To ask why it seems quiet on here regarding Prince Andrew and underage sex slave claims?

[TestNamePleaseIgnore]

Not much discussion going on or have I missed a thread?

Does the age matter if she was sex trafficked from young ?

No smoke with out fire is valid to ME when there's been allegations and articles and claims around for YEARS regarding the royals and links with paedophilia and paedophiles.

It's a good thing that legally speaking there has to be evidence rather than going on gut feelings due to "articles", isn't it.

Ignorance is no defence in law. I thought that was the rule. Whether or not people know somebody is underage is irrelevant. If they're underage then an offence has been committed.

My ex told all the staff at my dds hospital that I didn't beleive in medical science and wasn't providing her with the care they were prescribing, he has reported me to social services for exposing her to prostitution and has told any of our mutual friends that will listen that I am completely crazy and dangerously violent and they should help him get dd away from me.

Actually you, unequivocally, can get smoke with our fire both literally and figuratively.

She does not appear to have been underage in the locations where the parties actually took place (though she was in some other U.S. States, at least at the start of the 3 year time period in question).

If we're going to believe the previous rumours, then his denials are vastly more plausible.

I believe her. What the position is legally I have no idea. But I think there is enough detail that it is believable, and enough 'gaps' to suggest she has much more to reveal to support her accounts further.

Neither he nor his ex-wife come out of anything looking good, they both have poor jdgement. In my opinion, he comes across as pompous and sleazy and Sarah Ferguson as a woman with an alcohol problem, who is grabby, and has psychological problems.

The Queen must be quietly steaming and dreading what might emerge next.

I don't think this woman emerges covered in glory from any if this but I do think she is not going to go away and has a right to tell the truth- which I suspect she is doing.

The lives of the rich and privileged and the vile leeches who befriend them!

I just posted this on the other thread -

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.

I agree with him.

StealthPolarBear if you can bear to read her account in the DM then she doesn't say at any point that Andrew forced her to have sex. Rather, that Epstein and Maxwell told her that she was expected to 'entertain' the prince and report back the next day what they had got up to.

It explicitly says in the article that there was no suggestion from her that Andrew knew that she was being paid for her services.

To the person who said that Andrew would be deluded if he thought 17 year olds would sleep with him without being paid, I think you must be pretty naive. I'm sure the Royals have their groupies, just like celebs and sportsmen.

I know nothing about this case. If and until it becomes an official charge, nobody will know anything. It's not a bit of good surmising or judging, that's not knowledge based on facts as revealed in a court of law.

However, as a general remark, it behoves anyone in public life, and especially a member of the Royal family or the Government, to guard their behaviour and their words in private and in public. They are answerable to the nation and are expected to have a certain modicum of morality and decency. If one of their number consorts with unacceptable types or engages in questionable activities, it will inevitably come to light and the skies will deservedly fall on their heads!

I don't care whether she was a year under the age or a year over the age of consent. But I do think this sleaziness and poor moral judgement from people who are funded by us, held up as role models (I am clearly not including Sarah Ferguson in that bit) , and given roles of privilege in our society is shameful.

Yes I have my judgey pants on but I don't care.

YABU because you are not "asking why it is quiet" - you just want to discuss it.

So why not say that?

Why not say "I want to discuss this" or "What do you think about this?"

Why shoehorn it into an AIBU when you are not asking if you are being unreasonable?

Also, none of these allegations are new yet none of these very public figures have sued her for defamation.

a) Andrew has resigned as trade envoy in the wake of Epstein's conviction and made a formal apology for having been linked/friends with him
b) the Palace never make statements, they wait for stories to go away. Yet they have made 2 very strongly worded statements on this issue.
c) These allegations are at least 3 years old. In the original Epstein case her lawyers suggested there had been cameras, evidence, but none were found - or at least not publicy
d) The woman who has now been interviewed by The Mail on Sunday has NOT claimed she had sex with Prince Andrew, it is another still anonynous woman who has more recently made that claim

"She also claimed to have met Prince Andrew on several occasions, but the paper said there was no suggestion of any sexual contact between Virginia Roberts and the prince."

No other newspaper, or the Beeb, have been able to verify the woman's identity!

There is so much more to this, including possible other allegations that have already been proven to be false. The waters are truly muddied and unlikely to ever become clear.

I am sure it is a very tangled web which none of them hope is going to unravel. This is probably the least of their worries about what could emerge.

British Royal Family
An American President
The Maxwell family
American legal hero
Prostitutes
Russian oligarchs
British government trade contracts
Convicted sex offender with links to all of them

God knows where is could all go.

God knows where is could all go.

Only if it's true.

The "American Legal Hero" is taking it to court. The American President" can prove her allegations are untrue.

I cry bullshit.

"Also, none of these allegations are new yet none of these very public figures have sued her for defamation. hmm"

One of them has said he's now looking in to it.

Only here on MN have I read that there are allegations against Bill Clinton, but as it was also said he was demonstrably elsewhere, he might not feel the need to litigate as it is so clear it must be untrue.

Ah! The DM has now published an uncropped version of the picture and there is a Maxwell on the right - the DM prose includes "She claimed she and other underage girls were ‘procured for sexual activities’ by Ghislaine Maxwell, the socialite daughter of crooked tycoon Robert Maxwell."

AuntieStella, I did just read a comment from the lawyer who made the claim about Clinton, but cannot now find the article again.

No, can't find it. But he said that she had claimed to have been given to Clinton at a time when he was very obviously elsewhere.

As I said earlier, all very murky and protracted. And as we know in American courts sometimes the story is worth more than the evidence*... so who knows what will happen.

*I am thinking OJ, Louise Woodward, etc

It was said in a BBC interview yesterday, Nomama

The Royal Family must regret the day Mountbatten introduced them to Jimmy Savile.

Lulu sounds like the plot list for Jeffrey Archers next book.

That Prince Andrew stayed with Epstein is not up for question.

That Epstein sexually abused girls is not up for question

That Prince Andrew stayed with Epstein when underage girls and prostitutes were present is also not up for question.

The above is known.

It's just whether PA went to a house where he knew underage girls would be to NOT have sex with them.

I know what I think.

Mmm! Actually the interpretation of No.3 is up for question, Nancy66. The named woman said he was present, she spoke to him, but she did not have sex with him on a number of occasions.

Some of the times Epstein, girls and his friends were all in the same place they were in public, having a meal, hosting an event, etc.

Well said Nancy.

I really dislike his denial statement "I did not have sex with that girl"

Kind of reminds me of Bill Clintons denial of sex with Monica L, (we all know that was a lie) also which "girl" is he talking about? The use of the word "girl" is also awful. She's in her late 20s now isn't she?

I have a very low opinion of him and think at the very least he's arrogant, boorish and chooses his associates unwisely.

I loathe this no smoke stuff though and I don't think trial by media is appropriate whoever you are.

The Queen is a mother and I remember reading years ago that Andrew is allegedly the child she has the softest spot for. She must have suffered over the years.