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?

No-one is calling him a rapist or a paedo, but the press say a photo exists of Andrew surrounded by topless teenage girls (I think at Epstein's house). We can't say for sure what happened next, but I can't imagine they were meeting for naked book club.

Anyway, I am still more interested in the Lord Porchester rumours than this

Nomama - I don't think he has been accused of anything illegal.

Basically he is self serving, unethical and undeserving of his royal privileges.

The Queen's kids don't really resemble each other do they?

Mob law. No smoke without fire, (when we get hundreds of posts from MNers telling how an ex or a "friend" spreads lies about them and how should they handle it). The is of use - especially with younger victims - but accepting allegations from people "currently writing memoirs" on no real evidence is against our innocent until proved guilty legal premise.

Let's reserve judgement until we know the facts.

No one has accused him of anything - he has already been accused of these things in the national media. People are discussing those accusations. They're not saying "oh yeah well shagging a sex slave is bad enough but I've heard he FUCKS CORGIS" are they?

NB as far as I am aware PA does
Not fuck corgis

The paedophile only got 13 months for raping a 14 year old girl?!

I believe there was some sort of plea bargain involved - correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Epstein put his hands up to a couple of lesser charges in return for more serious ones being dropped?

AFAIK Andrew's not been charged with anything, but there's no denying that associating with this man on his release from jail shows appalling judgement. The again, that's what tends to happen when you're unaccountable to anyone and surrounded on all sides by flunkies insisting what an absolutely wonderful person you are ...

Do you really think the OJ story was 'worth more than the evidence', Nomama? There was plenty of evidence.

And nobody on this thread that I've seen has said anything other than that PA is a pompous and unpleasant man with very poor judgement. He maintained this friendship long after it was wise to do so.

I've just re read the thread. He hasn't been accused of anything. You obviously have a innocent until proven guilty axe to grind but this is the wrong place to do it

I find it awful that the lawyer said that because the girl lied about being with Clinton, then we cannot believe anything she now says!

I don't think much of this lawyer if this is his opinion. If someone goes to court and has lied about something else in the past, that does not mean that everything else they say is a lie!

They have all been 'looking into taking legal action' or 'instructing lawyers' for a number of years. Ms Maxwell has released statements at least twice over the last 3 years saying she was doing it, as have the other 'names'. These never come to anything which is very strange. If they did not do what this woman and several others who gave sworn evidence in the trial have said they did, why have they not challenged it in a court and put an end to it? The allegations are defamatory if they are not true. It doesn't matter whether what is being suggested is illegal or not, it is an attak on their morality, jdgement and could damage their reputations. It is defamatory if it isn't true and they could sue........but they don't, despite years of this huffing and puffing and denying.

Unfortunately, we have heard President Clinton's denials about this kind of behaviour before- made directly to camera in a broadcast with the American nation while he was President and then later withdrawn as a lie. Forgive me if I find all of the denials a bit 'hot air'. The only detailed allegations are coming from the woman involved. The rest is hufflepuff rebuttal at the moment- no detail at all and no legal action for defamation, despite all the threats to do so

Mr Epstein was given a plea deal by prosecutors where he plead gulity to a lesser offence and the bigger charges were dropped in return for that.

I just don't understand, if these people can prove this is all lies, why they are not doing so in court. They must be amongst the most pinned down people in the world in terms of their diaries every day; should be very straightforward to sue for defamation and hae the evidence to hand.

To be fair, suing the national newspapers is incredibly, incredibly hard- look at all the wealthy people who tried to do it for their phones being hacked- really didn't get anywhere until the legal system was ready to deal with it.

That said I'm quite taken aback that anyone thinks "rich older man acts as fixer of beautiful young vulnerable women to royalty/ billionaires/ oligarchs so they can have sex with them" is an unlikely story in any way shape or form. It's been going on forever and I for one find it incredibly likely that "playboys" like PA have been partying in this way for many years. It wouldn't even cross my mind she made it up. If it wasn't her it was someone else

Do you really think the OJ story was 'worth more than the evidence', Nomama? There was plenty of evidence but very little physical evidence remained untainted because of officers acting in unprofessional ways... tub of ice cream, glove, blood spots etc.

You obviously have a innocent until proven guilty axe to grind but this is the wrong place to do it well, I disagree. Some of the previous comments have been very accusatory. I know that those who don't see them as such won't agree with me, but if it was your husband, brother, son you would be extremely anxious and hurt.

I can only repeat that such threads are invidious, nasty and salacious. Assumptions of guilt, for a number of men, are being made all over the place... It wouldn't even cross my mind she made it up. If it wasn't her it was someone else for example.

I find the whole reporting of this case strange

last night on the bbc website the story was headline news on the UK section

now it is not even in the lower headlines, there is a small link to last weeks news

the Royals certainly have power over the press this is something I feel very uncomfortable with

tunaandcheesesandwich - is the lawyer also one of the accused men?

Yes, the lawyer is one of the accused. And he has said that as it is apparently provable that one accusation is a lie then it is reasonable to assume the others are.

Whilst it is not always true he does have a point.

Another reason not to leap to conclusions.

www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2003/03/jeffrey-epstein-200303

Epstein has lots of your women that maxwell summoned for him.

All really sick.

The irony about the Clinton point -if Jane Doe 3 has lied about that, what else has she lied about?-is that one can say the same about Clinton-since he lied about Lewinsky, what else would he lie about? We can't judge the documentary evidence he apparently produced, since we haven't seen it. But in terms of general credibility and reputation for truthfulness (in the specific area of sexual liaisons), he is tainted.

Clinton went through an immediate post-Presidential period of fairly sleazy connections, if US media is to be believed. His friendship with Epstein was supposedly a part of that, as was his connection with Ron Burkle, another serial dater of teenagers.

Aren't there plans afoot for HRH and her dysfunctional offspring (agree with PPs who said that they're all fucked up, not to mention wastes of space) to have special gagging powers (over what they already have, I mean) very soon.

Convenient, no?

Still, I'm sure you're right, nomama. Just because he was pictured with a sex offender and one of the girls said sex offender trafficked, doesn't mean he got his dick wet. He probably just had a nice game of scrabble with her followed by an early night, alone. After all, that's what happens at the kind of parties PA goes to, right?

Even if there were some sexual contact, it does not mean that the men knew the young woman in question was either under-aged or coerced. It is undoubtedly sleazy and horrible, and we are all free to disapprove, but that is a world away from being able to establish criminal offences. Which is presumably why there was a plea bargain in the first place.

However, I agree with posters who are saying that Prince Andrew was hardly value for money whether as trade envoy or whatever else he does, and when you factor in the various embarrassments he's caused over the years the public subsidy he receives becomes even more annoying.

Anyone else remember the scathing account of his envoy activities in the US ambassadorial emails that Wikileaks published? Seek it out, it is well worth a read. Why were we paying for someone who couldn't even manage basic courtesy to be a representative of the country?

So, the men at these parties think that the girls they fuck just fall out of the sky? They have no idea at all about how they get there and why?

Well I don't know, and please understand that I am not defending the men in question at all. The kind of conduct Epstein, and quite probably his guests, indulged in is repellent on any view, even if the girls consented.

I think there was a very cynical atmosphere at these parties, in all likelihood. Where the men regarded the young women as (willing to be) bought and paid for. Horrible, but distinct morally and legally from knowing them to be unwilling.

MonstrousRatbag Mon 05-Jan-15 11:58:18
Totally agree and through fergie has caused much embarrasment also. why are we paying for him.

Yes, I can see that, Monstrous, which is why they've had to go for the 'underage' angle just to get it out there. Even if he didn't commit a crime as such though, he is a most unsavoury person. I think that is fair enough to say. Makes my skin crawl, especially when given as another PP says his daughters are around the same age as her.

This lawyer who has also been accused, he says Clinton was elsewhere at that time so therefore it is all lies, but IMO it is much easier to remember who you slept with than it is to remember the exact date it happened.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363444/Jeffrey-Epstein-Robert-Maxwells-daughter-Ghislaine-hired-girls-paedophile.html