Oh Prince Andrew is getting SUED by Virginia Robert's

[LaurieFairyCake]

That will be interesting

'Cressida Dick tells LBC the Met will do a THIRD review of it's decision not to investigate whether crimes were committed by Jeffrey Einstein in London'

'It comes after one of his alleged victims filed a lawsuit against Prince Andrew'

Rachael Venables on twitter

RecallRecall
The posters discussing convictions weren't talking about problems getting sexual assaulting and abuse cases to court.

They'd resorted to 'but she can't prove it, but who knows what happened' after several pages of frankly awful posts that included saying that both Epstein and Saville never made it to court so how can VR be a known victim.

All the way through the thread it's been ,I'm not excusing the men but... I'm not saying it's OK but... but the victims were this, that the other with a huge amount of whataboutery. The nobody knows what went on behind closed doors was a horrible attempt at a trump card after lots of victim blaming and minimising (which we're meant to pretend wasn't there because they'd said I'm not saying if he is guilty or not but.. I'm not defending them but...)

You're right that there is a huge problem of getting convictions, but that's not what the victim blamers and apologists were concerned about.

@RecallRecall

There's a lot of rape apologists on here - or paedophiless

Seriously?

Don’t you think if the law was robust and fit for purpose they would have all been convicted or even bought to trial. They haven’t.
It’s not because people are rape apologists or paedophiles but because there’s very little legally they can currently do about it.

Clearly Henry VIII was a murderer but only under current law. You want women protected you need to make sure it’s backed by law.

A male friend of mine recently got his male coach convicted of historical child abuse - a case of 'he said, errr he said' no physical evidence. The police/jurors thankfully believed my friend.

Do you really think it's the lack of robust laws which made Savile untouchable? Really? His victims never got to court because he was protected. His connections to the Royals probably helped too

If I was VR I wouldn't really care about the outcome, I would just want the perpetrators to feel the heat of what they'd done - imagine seeing your rapist ponce about in military uniform pretending to be a doting family man? Fuck that, I'd want everyone to know what he'd done. This is the thing about preying on children - the little rascals have a habit of growing up and remembering. The power you may have had over them often diminishes with time - with adult perspective they gain strength to speak. Why are people so eager to shut them up? What difference does it make to the rape apologists on this thread if VR gets her day in court - why would you want to silence her/question her motives? I genuinely don't understand.

We really need to stop being complicit in making these men unaccountable. I 100% believe my friend was raped - and I believe Virginia Roberts too!

I must go and read about that. There was a documentary that covered the Met Police and their lack of investigation extensively.

Interestingly, there is a 3part Docuseries by BBC coming up. It's called 'The Fall of the House of Maxwell'. All of her friends and the Manhatten elite refused to be interviewed. Some people are buying the copyrights to photos both in London and New York to remove the pictures from the market that shows them with Ghislaine and/or Epstein.
I bet they are.

There is a really interesting podcast I've listened to called 'Hunting Ghislaine'. What a family.

If you can’t define trafficking, grooming or consent you’re not going to get anywhere
Did you look at the links I posted? There's 2 pages defining Child Sexual Exploitation at the start of the government document.

If I was VR I wouldn't really care about the outcome, I would just want the perpetrators to feel the heat of what they'd done - imagine seeing your rapist ponce about in military uniform pretending to be a doting family man?

Yes yes yes to this.

And to have his ex wife on TV everywhere for a week saying how kind, how generous, how honest he was.
Nauseating.

Good for her, it's about time PA was forced into an actual account under oath.

I'm guessing she's no longer that interested in money, given Epstein has already paid her a settlement. It's about forcing Andrew to face the music.

All sex offences should be investigated and, wherever possible, convictions should follow.

Being rich/royal shouldn't excuse you from the law.

@Roussette

I must go and read about that. There was a documentary that covered the Met Police and their lack of investigation extensively.

Interestingly, there is a 3part Docuseries by BBC coming up. It's called 'The Fall of the House of Maxwell'. All of her friends and the Manhatten elite refused to be interviewed. Some people are buying the copyrights to photos both in London and New York to remove the pictures from the market that shows them with Ghislaine and/or Epstein.
I bet they are.

There is a really interesting podcast I've listened to called 'Hunting Ghislaine'. What a family.

Met police are a massive let down. Sarah Everard’s case is such an obvious example.

@Od130990

Doubt she'll get a penny! She's bringing a civil case but she's repeatedly given different accounts on her meeting/meetings with Prince Andrew. Originally she said they'd only been one meeting with the prince & that she was the one to lead him into a bathroom at a party she attended in London. She also made another claim that she was paid £10.000 for sex with him www.independent.co.uk/news/people/teenage-sex-slave-virginia-roberts-claims-she-was-paid-ps10-000-jeffrey-epstein-have-sex-prince-andrew-london-home-9956338.html?amp Now she's claiming rape & multiple meetings with him but it's literally only her word & no actual evidence. If she slept with him willing on British soil at 17 ( paid or not ) he has no case to answer. Britain isn't like the USA it's 16 to consent across the whole country, it doesn't change city to city ( state to state )

You may want to familiarise yourself with the law before you make uninformed statements @Od130990

She's suing under New York's child victim's act, not Uk law.

Could you also explain the relevance of your point about the £10k ?
If you're attempting to justify sexual assault of a trafficked girl because she was paid for it, ie that prostitution of a minor 'doesn't count' then I'd suggest you re-read @MNHQ's most recent post more carefully.

That was my point. The definition of trafficking. Legally speaking. That seemed to go over a lot of folks heads. Until there is tighter legislation it's not going to be stopped.

So anyone trafficked should give up then? Not fight back? Not take accusers to court in some way or other?

Legal definitions of Human Trafficking, Smuggling and Slavery

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/human-trafficking-smuggling-and-slavery

@StapMe

Well, Andrew can be grateful that you lot won't be on any jury deciding this case. You've already decided that he's guilty. Which he may well be, but aren't you supposed to be tried in a court of law first? Come to think of it, Jimmy Saville was never actually tried either. Doesn't mean he wasn't guilty, but it wasn't proven in a court of law.

No, we BELIEVE women. We BELIEVE victims who come forward.

Why do you not believe women? Did the MeToo movement pass you by?

Court of law and public opinion are two different things. Innocent until proven guilty does not exist outside of a courtroom, so bringing that up is irrelevant.

@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.

If it acts like a duck and talks like a duck... Maybe you should stop acting and talking like a rape apologist then. Or maybe you are one and simply can't admit it to yourself.

That 'there are two sides to every story' line is bs. Absolute bs! Is there 'two sides' to child sexual abuse? Is there 'two sides' to domestic violence? Is there 'two sides' to rape?

and men do get accused of sexual impropriety when they are innocent

As I showed and proved, this is SO RARE it almost doesn't happen. So WHY assume it's the case here?

@StapMe

I'm NOT discrediting nor defending ANYONE, even though it appears that way to you. And you are enlightening me of my ignorance of this case, thank you. And correcting my use of language. No shenanigans in our house then, the old man will have to ask me outright if I want him to give me one....I was simply wondering how things in this case can be proved. And before you start on me again, let's think about present day trafficking and abuse, and what can be done about it.

There you go using 'shenanigans' to describe sex.

She was SEXUALLY ABUSED. That is not 'shenanigans', your dismissive language is absolutely abhorrent!

What can be done about trafficking and abuse? As if you care? How can anything be done about it when you minimise it as mere 'shenanigans'? You clearly don't care about it and don't want to do anything about it.

Why don't you believe someone who says they were raped and abused?

There is no best outcome for him, his reputation is well and truly shot now, whatever the truth of the case.

Oh so we should feel sorry for him? Oh the poor rapist! My heart bleeds for him.
HER reputation is well and truly shot now, because of rape apologists like yourself! I feel more for her reputation, than his.

She is very brave. She's not just doing this for herself, she's doing it for all the others out there who have gone through this. She has donated money to charity, she has set up a non profit Organisation 'Victims Refuse Silence'

The objective of Victims Refuse Silence is to "help survivors surmount the shame, silence, and intimidation typically experienced by victims of sexual abuse, and to help others to escape becoming victims of sex trafficking

She is brave.

SamiReed1 - so Andrew definitely is a rapist now, without the benefit of a trial? Are you actually allowed to write that without consequences, isn't that libel?
I go back to what I said at first - he says he didn't, she says he did. So one of them is lying. How, in a court of law, can it be proved which one?

@StapMe - I genuinely think it would help you to read the contents of two links above, posted by LolaSmiles and Roussette.

"Why don't you believe someone who says they were raped and abused?"
Because sometimes people do lie. Ask Leon Brittan's widow about "Nick".

@derxa

,

What happened there?

[quote Maireas]@StapMe - I genuinely think it would help you to read the contents of two links above, posted by LolaSmiles and Roussette.[/quote]
@StapMe have you bothered to do this yet?

Because you seem to have been so busy with 'I'm not saying xyz but xyz' when you could have taken the same amount of time to at least glance at the links shared.

Surely if you actually care about the topic enough to engage on a thread like this, you'd want to listen and learn from sources like those links rather than keep explaining your own POV only?

It's a civil court StapMe, so the evidence doesn't have to be beyond reasonable doubt. It's already been explained to you what evidence may be used, but you've ignored that.

This is making me very annoyed now. My relatives case was rejected in part because it was a few years ago and no evidence exists. They actually called it a he said/she said case. He absolutely did it and if the jury could see his pathetic, crying toddler act in court he wouldn't stand a chance of being believed. The police didn't believe him. Now my relative is just one of those statistics about rape accusations which never get to trial. He got away with that and all the other things he did.

@StapMe

SamiReed1 - so Andrew definitely is a rapist now, without the benefit of a trial? Are you actually allowed to write that without consequences, isn't that libel? I go back to what I said at first - he says he didn't, she says he did. So one of them is lying. How, in a court of law, can it be proved which one?

When women come forward, why don't you believe them? Your posts are absolutely disgusting and abhorrent. No one lies about these things. Why don't you believe her? That you still continue to act like she is lying and that you still continue to be a rape apologist, even after the mumsnet links that EXPLAIN why you are wrong, says that you are a troll or a real life rape apologist in real life.