality Tv showing 16 year olds having sex would break child indecency legislation so I think that is unlikely

Ok so if you think I'm being 'insulting' in pointng out the flaws in your victim blaming argument, please explain to me how sexually active consensual partners choosing to appear in TV (regardless of age) are relevant to a trafficked girl in a situation with significant power imbalance?

Unsure33 · 10/08/2021 20:11

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Blue4YOU · 10/08/2021 20:12

And, as someone currently taking civil action- because the police wouldn’t charge, despite believing me - against someone who sexually assaulted me… wanting money I’d the last thing I want.
When tort law is as it is, sure I’ll take it.
If I could swap seeing the arsehole doctor do two years of hard labour in the community wearing a Borat mankini I’d definitely choose that option.

The utter ignorance and misogyny that assumes because there isn’t “actual evidence “ (eg CCTV or DNA) that a woman id probably trying to live her pockets at the expense of the simple menz - sigh !

Like, who in their right mind would put themselves through such an enormous ordeal for money????

Pixxie7 · 10/08/2021 20:13

I didn’t say that were show having sex but implications the morning after. I think you want an argument it was put forward as to why not all 16 plus years olds are innocent.

Blue4YOU · 10/08/2021 20:14

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY is a standard to be applied in criminal court

Blue4YOU · 10/08/2021 20:14

It is not applicable in civil law and it is not what the man on the street is obliged to believe

KidneyBeans · 10/08/2021 20:19

@Martianworld

  • @Martianworld where have I been aggressive? Or is that misogynist code for 'woman engaging in debate and questions'*Confused

When I talked about her suing, I mean HER suing in a civil case.

yes my comprehension skills understood that thanks. My point stands that recently uncovered evidence in GM trial has likely strengthened her case

Nothing to do with the authorities taking a criminal case. And I don't believe, I'm open to be corrected, that there was ever a criminal case against PA. The judge threw out her evidence against PA.
which judge was this? There hasn't been a case brought Confused

Are you saying the judge was corrupt?
no idea which judge you're talking about as no charges have ever been pressed against PA

But VRG could take a civil case in this country or could have sued at any time but chose not to. If she had evidence for a civil case, then the earlier when all evidence is fresh in the mind, the better.
in your opinion. What are your legal qualifications?

At the moment she's,saying she can't remember dates,and places, only daces.
no idea what a dace is

That's why all courts like evidence after the fact to be presented ASAP.

do they? My understanding is they prefer it when the evidence has been thoroughly collated and analysed

She'd had legal advice so if you have solid evidence why wait? It looks to me like she's suing because it's her last opportunity rather than because shes in a good legal position.

so what if she is? Why does this matter? You keep bringing it up - why?

I also said that she might feel more encouraged to sue at the moment because of the support from the “me too“ movement. Which is a valid reason.
sorry, no idea what point it is you're trying to make

awaynboilyurheid · 10/08/2021 20:22

Wonder if Sarah Ferguson will keep telling us how wonderful Andrew is now?

ZednotZee · 10/08/2021 20:28

Did she have to sleep with any other men or just him??

What is the relevance of the answer to this question?

FrippEnos · 10/08/2021 20:30

@Unsure33

You have given a nice set of strawman arguments here.

It is (I hope) clear that I am posting about this situation, not about other individuals or 17 yr olds.

ZednotZee · 10/08/2021 20:32

Every child under the age of 18 is protected by the rights of a child. There was also an imbalance of power.
I'm ashamed that some adults are trying to defend a man of 40 years for having sex with a vulnerable child.
That none of the men knew - really?! They weren't stupid or vulnerable - they thought themselves above the law because they were male and rich.
We need to protect our children not make pathetic excuses for pathetic men.

Exactly this.

Some of you should be ashamed of your views.

No more than royalist apologists and to what end precisely?

Plumtree391 · 10/08/2021 20:34

@awaynboilyurheid

Wonder if Sarah Ferguson will keep telling us how wonderful Andrew is now?
He's wonderful to her, I don't see that changing because he is being sued.

It occurred to me he might sue her back. Somebody else whom VG sued did that, I don't know the outcome.

ResIpsaLoquiturInterAlia · 10/08/2021 20:36

@ZednotZee

Did she have to sleep with any other men or just him??

What is the relevance of the answer to this question?

This is directly relevant as it establishes a previous course of dealings and the material social environment conditions under which these activities are deemed de rigueur and a precedent pattern of past similar conduct. This is a court of law not a court of public opinion.
ZednotZee · 10/08/2021 20:38

This is directly relevant as it establishes a previous course of dealings and the material social environment conditions under which these activities are deemed de rigueur and a precedent pattern of past similar conduct. This is a court of law not a court of public opinion.

So if there is a pattern of conduct which necessitates her previously being trafficked to other men, this somehow makes PA less culpable?

LolaSmiles · 10/08/2021 20:38

FrippEnos
The implied whataboutery is strong.
Are we meant to believe to believe that VR was complicit in her own grooming, trafficking and sexual exploitation as a minor just because 16/17 year olds can legally consent to sexual activity?

It's worrying the lengths some poster will go to when discussing a child who was groomed and sexuality exploited.

Hen2018 · 10/08/2021 20:38

What a nasty turn this thread has taken. Such misogyny and pig ignorance.