Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think that Buckingham Palace SHOULDN'T have named Prince Andrew's accuser?

218 replies

aermingers · 03/01/2015 23:39

I've just heard on the news that Buckingham Palace has named the person who has accused Prince Andrew of sex crimes against her. I can't find any confirmation online. But is it just me who thinks this is deeply wrong? Okay it may be technically legal because she's making the allegations in the US - but surely as potentially the victim of a sex crime they should have the decency not to name her? I'm really shocked, it just smacks of malice. And they can't even be certain she's not telling the truth.

OP posts:
ApocalypseThen · 04/01/2015 09:06

This reply has been deleted

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

Andrewofgg · 04/01/2015 09:08

She named herself by making the allegations in documents placed on a public file. She can't have it both ways.

PiperIsTerrysChoclateOrange · 04/01/2015 09:10

In one way why should victims of rape hide it away, they have done nothing wrong and it encourages more women to come forward and report rape.

The other hand it's a very personal and if victims want to stay Anonymous that should be respected.

TestNamePleaseIgnore · 04/01/2015 09:12

This reply has been deleted

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

TheWildRumpyPumpus · 04/01/2015 09:18

This reply has been deleted

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

WooWooOwl · 04/01/2015 09:21

She doesn't seem to care about her anonymity, it's unfair and incorrect to keep blaming the palace.

firesidechat · 04/01/2015 09:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn.

WinterFire · 04/01/2015 09:54

I a not surprised about this (not saying whether it is true or not).

I'm surprised people think the royal family are squeaky clean, I won't be surprised if things come out abiut them.

firesidechat · 04/01/2015 10:00

I'm not stupid or naive and I don't particularly like the Royal family (Prince Andrew in particular appears to be a waste of space) but I would love to see the evidence that they are paedophiles. It is a nasty thing to say about anyone without something real to back it up.

MythicalKings · 04/01/2015 10:02

I heard on the radio yesterday an interview with Alan Dershowitz who is looking at taking legal action against her and her lawyers. He said she also claims to have had sex with Bill Clinton and it can be easily proven he was elsewhere at the time.

"If she lied about that how can anything else she says be believed?" is his question.

firesidechat · 04/01/2015 10:06

I heard that too. It was an interesting interview.

26Point2Miles · 04/01/2015 10:07

Ohhhh so it's not as you'd want it to appear then op!?

The girl seems keen on publicity herself

VikingVolva · 04/01/2015 10:12

I don't think this can make him - or anyone else - a paedophile.

She was 17, which was a minor in Florida.

But the incidents took place in UK, NY and the Carribbean. Where she was over the age of consent.

(And that's aside from the etymological misuse, as she was clearly not pre-pubescent)

NotYouNaanBread · 04/01/2015 10:20

Where does paedophilia come into this exactly? It's a bit of a DM style leap to suggest that somebody having sex with a 17 year old is a paedophile, surely?

She was (allegedly) groomed into prostitution by Maxwell and Epstein, and offered to Prince A as casually as a drink. I'm not even sure he can be prosecuted for statutory rape (sex with a minor) unless 17 is underage in any of the locations mentioned (I think it's 18 in California?).

To compare her situation with that of the children raped and perhaps murdered here in England in Dolphin House and the Elm Guest House or Dolphin Square is ridiculous.

NotYouNaanBread · 04/01/2015 10:20

Sorry - cross post with Viking Volva!

TestNamePleaseIgnore · 04/01/2015 10:35

This reply has been deleted

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

TheEnduringMoment · 04/01/2015 10:45

The Palace screwed up badly with their first statement.

If someone is "accused" of offence A (sex with a victim of trafficking/exploitation) and choses to make a specific denial of a related but different offence B (sex with a minor) then the natural conclusion for anyone reading it is that he is absolutely guilty of offence A and just trying to muddy the waters by relying on the fact that she wasn't underage by UK definition at the time.

So they had to go back and clarify matters by stating "He didn't have any sexual contact with this woman whatsoever". They needed to make it clear which woman they were talking about, but I think it would have been better to refer to her indirectly as "the woman who has made accusations concerning Prince Andrew in interviews in today's newspapers" - it would have done the job and kept their hands cleaner.

Dershowitz seems very convincing but then he would wouldn't he.

firesidechat · 04/01/2015 11:15

Oh theories and stories. Must be true then. Hmm

26Point2Miles · 04/01/2015 11:17

Lol at test quoting 'stories and theories' as her source!

Oh dear oh dear

limitedperiodonly · 04/01/2015 11:19

I agree completely with TheEnduringMoment.

Dolts. If you were giving media training you'd use this as an example of what not to do.

MythicalKings · 04/01/2015 11:20

Test seems to have a particularly active imagination. Or she believes shit she reads on the internet.

Not a critical reader, obviously.

BoomBoomsCousin · 04/01/2015 11:37

Age of consent isn't the only criminal issue when prostitution and coercion are involved.

If she was brought to the UK (or moved around it) and coerced into sex with someone, then I'm pretty sure that would break our trafficking laws wouldn't it? And if she was prostituted, then that's a whole host of other offences if she was under 18 (though not sure if those laws were in place when this is alleged to have happened).

Also, the person who had sex with her wouldn't necessarily have to be guilty of a crime to be relevent to the woman's case. And not being guilty of a crime under our laws would not mean the person's actions were moral or acceptable, or deserving of privacy.

BoomBoomsCousin · 04/01/2015 11:37

Oh. The thread has moved on! Blush

BackOnlyBriefly · 04/01/2015 11:48

There's an important difference between say 7 and 17 and they shouldn't conflate the two, but we make age of consent laws for a reason. IF she was under the age of consent for that location and IF they had sex then he did commit the crime of rape and maybe there'd be other charges.

It's nothing to do with paedophilia, but you can't ignore the age of consent just because it's a different age somewhere else.

Not to mention that if it happened at all it wouldn't have been like picking someone up in a bar, but more like picking from a menu.

I doubt we'll ever know the truth.

limitedperiodonly · 04/01/2015 11:56

I don't think Andrew faces any penalty except disgust and ridicule. Epstein is the one she's going for. Andrew is simply collateral damage.

I wonder how this distressing fate could have befallen such an intelligent man who scrupulously insists on paying his way at all times and is very careful not to get involved with dodgy characters.