Prince Andrew no surprise

[Pixxie7]

No surprise that the met have stopped. Their investigation into PA.

[LillianGish]

The thing is guilty or innocent, it would be very very difficult to prove a crime had been committed. This. The fact remains however, whatever he may or may not have done personally, he must have known what Epstein and Maxwell were up to having visited the house in London and Epstein’s island. What can be proved is that he was in that house and he was photographed with VG (with Maxwell leering behind them) - that on its own is not a crime. He’s clearly a very unpleasant, entitled individual - unfortunately he can’t be prosecuted for that.

[KingsleyShacklebolt]

I think as others have said the decision was along the lines of :

Sex with a 17 year old isn't illegal in the UK. Can't charge him with that. The offences of trafficking weren't offences at the time when the alleged sex took place, and it's impossible to charge anyone with something which wasn't a crime at the time. So what are you left with? Spending £££££ on an investigation you know won't deliver any results just because the public wants it?

The Met will have decided to leave to the Americans.

[BoredZelda]

The point is that Virginia Roberts Giuffre was trafficked.

The point is, not by Prince Andrew.

[daffodils123]

@Mybalconyiscracking

He is an arse, but the age of consent in this country is 16 and she was older, so he does not appear to have committed a crime under British law.
What do you want the Met to do?
I certainly think there are better things for them to be getting on with.

It's still illegal to sleep with a 17yo prostitute if she's being sex trafficked (which i thought is what is being alleged)?!

Disgusting but inevitable outcome.

The fact he still pretends he doesn't remember and didn't sleep with her. Either he is a liar or has slept with so many young prostitutes provided by Epstein that it's a blur!

[BoredZelda]

The fact remains however, whatever he may or may not have done personally, he must have known what Epstein and Maxwell were up to having visited the house in London and Epstein’s island.

Must he? You go to a party, there are of age girls there just like hundreds of other parties. Would you automatically assume they were trafficked?

[Wiltshire90]

@prh47bridge

I am not surprised that no action is being taken but not for the reasons the OP suggests. There simply isn't the evidence.

If she had sex with Andrew (which he denies), she was over 16. The fact that she may have been under the age of consent in some states of the USA is irrelevant. She was in this country, so UK laws apply. Her legal action the US is partly based on her being under 18 at the time of the alleged sexual encounters, but she appears to have been over the age of consent in the locations where the alleged encounters took place.

Even if she was trafficked and Andrew did have sex with her, no offence was committed. Whilst it is now an offence to pay for sex with someone who has been trafficked even if you are not aware that they have been trafficked, it was not an offence at the time and criminal laws do not apply retrospectively. Also, she has not alleged that Andrew paid for sex so, even if the encounters had happened after the law changed, Andrew would not have committed any offence.

She alleges that she was raped but the allegations in her legal action are sufficiently non-specific to mean that they fall some way short of proving beyond reasonable doubt that she did not consent and Andrew knew she did not consent.

Cressida Dick was at school with Ghislaine Maxwell

Social media has got this wrong. They were not at Oxford High School together. They both attended this school but at different times. Despite its name, the school caters for ages 4 upwards. Maxwell started her education there and left in 1970 or 1971 whereas Dick did not join the school until 1974.

Absolutely agree with this. There are some very emotional replies on here. Ultimately there needs to be the evidence to prosecute in a court, which there clearly isn't. Nobody's saying they don't believe the victim or sticking up for Prince Andrew. It's simply how the innocent until proven guilty system we have works here. You can have your personal opinion and suspicions on the matter but it doesn't mean it will hold up in court to provide a conviction.

The person who mentioned "coercive control" - that's an offence that didn't exist until 2015 and generally applies to domestic abuse settings.

[PeriChristmas]

@Pixxie7

The queen is spending millions to defend him apparently but at least his siblings and PW are aware of the potential problems he has caused.

Yes she is.
Not a great look Liz.
But he's her son so I guess she believes his side of things.

[C8H10N4O2]

This law didn't exist at the time though. I think that is why technically speaking he did not break any British law.

Using trafficked women for sex was legal in 2000 and thereabouts? News to me.

[x2boys]

@BoredZelda

The fact remains however, whatever he may or may not have done personally, he must have known what Epstein and Maxwell were up to having visited the house in London and Epstein’s island.

Must he? You go to a party, there are of age girls there just like hundreds of other parties. Would you automatically assume they were trafficked?

Yep and as unpleasent as prince Andrew is, hes British Royalty he would have been used to attention from attractive females

[daffodils123]

@C8H10N4O2

This law didn't exist at the time though. I think that is why technically speaking he did not break any British law.

Using trafficked women for sex was legal in 2000 and thereabouts? News to me.

Exactly. Of course trafficking laws existed in 2000. What a ridiculous comment.

[Roussette]

@BoredZelda

Not the point at all. Totally irrelevant

As for his houses with young girls coming and going, he would've been blind not to know

[HoppingPavlova]

PA at least won't be able to set foot in the USA, which I think will annoy him, if nothing else.

Darn. There goes his attendance when it’s the Sussex’s turn to host family Christmas .

[ancientgran]

@Theunamedcat

OK? Considering the current climate could it be they haven't actually found anything?

They know there will be a public outcry they will get other people in to investigate the investigation so its in there interests to find the smoking gun if there is one

Perhaps *as creepy as he is) he is...innocent?

Or perhaps a he said she said that is over 20 years old is pretty hard to prove. I think the smoke would have blown away along time ago if there was any.

[BoredZelda]

Not the point at all. Totally irrelevant

Not I’m the eyes of the law it isn’t.

As for his houses with young girls coming and going, he would've been blind not to know

Nonsense. This wasn’t a 2 up 2 down in Burnley. Entirely possible for something to go on in a house and a guest has no idea. Young girls come and go in various places for various reasons and they aren’t being trafficked.

[ChurchofLatterDayPaints]

@lnsufficientFuns

He’s disgusting
The met are disgusting
The queen is disgusting

I hate them all.
I hate this country.

Totally agree.

Unfortunately, other countries are no better.

But the UK is really excelling itself atm with pure slime oozing from ALL its institutions. When is Cressida Dick getting the sack? Never.

[LoislovesStewie]

I think you will find that the law is the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which deals with trafficking.
As an aside I wonder if her parents actually thought through what their daughter was doing with Epstein. Were they gullible or what? If she was a minor did they not think to ask what she was doing being taken out of the country?

[julieca]

It was illegal because she was trafficked. The parties Prince Andrew was attending were full of middle-aged men and very young women and girls. Anyone would have looked at that and knew it was dodgy.
Just as most of the RF would have been aware of rumours about Jimmy Saville but they still regularly hosted him, and Charles considered him a friend.
The RF don't expect their family and friends to behave well sexually. They consider themselves above morality and above the law. And in reality they are above the law.
Anyone who thought the Met were not going to stop this is beyond naive. Andrew will never face prison time, although he should.

[queenofarles]

It’s not illegal to have sex with a 17 year old in New York either ,
So it’s a question of wether she agreed to sleeping with him or not.
Was she trafficked ? This is something I’ve thought about a lot,she couldn’t have gone from NYC to U.K. , unnoticed? It’s impossible .

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Like most of us I don't know if he's guilty or not, but folk seem to have forgotten that process in the UK is done through the Crown Prosecution Service and that cases are brought in the name of the Queen

That being the case, did anyone honestly think the outcome - at least in the UK - would be any different?

[Brainwave89]

@C8H10N4O2

That hinges on whether he knew she was trafficked

And if he took at least basic care to ensure she wasn't. All these rich, powerful men, some supposedly leading brains who apparently lacked the brain cycles to question whether all these poor background very young girls were truly consenting?

All these poor innocent men eh. "I didn't know she was trafficked" is right up there with "she enjoys rough sex".

So as a middle aged man, you are on a flight where there is a clearly young woman (a few years older than your own kids), travelling alone, and described as a masseuse, with no qualifications or experience in this field. At this time, there would be plenty of rumours that JE has issues with young women, and his plane is nicknamed the paedophile express. You have your photo taken (verified by the FBI) with your arm round her waist. You do not question it, and if she turns up at your room offering sex, you do not question it.... There is a strong case that PA should have reasonably known this girl was being controlled and was a trafficking victim.

[VladmirsPoutine]

I honestly think even if they literally played a recording of PA admitting he did something wrong / illegal you'd still have people saying "Well hang on, wasn't she technically 17, and nobody forced her on the plane."

[takingouttherubbish]

@lnsufficientFuns

You can do what the fuck you like if you’re part of “the institution”
They’re all untouchable
There is so little accountability or shame or consequence.

Nothing ever gets challenged unless you’re female and wish to discuss, protect, or defend your rights not to be raped or murdered or otherwise diminished.

This is why women keep being treated like we are.

It’s exhausting.

And it’s disgusting to use publicly funded civil servants to dodge being served like we saw with that ridiculous cat n mouse sitch in August.

This is why women keep being treated like we are

And why sexual exploitation of children by certain groups continues as it does

[MarieIVanArkleStinks]

@Enko

Spindle

Whilst I agree that VR highly likely was trafficked. The reality is we can't and America can't judge on hear say. Its not as simple as she said so it must be true (or searching google)

I HOPE Ghislaine sings I really do. However unless they have some concrete proof from VR I cant see how they can convict PA at the moment its her word against his and whilst we may all believe her. We do need proof

So let's hope GM sings. If she doesn't i suspect PA will go clear like OJ did.

I don't understand this objection. It isn't hearsay. The person bringing about the civil action was actually there. There is photographic evidence, incorporating Maxwell's grinning mug in the background, providing unassailable evidence that she was there. Of course, he's tried to claim it wasn't a genuine photograph. His desperation is certainly making him look guilty, whether he is or not.

'We' don't need proof. That's for the court to decide. They are privy to all the evidence that we are not. And if, on a balance of probabilities, they decide he isn't liable, that will be the end of that.

In the meantime it would be helpful to all victims of sex offences if people stopped minimising it, and claiming actual witness statements and photographic evidence amount to 'hearsay'. They don't.