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:
firesidechat · 04/01/2015 21:20

I think I have seen the same interview as Mythical and I was inclined to believe him too and for your information I am neither young nor naive. In fact I would consider myself to be old and cynical. I've rarely seen such righteous indignation on display and it did have the ring of truth. Not saying I'm right, just that this was my impression too.

As for the Clinton thing, I think it was mentioned that official records could prove that Clinton was not where the accuser said he was, rather than people merely taking his word for it.

I'm not saying that nasty stuff didn't happen, but maybe not quite as has been reported. Possibly a mistake on the accusers part. Who knows.

noddyholder · 04/01/2015 21:22

I saw it and he was like any other old powerful man with cash convincing but they all are. It needs to be properly and openly investigated which I just can't see happening.

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 04/01/2015 21:24

Righteous indignation = usual response of powerful people who have been caught.

I haven't heard the interview and have no opinion either way on this case. However, I'm just continually amazed at the faith that people have in the rich and powerful, both at an individual and institutional level.

noddyholder · 04/01/2015 21:26

This blind faith is the cause of many of the UK and worlds injustice and poverty We need to question more not less and start at the top because they have had the means to cover things

firesidechat · 04/01/2015 21:26

Really? Well I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I doubt we will ever know for sure. In any case I don't know enough to take sides and it's not any of my business to judge them.

firesidechat · 04/01/2015 21:31

I'm a bit insulted that you think I am blindly looking up to the rich and powerful. My family would think that was hysterically funny. I could be equally rude about people thinking that everyone in a position of power is corrupt. I happened to see the interview and heard another on radio 4 and made a judgement call.

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO · 04/01/2015 21:40

I am amazed the number of people who just poo poo the whole case because of who he is.

I am not this is how lots of rich respected men get away with things....keep people quiet, no one would ever believe you etc...

Look at Harold shipman, how many ordinary folk felt sorry for him, leave the poor man alone, he is a doctor.

mwalimu · 04/01/2015 21:41

This reply has been deleted

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

CFSKate · 04/01/2015 21:43

I don't know the details of the allegations about Clinton or the evidence that he couldn't have been there, but I just was thinking, if someone asked you

who did you have sex with?
on what date?

you probably will be able to remember who you had sex with, but the exact date may not be so easy to recall.

mwalimu · 04/01/2015 21:44

as for cover-ups by the rich and famous; you need to hear the interviews n the Pie n Mash website...mind-blowing

Elm Guest House interview with Chris Fay in particular

PhaedraIsMyName · 04/01/2015 21:46

BP did not name her. The Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday did. Plus given all the information she put in the public domain in 2011 it would be pretty easy to work out who she is.

engeika · 04/01/2015 21:47

She gave interviews and photos to the papers and in her own name made the accusation. The Palace are responding to the accusation made by Virgina Roberts in public, in the media, (for money).

They are not naming an anonymous victim. Get the facts straight.

mwalimu · 04/01/2015 21:47

This reply has been deleted

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

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO · 04/01/2015 21:49

as for cover-ups by the rich and famous; you need to hear the interviews n the Pie n Mash website...mind-blowing

Indeed what about some chief whip or someone saying....they had power over mps and their "little boys" and used it to keep them in line?

mwalimu · 04/01/2015 22:00

I can't believe people are quibbling about whether she was 15 or 17, or what the age of consent was in the State they were in. Or the likelihood that PA didnt know she was being coerced!!!

What the fuck did he think the situation was then?

PhaedraIsMyName · 04/01/2015 22:15

I'm sure even PA isn't thick enough to think she was overcome by his good looks, charm, wit and sparkling personality.

It's a bit of leap to assume she was coerced rather than making her own decision there benefits to being with Epstein.

EveDallasRetd · 04/01/2015 22:21

If he had sex with her (which he denies) then her age is relevant. He didn't have "sex with an underage minor" as the papers report because she was over the age of consent in the three countries/cities that she claims they had sex in. Some comments have called him a paedophile, which is factually incorrect.

She doesn't say he raped her. So if he did have sex with her he could argue it was consensual.

If he did have sex with her, then he is a sleeze and a slime bag, but I cannot see what offence he has committed. Unless he had sex with her knowing that she was being prostituted out by Epstein.

I assume the case is being investigated, but whilst it is ongoing then unfounded accusations (including that the Palace has named and shamed her, when she did that herself) should really be avoided.

mwalimu · 04/01/2015 22:39

This reply has been deleted

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

mwalimu · 04/01/2015 22:42

including that the Palace has named and shamed her, when she did that herself

its fucking disgusting to say that a victim of child sexual abuse and trafficking 'named and shamed herself'

she is the only one that has nothing to be ashamed of

MNHQ
DawnMumsnet · 04/01/2015 23:22

Evening all,

We know that this is a current story, but as there are legal proceedings going on we've been advised to remove any posts which imply guilt towards any party.

Please bear this in mind when posting.

mwalimu · 05/01/2015 00:20

yeah, i bet you have

cleanmachine · 05/01/2015 00:36

Hes behaved appallingly. I doubt there will be a full and frank investigation but I hope the Queen gives him the bollocking of his life.

It's no secret that he is very close to Epstein and that in itself is embarrassing.

whitesandstorm · 05/01/2015 01:14

But I hope the queen gives him the bollocking of his life ...... probably will but not for the right reasons. She will be furious that he's once again given a glimpse into a side of the monarchy that is kept hidden. Maybe the tip of the iceberg.The monarchy must be preserved at all costs.

EveDallasRetd · 05/01/2015 06:27

I apologise for the use of the words 'named and shamed'. I should have just written 'named'.

My point about making unfounded accusations stands, as does the rest of my previous post. Implying guilt and using MN to do so puts MNHQ in a dangerous position (a la SWMNBN). If you feel the need to do so, then you should do it on your own Internet Platform, not MNs