Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Prince Andrew

134 replies

meccacos2 · 20/09/2019 17:55

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?

OP posts:
beluga425 · 21/09/2019 10:09

You know Women's Aid must get so fed up with all of those "attention seeking" women. Honestly they're old enough to know what they're doing. They should just leave. As for all of those poor Catholic priests. They've had an evil rash if attention seekers too - some of them male!!! And as for those attention seekers in care in Rochdale. They knew full well what they were up to. All of this bleating about sex trafficking. What do they think they're coming here for. Why should we do anything about it.
They're not convincing at all. All naughty liars, the lot of them and not deserving of any compassion.

I do think that some on here should get back into they're time machines and fuck off back to the 1930s.

adaline · 21/09/2019 10:41

@ticking

But her story also matches with other victims and there are photographs and flight logs that put them both at Epstein's house/plane at the same time.

Why are people so keen to says she's lying when all the evidence points to her telling the truth?

Prince Andrew is barely known in the US and is a minor royal here too. Why would she pick him (out of all the "celebrities" tied up in this) to accuse?

It makes no sense.

beluga425 · 21/09/2019 10:49

Why are people so keen to says she's lying when all the evidence points to her telling the truth?

Because we haven't really progressed beyond the ducking stool.

Yet another thread I wished I'd never clicked on in the first place. What the fuck has happened round these parts heaping reactionary fairy dust and judgemental sprinkles over you all. Hmm

Passthecherrycoke · 21/09/2019 11:19

ticking

@adaline money....

@ticking why not go for someone with more money? Plenty of the men connected with Epstein are wealthier and more importantly their wealth is easily accessible and easy to hide. The royal families have their expenditure audited for goodness sake. If there is anyone who can’t bung her a million to go away....

MissEliza · 21/09/2019 12:12

I actually think, for the sake of argument, a member of the royal family is a good target if you want to make things up because everyone knows they have rarely taken legal action. Epstein has a lot of wealthy friends yet we're supposed to believe Prince Andrew was the only one he provided girls to.
Undoubtedly a lot of sordid and immorral stuff has gone on but, especially with the passage of time, it boils down to he said, she said. Therefore I'd be a bit scared of pointing the finger at some rich guy who could bankrupt me in court. Andrew is probably the safest one.
There needs to be a thorough investigation about this but it's looking increasingly unlikely.

bombomboobah · 21/09/2019 12:51

That photo of him smirking and peeping out of the door...urgh!

mbosnz · 21/09/2019 13:04

However, there are those pesky photos, that do substantiate her claims to some extent. I can quite see that there is no case to be made, but I can understand her wanting to hold him accountable in the court of public opinion if there is no avenue for legal redress. It is not an implausible scenario, given the circumstantial evidence supporting her claims.

ticking · 21/09/2019 14:05

@Passthecherrycoke she probably already has.... the original roberts v.s maxwell case was "settled" i.e. a payout made and the case dropped.

there was a lawsuit "withdrawn" in 2016 naming Trump & Epstein (not sure who this was though as it was filed as a Jane Doe).

She has also claimed Clinton was involved, a claim that she later withdrew.

Her own lawers have suggested her account is "fictionalized"

Leakinglikeacolander · 21/09/2019 14:09

Well whether he's guilty or not, nothing is going to be done about it.
The Met have said the matter is closed.

ticking · 21/09/2019 14:13

Just to be absolutely clear though, there is no doubt Epstein was guilty, many highly influential men were involved and the whole thing does need an enquiry....

...however many many wealthy and influential men have been named, who is guilty and who is innocent? Epstein courted these men and some most definitely will be guilty. It's not great though that where she's been involved, cases get dropped or paid off, it does imply a slightly more sinister motive than justice - which leads people to doubt her motives.

She doesn't seem keen to get people convicted....

ticking · 21/09/2019 14:15

@mbosnz there is evidence putting them together in London when she was 17. Grubby, yes, distasteful, yes, illegal, no. (PA does deny this though). The police don't think there is a case to answer....

joyfullittlehippo · 21/09/2019 14:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ticking · 21/09/2019 14:22

@joyfullittlehippo so where is the court case, the conviction?

Leakinglikeacolander · 21/09/2019 14:22

Like the police were ever going to go anywhere with this Hmm

joyfullittlehippo · 21/09/2019 14:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ticking · 21/09/2019 14:52

@joyfullittlehippo gosh, that's a leap - How am I "pro rapist"?

As I said above PA should be prosecuted....

DriftingLeaves · 21/09/2019 15:06

Oh dear Lord! Two words that should not belong together unless the volunteer is fully qualified and capable of balanced rational thought using facts.

@Cupofcake

Fully qualified, just unpaid. Which is more than you are - so your opinion means nothing.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 21/09/2019 16:08

How would (the RF) see papers before they’re printed?

A bit surprising to see this, considering Charles enjoys a veto over our very laws if they conflict with his private interests: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/prince-charles-legislation-veto-duchy-of-cornwall

Granted the media can be a bit more rigorous in holding the RF to account - yet another good reason for a free press - but does anyone seriously imagine this family would discount anything which might be co-opted for their own protection?

This whole mess isn't really to do with what so-and-so did at any given time; it's about accountability, and that's something the RF will never submit to while are strings to be pulled, influence to be bought and a whole bunch of skilled PR folk who remain willing to work for them (though never ask me why)

QualCheckBot · 21/09/2019 16:17

How would (the RF) see papers before they’re printed?

I have no idea how that works, I'm just going by what Prince Harry's pre-engagement statement to the press said. He quite clearly mentions the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers In his own words:

"Since he was young, Prince Harry has been very aware of the warmth that has been extended to him by members of the public.

"He feels lucky to have so many people supporting him and knows what a fortunate and privileged life he leads.

"He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life. He has never been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it.

"He has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about.

"But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public - the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.

"Some of it has been hidden from the public - the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life.

"Prince Harry is worried about Ms. Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her. It is not right that a few months into a relationship with him that Ms. Markle should be subjected to such a storm.

"He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game - it is her life and his.

"He has asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done.

"He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly."

Available all over the internet, my source: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/08/prince-harrys-statement-defending-girlfriend-meghan-markle-in-fu/

QualCheckBot · 21/09/2019 16:23

And what a contrast with the lack of care about protection and safety for a vulnerable 17 year old girl.

Ironically, Virginia Roberts Giuffrey is a similar age to Meghan Markle now.

I think PA is extraordinarily lucky not to have been more closely investigated for using the services of a prostitute or having been involved with the trafficking of vulnerable women for sex.

Most likely, a pleasant semi-retirement of golf holidays and private parties with an attempt at wheeling him out for some safe public occasions in a couple of year when they think its died down a bit awaits.

PicsInRed · 21/09/2019 16:29

Prince Andrew. Hmm

He's a wealthy, connected man friends and often holidaying with a prolific sex trafficker. There's a photo of P.A. and this girl together whilst this poor girl was "on duty", with Mme Maxwell standing guard in the background.

There's recent footage of P.A. peeking around a door, creepily waving off another girl from Epstein's house of horrors...and cagily looking about to ensure he's not seen. Too late.

Through all allegations, across many years, he remains friends with Epstein and continues to stay as a client guest of Epstein's.

Of course he raped the girl. Duh.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 21/09/2019 16:32

I'd say such a future for Andrew is more than "most likely", QualCheckBot; in fact I'd call it a certainty, since he appears fit for little else

Also agree about Harry's own words concerning the nightly legal battles to keep things out of the papers. It seemed to me to be lifting the lid on something he'd perhaps prefer to remain hidden ... but then, since he's unlikely to be held accountable either, it probably doesn't matter to him

ChickenyChick · 21/09/2019 16:33

In todays papers she is challenging him, she is hoping he’ll call her a liar, after which she could sue for defamation (or something like that)

By keeping schtum he can stop her starting a court case (where she could drag him through the mud)

He’s being very shrewd by not speaking out

Bastard

LakieLady · 21/09/2019 16:35

*You will note that the Palace makes no comment about how important it is to protect young girls from predatory men. Nothing at all. But plenty to say on press intusion into their lives.

The RF are ruthless. That's their practised mode of survival as a firm.*

Yep, classic deflection.

I really think the current monarch should be the last, the next generation are beyond the pale imo.

QualCheckBot · 21/09/2019 16:36

Puzzled Also agree about Harry's own words concerning the nightly legal battles to keep things out of the papers. It seemed to me to be lifting the lid on something he'd perhaps prefer to remain hidden ... but then, since he's unlikely to be held accountable either, it probably doesn't matter to him

A very unwise statement by Prince Harry though, and I'm surprised the comment about the nightly legal battles to keep things out of the papers wasn't picked up on and analysed more.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard tales of the RF scrutinising the press and having potential articles run by their teams by certain editors for potential libellous content. The RF clearly have a lot of power over whats published due to the vast sums for legal battles and legal representation available to them, and I'm sure we only see a fraction of the stuff about them, and when we do, its quite old and has been removed of the most salacious content.

Swipe left for the next trending thread