Rather than debating whether its true or not, here is a better question. What were her parents doing letter her swan off with a US billionaire to his private island. Just throwing it out there but sounds like the whole family are bunch of gold diggers
TrueBlueYorkshire You mention Jimmy Savile, I mention Michael Jackson.
That was an argument used very effectively by his lawyers, fans and many others when he was accused of sexually abusing an upper-middle class 13 year old boy in 1993 and again with a boy of similar age but less salubrious background in 2002.
The first case ended in an undisclosed and no doubt substantial out-of-court settlement and criticism of the boy's father. The second ended in Jackson's acquittal of criminal charges of sexual assault in 2005 and opprobrium for the child as well as his family.
The only difference I can see is that second time around Jackson picked a boy with a family who were on benefits and who could easily be discredited as golddiggers.
My personal view is that both sets of parents were lacking but the boys were victims of sexual abuse who should never have been vilified.
What's yours? Is it okay to abuse children whose parents are lacking either permanently or in a moment's inattention, perhaps in a busy shopping centre? Or are just starstruck by extreme wealth and celebrity?
If I'd been abused by Jeffrey Epstein I'd want to take him for every penny I could because that's clearly the only language he understands. Then I might spend it on therapy or shoes or have a big bonfire.
I wouldn't give a shit about how many of his friends got drawn into the orbit. If they were worried about their reputations they should have been more careful, instead of swanning around with US billionaires on private islands - that is a logical extension of your argument, isn't it?
BTW Jackson is dead. You can't libel the dead.
I'm in no way suggesting that the Duke of York is anything like him or anything more than a silly man I have very little sympathy for.