Prince Andrew

[meccacos2]

In circumstances wherein no one can actually say how Epstein made his money... could it possibly be that this news.com article sheds some light on this?

www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/virginia-roberts-reveals-details-of-three-sexual-encounters-she-claims-she-had-with-prince-andrew/news-story/91885ffd2595498dabf290116aa6544d

This woman is saying she was trafficked.

She’s been saying it for years.

Why is this a conversation no one is having?

Why is the palace waiting for it to blow over?

@DriftingLeaves

I believe her, she lives in Australia. Many many people believe her. Her recount of events is consistent with other victims.

The only thing we don’t believe is the defence of such a man (Prince Andrew) and the cover up of Epstein’s entire criminal enterprise.

Oh, and an interesting analogy is that a person in a professional position of trust, such as a teacher, would be charged with an offence if they slept with a 17 year old pupil.

What a pity that we don't apply this enhanced duty to a Prince, who has used his royal position to access individuals who gave him access to trafficked and possibly prostituted 17 year olds!

The RF have a lot of protection from the law, but aren't required to adhere to a particularly high standard of responsibility in return. Its an outmoded model.

Private Eye has been reporting this story for years. So far, I have not read anything ‘new’ in recent coverage, other than the photo of Epstein at a Buckingham Palace garden party. It is just that other media in the UK have refused to cover it.

MyShinyWhiteTeeth People refer to trafficking because Virginia Roberts Giuffre says she was 15 when she was ‘recruited’ by Ghislaine Maxwell. She was 17 when she met Prince Andrew.

“The RF have teams that scour the press before it is even printed for harmful comments, and fire off lawyer's letters threatening legal action before its done.”

I don’t think that happens. How would they see papers before they’re printed? I think he means that they have been informed by the paper about the intention to print a Story and asked to comment.

So many people on here keen to disbelieve her. Why is that?

What happened to "I believe you"?

Why are so many keen to believe Prince Andrew but think it's perfectly okay for a 17 year old girl to be taken advantage of. Would you all be saying the same if she was your daughter who was caught up in this shit?

I hated the I believe you campaign. Always thought it was too much green light to the tiny minority of fantasists (like Carl Beech).

Her evidence has never been tested properly, but her story smells wrong.

I find sometimes it’s sensible to go with the most sensible/ likely explanation. It’s pretty accepted that Epstein had sex with underage girls and that this was often rape. He also moved girls around the world for sex parties. He was friends with PA. PA was photographed with his arm round her. it seems obvious to me that if the woman said she had sex with him, she did. It’s the most obvious outcome, and that’s usually the right one

I'm not keen to disbelieve her. I just don't find her convincing. At all.

Well rehearsed but unconvincing.

What would she have to do/say to convince you?

It would have to have happened. I just don't believe it happened.

I'm no royalist, have no time for them. I also, in general, believe the woman. In this case I don't. Not one little bit.

What would she need to do/say to be convincing to you?

And why do you think she needs to convince you of anything? She was a 17 year old. One of many young girls who was paid for sex by older, abusive, predatory men.

It's accepted than Epstein was a horrible, abusive man who paid girls for sex. Why do you not believe her? Do you think she's making it up or something?

Or do you not believe Epstein paid young girls for sex?

@DriftingLeaves plenty of people have confirmed that he paid young girls for sex, though.

Why do you think this particular girl is lying?

Or do you believe Epstein was innocent and this is all a big pile of lies?

It's accepted than Epstein was a horrible, abusive man who paid girls for sex. Why do you not believe her? Do you think she's making it up or something?

It's the Prince Andrew part I don't believe. I do believe she was exploited by Epstein.

Makes me sick. I believe her. I detest Andrew. Why has he not been arrested?

Because at 17 a woman knows full well what she’s doing.

You don't understand what trafficking is or how it works, do you? Or abuse for that matter.

As per usual most people's reasoning for disbelieving someone alleging sexual abuse is based on a mythologised idea of how abuse survivors and traumatised people behave, never mind ignorance of what abuse is and how it works.

Or the good old "I'd believe her if she wasn't accusing someone I like, but this would shatter my world if it were true so I need her to be a liar"...

@DriftingLeaves is there any particular reason you don't believe her?

You say she's not convincing but what would she need to do or say to convince you?

You believe she was exploited by one man so why would she lie about another? I don't understand what you think she'd gain from lying about something like that

Because at 17 a woman knows full well what she’s doing

Oh fuck off calling a 17 year old a 'woman' ffs.

He is doing what Royals and other aristocracy have been doing for years, decades, centuries. They are not a fit for modern society.

Well apparently he was horrible, lewd, not very clever, had to orgasm three times a day and had been in prison for sex crimes. I think it’s obvious why powerful rich men where “friends” with him and it wasn’t his riveting dinner party conversation

Also it doesn’t matter how old you are if you’re being trafficked. Do you think that pimps trafficking poor Ukrainian women into British brothels aren’t committing a crime because the women are over 18?

Plenty of people used to believe women were asking to be raped if they wore a skimpy clothes. Now people don’t understand rape using abusive of power. Hopefully it won’t take as long for attitudes to change this time

I don’t think that happens. How would they see papers before they’re printed?

Don't be so naive! Whenever the press have a story they notify the subject to get a comment. I work in the public sector and we get them on a weekly basis on my policy area alone, some good some bad. Our press team are very skilled at shutting down some stories which we can prove are made up or cast significant doubt on. On the other hand, it shows how scurrilous the press are and how they twist anything and everything for a headline.

So the defence is that PA didn’t know that Epstein, who always had a (different) 16-20 year old girl hanging off his arm and in his bedroom and who was somehow bossed around by Maxwell was a sex trafficker or in any way dodgy (PA assumes all the women are above the age of consent in whatever country they are in and that they knew fully what they were getting involved with and are fully consenting etc). One of Epstein’s young girlfriends then randomly approaches PA to have sex with him. PA assumed that Maxwell and Epstein were not behind this, that the woman did it if her own accord because she found PA so attractive. He sleeps with her believing her to be fully consenting albeit young enough to be his daughter.

Even if this were true it’s just incredibly sleazy. It’s something he should be ashamed of and it’s something that I’d expect his family to be repulsed by. It’s not behaviour we should be overlooking just because he’s the queen’s third child.

I find this thread rather depressing.

For a start, this has been talked about a lot and has been talked about on MN!

Secondly, I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss her and stand up for PA.

There's photographic evidence of her with Prince Andrew. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think it's entirely possible, if not quite likely, that things weren't further afield off camera.