..to find the pictures of Prince Andrew..

[BertrandRussell]

...sitting next to the Queen in the car in the way to Church deeply distasteful? I suppose all our institutions are corrupt if you look under the surface, but this is so blatant. How do Monarchists defend it?

The queen is just like any other mum.

Can’t see that her precious boy is a nasty piece of work.

Of course he knew.

Is there any mother on this planet, queen or not, who would ever express a favourite amongst her children?

Of course.

Is there any mother on this planet, queen or not, who would ever express a favourite amongst her children

Are you joking?

How unreasonable that Epstein was sent to prison just for giving these girls opportunities.......

Epstein was a paedophile, isn't that what he went to prison for? That's not the same thing as hanging around with presumably willing 18-year-olds. Not all 18-year-olds who hang around rich men are being exploited.

Oh bertrand, he may well have had bags of advisers stating what's perfectly obvious to all of us. Entitlement and privilege, however, can override such concerns, 'the rules are for other people, they don't mean me'. And, mostly, they don't.

No, I'm not joking. I'm staggered that you doubting it indicates that you might have a favourite amongst yours. Really?!
Do you really think the Queen would tell journalists (or anyone, for that matter) that Andrew was her favourite?

The aristocracy are corrupt. They always have been.

“Entitlement and privilege, however, can override such concerns, 'the rules are for other people, they don't mean me'. And, mostly, they don't.”

Yes of course. But it is ridiculous to say “Oh, he wouldn’t have known”. He would have known. He just ignored the knowledge.

What what is it we think he knew, exactly?

That some of the girls he saw with JE were being paid?

That there was sex involved?

That some of the girls he saw with JE were underage?

That some of the girls he had sexual encounters with were being paid?

That some of the girls he had sexual encounters with were underage?

Of course those photos are distasteful. They are serving as a reminder to anyone who wants to pursue investigation into the level of his involvement, that they will be taking on the fill force of the establishment, since he has the protection of the monarch herself!
Her public support is to act as a deterrent to people who are trying to prevent all this from just going away.

Should she have had him go in another car, causing unnecessary expense and emissions? Or maybe tied him to the rear bumper and had him dragged along the road to church?

I'm sure she has berated him in private about this, however factually he is a legally innocent man sitting in a car with his elderly mum on the way to church. It's not like he's been pictured falling out of a jailbait strip club with her.

I wonder if she justifies it to herself as him just being a man, doing what men do, he’s not even married anymore after all... etc... I’m not saying that’s what I think obviously but the other side of it (that he was friends with a man who groomed, exploited and raped children on a mass scale and may have participated in some of it) is probably put to one side. Perhaps she chooses not to read those stories in the papers and courtiers are happy to hide them from her too?

I wonder what the staff think / do. Do you think anyone had brought it up to senior royals or suggested that he should be seen privately for now only to her or are they not able?

I also wish people would stop calling JE a paedophile. That succeeds in monstering him, in pretending that his actions were not actions that almost every misogynistic male on the planet would perform, if only he could afford it and didn’t think he would get caught. Paedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children. Young women - even 15/16 - are legally children but they are not physically children. Epstein’s sexual instincts were within the realms of ‘normal’. His actions, however, appear to reflect his privilege and his belief in his own immunity. But they also reflect hundreds of years of consumerist thinking about women; women as gifts, women as rewards, women as objects. He is not unusual.

Epstein was a paedophile

Technically a Hebephile.

Technically not even that. A hebephile is exclusively attracted to children aged around 11-14, not 15-18.

Poor old Epstein, eh? Unjustly accused like that....and him such an upstanding citizen.....

I am not defending him in the slightest. In the slightest, for avoidance of doubt!

Not defending Epstein or Prince Andrew (if he is found to be guilty haha, unlikely but this particular girl was 17 at the time of the alleged events. In Florida, that is below the legal age for consent. But not in other states, eg New York (where some of the "parties" are alleged to have taken place).
Nor in the UK. So, are we (in the UK) saying that this particular girl was too young to be having sex (leave aside for a moment the gruesome business of money changing hands) but that it's OK for that age and younger to be doing so over here?

Can I ask what exactly has he been found guilty of?

Or even charged with anything

Mother sits next to son in car.

How very dare they.

People need to remember when they are typing that when someone hadn't been even found guilty of something then they need to check what they write because it could be read as libelous.

So, are we (in the UK) saying that this particular girl was too young to be having sex (leave aside for a moment the gruesome business of money changing hands) but that it's OK for that age and younger to be doing so over here?

Well, quite. Personally I think the age of consent in the UK is too low, but Prince Andrew could go out and have sex with a 16 year old here without breaking a single law.

I find the constant claims that young women are completely clueless, and always victims, a bit annoying. One of the accusers has talked about being paid $20,000 for an afternoon's orgy.

An abused child is an abused child, no matter whether they are paid or not and regardless of the amount paid.

The bit I found particularly interesting in his statement is, “any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors”, depending on how you read it could mean an admission of impropriety with a minor who is not underage.

The bit I found particularly interesting in his statement is, “any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors”, depending on how you read it could mean an admission of impropriety with a minor who is not underage.

Like a 17 year old? I think he would argue - legally - he did nothing wrong in that case.

Even if Andrew's only physical contact with the people who were abused was an arm around the waist of one girl (as seen in a picture) he stayed friends with a known paedophile. The plea deal was public knowledge, at this point, anyone with an ounce of judgement would have stopped all contact, Andrew didn't so there will always be questions about what actually happened.

I wonder what the staff think / do. Do you think anyone had brought it up to senior royals

I've no doubt the staff have bills to pay, just like everyone else - a powerful incentive, perhaps, to keep disgust in check and restrict themselves to some comment about "this regrettable story in the awful press"

As ever, all this ghastly family cares about is keeping their comfortable show on the road, and to hell with anyone who gets trampled in the process