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?

Nomama - I am saying PA should have ended his association with Epstein once he was convicted. he did not.

I'm not disgreeing. Just not saying it shows he is guilty of anything!

And give me a moment while I round up every man who has ever stood in that pose

Arm around a teenager introduced to him by a sex offender?

Epstein was imprisoned in 2008

PA was still pictured going on holiday with him and visiting him at the houses where the proved offences took place in 2010 (according to The Independent which is hardly trash media).

That, Apocalypse, is what I mean. 2+2 = 5.

NoMamma I don't think people are suggesting PA is criminally guilty but that he is guilty of appalling judgement and objecting to the fact that he lives as he does because we subsudise him. In which case, there is a suggestion he should be accountable for his actions.

First of all I hate trial by media/the internet so I really don't know why I commented on it. As you pointed out it's been edited to make it look a bit more intimate.

That, Apocalypse, is what I mean. 2+2 = 5.

Well not in this case, because that's exactly what is going on in the photo. His friend, a convicted sex offender, introduced him to a teenager. He apparently had so few misgivings about this event that he allowed himself to be photographed beaming to camera with his arm around the girl on the naked part of her body.

That really is a gross error of judgement.

Really, Lulu?

I would disagree that no one has suggested he is guilty - there are some very obvious insinuations upthread.

And, whilst I agree the man has acted very stupidly, I can't see how he could be made more accountable for having kept a very unsuitable friend.

He has resigned a commission, apologised publicly and is now being discussed as though he is a sex offender, or at least an apologist for one. He is a very wealthy man who has made mistakes. That we do know.

The facts on this are not known. The named woman and Jane Doe #3 are quite likely not the same woman, there is no case pending against him, and on and on.

As usual I find myself uncomfortable with the public lynching. It makes it very difficult for anyone to make real, evidenced claims of guilt or innocence in other cases.

Apocalypse, he is posing and they are, all 3 of them, looking directly into the lense of the camera. It really isn't the photo the meeja hype has presented it as.

• and it was taken in 2001, before Epstein' arrest etc.

Prince Andrew doesn't seem a happy man. And he doesn't seem to have sustained a short or long term relationship since Fergie. And she got a lot of stick didn't she. But it makes me wonder if there is something unethical about him?

I also didn't like him saying 'I did not have sex with that girl'. Sounds peevish.

I tend to believe the victim, a policy brought to me by MN funnily enough.

A dangerous policy, surely.

How do you identify the victim?

How do you believe the person making an allegation rather than a protestation of innocence every single time?

It is very easy to say ' always believe the victim' when sat on your laptop. But in RL how do you know who the victim really is?

Step 1: don't jump to believe what you read in the newspapers, especially prior to a court case.

Agreed nomama. At this point she is the alleged victim or, to be precise, the plaintiff in a legal case. Court is the best place to decide what she is not the media or the internet.

Victim has been named in the other guy's papers. Why assume she's lying?

I am not assuming 'she' is lying. But have 2 reasons to take issue with the idea that he is guilty:

1. As you said - 'other guy'. Not every/any man someone cares to name
2. She said she had not had sex with Prince Andrew - remember the named woman and Jane Doe#3 may not be the same person! That they are is an assumption the newspapers have made/are leading you to make!

There are lots of other reasons, trial by social media is abhorrent in any case; he has not been accused of anything and the trial his name has come up in has not been heard; his social status is more on the stand here than the man/his actions.

This is not a pleasant thread. If it were Joe Bloggs we were discussing I would say the same. This is trail by social media and it is unpleasant, ill informed and extremely prejudiced.

No, it really isn't. Even if you go on the facts alone - and no assumptions of what may or may not have happened - the behaviour of Prince Andrew still stinks like a month old prawn.

Isn't what? I see a difference between him having acted like a grade A pillock and having acted in anyway illegally.

And until anything different is proven in a court anything else is prurient gossip.

You said the thread was 'unpleasant, ill-informed and prejudiced.' I am saying that it isn't.

The Royals are untouchable: even if guilty of sex with trafficked girls, Prince Andrew will get away with it and if anyone thinks otherwise they are deluded.

Nomama you seem determined to tell everyone off for this thread. But I think it's clear from the majority of posters responses that they realise that:

• PA is not being investigated for anything
• PA is not being accused of anything illegal
• PA has been named in some Civil (not criminal) court papers in the US stating he had sex with someone- not illegally- who had been forced into illegal sex elsewhere.

No one is putting him on trial. He's not on any trial, neither will he be unless new information comes to light.

What people are saying is that he is a dirty old man.

I am pissed off with this and other trial by media crap. I am allowed that opinion, aren't I?

He is being accused - here. He is on trial, here. He is being discussed as though he has acted illegally. Much of what has been typed could possibly be seen as libellous.

Your assertion that he is being labelled a dirty old man is exactly the problem!

MumsyFoxys highly ridiculous assertion is another!

Elton - yes that's about right.

And it's my opinion that he looks of a big baby.

Will mummy get him out of this mess.

What is he being accused of?

Go back through the posts and see for yourself!

I have read all posts, read the insinuations, the 'opinions', the statement of 'it is obvious' etc. People leaping to conclude that unwise actions must be something else... unpleasant prurience.