Oh Prince Andrew is getting SUED by Virginia Robert's

[LaurieFairyCake]

That will be interesting

The palace machinery is out in force too

Is it? I haven’t read anything from the palace recently. It’s keeping very quiet indeed.

No, Jimmy Savile was never found guilty.
Again, do you ever wonder why not?

StapMe
You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between a court of law and Mumsnet.

There's also a huge difference between:
A) I'm reserving judgement because Andrew has not been found guilty in a court of law
And
B) I'm not defending Andrew, but VR knew what she was getting into... she was worldly... she kept going back... nobody made her... she was smiling in the photo... she had to go through airports, she could have asked for help... why didn't she tell her mum... she wanted to show her mum the photo... she's already making millions from this... why is everyone piling on Andrew? You lot have decided he is guilty... anyway Andrew didn't traffic anyone... actually there's probably mitigating circumstances...

The first one is a reasonable person who doesn't want to comment either way and their view is to reserve judgement until such a time a case goes to court.
The second is victim blaming and minimising to the point where even if they agree that Andrew might have had sex with a trafficked 17 year old, she was probably up for it anyway. It's disgusting.

I'm not actually arguing. My original post was a question. He says he didn't, she says he did. One of them must be lying, how are they going to prove which one? In a court of law, if you are accused of something, in England at least, you are assumed innocent until you are found guilty.
You are arguing exactly that.
Epstein was murdered in jail and between Andrew and a 17 year old, I know who is likely lying. You know it too but you are an apologist so you will keep sprouting ‘but court of law’…

He says he didn't, she says he did. One of them must be lying, how are they going to prove which one?

They’ll pull petals off a daisy, of course! How do you think they’re going to prove which one? It’s a law suit, VR will have to provide evidence to prove her case.

@KidneyBeans

It's still not obvious to me why a 17-year-old American being held against her will in an English-speaking country couldn't figure out some way of asking for help. Even on a private jet, they'd all still have to go through some kind of immigration and customs controls, which would involve interacting with uniformed government agents on both ends of the trip.

You sound very uninformed about the psychology of coercion. It's clear that there are lots of things that aren't obvious to you!

What about Elizabeth Smart? She was held in her own country, never trafficked across any borders and regularly interacted with the public - in at least one situation she interacted with a law enforcement officer. Do you believe she wasn't being held against her will?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KidnappingoffElizabethSmart

Why do you think coercive control has been recognised as a form of illegal abuse in any relationships (never mind those with significant wealth, power and age imbalances) if it's so easy to 'walk away'?

That doesn't mean she couldn't have been forced to have sex with Andrew or anyone else, but it does strongly suggest that she wanted to be where she was, with the people she was with, and wasn't being held against her will.

Like Elizabeth Smart you mean? Or Steven Stayner? Do you think they wanted to be with their kidnappers?

What about women in abusive relationships? Why do you think it takes on average 7 attempts for them to leave? After all they can speak English and seek help easily. They're usually resident in their own countries. Why don't they seek help from officials? By your logic intramarital rape should essentially not exist (or at least never occur more than once), but we know that's not true. So why is that? Assuming your assumptions are correct?

Unquestioningly repeating "Trafficking! Trafficking!" as an answer to every question raised by the circumstances isn't doing anyone any favors here.
Neither is ignoring the fact that this is a well-recognised case of human trafficking in order to focus on your own uninformed assumptions.

@PurpleOkapi
I'd be interested in hearing your answers to my questions
Unsurprisingly the rape-apologists @Pixxie7 and @StapMe have popped up to join in to - also feel free to answer my questions too.

It'd be great to see you engaging in deeper cognitive processes than simply 'blame the woman'

@Plumtree391 Also please do feel free to answer my questions - I missed tagging you

I'd also be interested in what you all think if the woman in the article @Roussette linked to

She was 26 with a job and a child. Coerced into sexual slavery and genital mutilation. www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/03/jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-florida-lawsuit

Do you think she actually chose to be there?

@StapMe

He says he didn't, she says he did. One of them must be lying, how are they going to prove which one?

That's already been answered on the thread. There will be evidence - travel itineraries, immigration data, aide's diaries, financial transactions etc that will be able to determine whether PA was really at the pizzeria in Woking that was so memorable to him

Please do not label me a rate apologist, KidneyBean, I am most definitely not.
But there are two sides to every story, and men do get accused of sexual impropriety when they are innocent. And girls get labelled as tarts when they are most definitely not.

@StapMe

Please do not label me a rate apologist, KidneyBean, I am most definitely not. But there are two sides to every story, and men do get accused of sexual impropriety when they are innocent. And girls get labelled as tarts when they are most definitely not.

What label would you prefer to apply to someone who attacks a known victim of human trafficking and rape, denies their experience and suggests they were complicit in their own abuse?

And what do you think the balance of those two things is, @StapMe?
50-50?
Or 99-1?

Please do not label me a rate apologist, KidneyBean, I am most definitely not
What phrase would you prefer for someone who routinely tries to discredit a person who has disclosed abuse?

[quote KidneyBeans]@StapMe

He says he didn't, she says he did. One of them must be lying, how are they going to prove which one?

That's already been answered on the thread. There will be evidence - travel itineraries, immigration data, aide's diaries, financial transactions etc that will be able to determine whether PA was really at the pizzeria in Woking that was so memorable to him [/quote]
If it can be proved that the pair of them were together in private at any time, how can it be proved that anything untoward went on? Could it be possible that he had a regular massage, no funny business on the side. How can you prove that bit either way?
The car crash interview proved that he is guilty of breathtaking arrogance. I think it is entirely possible that he at least met her, maybe indulged in sexual shenanigans with her and maybe others and he genuinely doesn't remember them because they were "little people". But I don't know, nor could I prove it.

If it can be proved that the pair of them were together in private at any time, how can it be proved that anything untoward went on? Could it be possible that he had a regular massage, no funny business on the side. How can you prove that bit either way?

You don't have to prove it either way. In a civil case you have to prove it 'on a balance of probabilities' which is usually taken to be 51%

And on a balance of probabilities if the physical evidence demonstrates that PA spent several evenings with a known victim of sex trafficking and lied about it. Why do you think that might be?

KidneyBean -"What label would you prefer to apply to someone who attacks a known victim of human trafficking and rape, denies their experience and suggests they were complicit in their own abuse?

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but I thought Epstein died before Guiffre could prove her case against him. So how is she a known victim? I'm emphatically NOT saying she wasn't, I am saying it hasn't been proved.

It's still not obvious to me why a 17-year-old American being held against her will in an English-speaking country couldn't figure out some way of asking for help.

Maybe you should ask the Met why they didn't investigate? And while you are at it get them to explain why they didn't investigate when it was a British woman?

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/28/london-police-defend-decision-to-drop-jeffrey-epstein-investigation

StapMe
That's your trump card? Fucking hell that is low!
So in your eyes all the people who have come forward over the years and reported their abuse experiences can't be known victims because now Epstein is dead it can't be proven in a court of law?

You can dress it up all you like with the "I'm not saying either way" but we see you, and we see your minimising and your attempts to discredit victims.

Between that and your Jimmy Saville comments, and your nobody can prove what happened if they were alone together, your bizarre desire to discredit people who come forward reporting abuse is utterly disgusting.

@StapMe - did you read the links Roussette provided upthread?

And why is she only taking action against Andrew? What about all the other alleged abusers?

So what do you think they were doing @StapMe? Playing bridge? Your attempts to defend the indefensible are embarrassing.

She is not only taking action against Andrew, she has been taking action for ages now. Here check out Virginia's wikipedia page for starters

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Roberts_Giuffre

@StapMe

KidneyBean -"What label would you prefer to apply to someone who attacks a known victim of human trafficking and rape, denies their experience and suggests they were complicit in their own abuse?

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but I thought Epstein died before Guiffre could prove her case against him. So how is she a known victim? I'm emphatically NOT saying she wasn't, I am saying it hasn't been proved.

In 2009 Epstein settled a civil suit brought by Guiffre for his trafficking of her

Epstein had a previous conviction for child sex abuse

In addition the overwhelming evidence and ongoing prisectution of Maxwell is pretty strong evidence that trafficking of VRG occurred in this case

You can deny it because he's dead, just like you've denied Jimmy Saville's paedophillia and assaults. But it's pretty ludicrous to suggest that ignoring all evidence in the public domain is reasonable simply because the perpetrator is dead.

Do you believe that Klebold and Harris didn't murder their classmates at Columbine? Or that thomas Hamilton didn't murder children at Dunblane?
Those perpetrators weren't convicted either

Sexual abuse/trafficking is appalling, and in no way could I defend it

And yet here you are ...

@StapMe

And why is she only taking action against Andrew? What about all the other alleged abusers?

@StapMe You are VERY uninformed Why not do some actual reading and educate yourself about the case before vigorously putting forward an opinion that is so clearly uninformed and woefully ignorant of the basics of the case.