Prince Andrew

[Tevion28]

Do you think guilty or innocent

RoyalFamilyFan

Agreed.

So the question is, should modern day cultural mores be applied now in 2022 to something which happened in 2001.

Im not sure what sex trafficing legislation you are referring to which applied in 2001 (for example modern slavery act is 2015 i think) but is it not the very smoke and mirrors of "well she was 17 which is plenty older enough /was paid handsomely for it/actively colluded in it" what lets PA (and no doubt others like him) think they can get away with bare faced lies broadcast to the nation?

He definitely thinks he's untouchable, his finances are so shady.

He's not coming over well, but....legally if she was 17 and sex was in the UK, he wasn't breaking a law.

He can't be accused of anything simply because of 'association' with E&M. Can he?

I genuinely don't know enough about the legal stance here.

I can't bear him, but in terms of the law, it's all a bit confusing.

@bubblesbubbles11

maybe showing my age here, but what a lot of posters seem to be missing is that at the time that famous photo was taken of PA, VR and GM, (March 2001) there really was NOT the same concept of sex trafficing in the UK as there is now. Nor was there such a cultural shift against sex with underage children (which I believe was 16 in the UK). Difficult tho it may be to believe in light of modern day thinking (post MeToo etc and the wide ranging Modern Slavery legislation which has been implimented SINCE 2001) I remember 2001 and would suggest that a 17 year old having sex with a much older man was something people "just accepted" (and most especially did not challenge if the older man was rich / aristocracy). It does not make what happened right, i just can well believe that many many people inside the Royal family and elsewhere knew exactly what was happening but just concluded in their heads "Oh well she is just a young prostitute so that is OK". The shift in public thinking about these types of things is relatively revolutionary.

I definitely think PA is guilty (and a total sleeze bag). But i strongly suspect that when he had sex with VR it never once entered his head that there was an inbalance of power which he should consider on a moral level. Like others have said, he is so breathtakingly arrogant it would never have dawned on him that he should not be having sex with a 17 year old who would be paid for it.

And I would also speculate that it is possible that he actually had sex with many many young girls who were procured for him via Maxwell at that time ("Randy Andy" was a name everyone in society had heard of) so it really is quite possible that he does not remember Virgina Roberts (but he definitely remembers sleeping with lots of very young girls who Maxwell paid.

Wasn’t there supposed to have been some incident with Harry and prostitutes in LA which was covered up? The attitude that Royals and aristocracy can have sex with who they like when they like is ingrained. Especially with powerless young girls. Wasn’t Diana’s marriage really just a glorified contractual arrangement of the same type? She didn’t realise that until it was too late . I think Charles understood the rules though.

I think a lot of people think of sex trafficking as young girls being kept in awful conditions as virtual prisoners and wonder why girls who were free to leave didn't.

Not only that but helped bring more young girls into it.

It probably wouldn't occur to PA that the girls were trafficked & I think it may not have done to a few people.

Also, it must be considered that quite often skilled people such as they are will have groomed the parents also.
Working class people in it over their head - completely transfixed and perhaps when discovery day happened feeling powerless.
Why do you think G targeted the trailer parks ?
It’s not just the fact that children in low income areas are not cared for, many are. It’s the opportunity and accessibility. Single parents, mostly mothers, working long hours. Unsupervised young people who have never seen wealth. Lack of education in many places, how can someone like that take on these people? They are predators.

@chaosrabbitland
She was a child
She was groomed by a pair of paedophiles
Shame on you

He's not coming over well, but....legally if she was 17 and sex was in the UK, he wasn't breaking a law.

But it wasn't just in the UK?

As I said before, it was also in NY and on JE's island

@AutumnAlmanack

I'm sorry but I still can't get over how happy she looks in that photo - a genuine happy smile. What, a Prince interested in little old moi???

I keep repeating the same point on these threads...you do know that some of the girls who were abused in the Rotherham abuse scandal were actually grateful to their abusers because 'they bought them presents' ...yes, because that is how shit their life had been up to that point ...they didn't know any different and some didn't even realise they were victims of crimes. That doesn't stop what was done to those girls being an abhorrent crime! That is precisely why the taxi drivers chose to abuse girls from care homes fhs! They used a mix of violence, fear and flattery to intimidate them. Epstein and GM chose vulnerable girls for the same reason.

I remember 2001 and would suggest that a 17 year old having sex with a much older man was something people "just accepted" (and most especially did not challenge if the older man was rich / aristocracy).

But it isn’t just accepted now and that has had consequences for the people who we now know engaged in that kind of behaviour.

The Royal Family and the British state still doesn’t appear able to grapple with what this means for people who are given roles that demand respect and status purely because of a fluke of birth.

I think he had sex with her but turned a blind d eye to why she did it and how she knew Epstein. I think it's as simple as that. I don't think he knew the grisly details. He us now lying because even having sex with her is bad enough.

People think of sex trafficking as forcefully taking women, or deceiving women and then holdng them against their will- he didn't see this,so believed it wasn't happening. Of course, sex trafficking can also be psychological as was the case here. He wouldn't know that.

I lived in Amsterdam for a while. You could tell the girls in the windows who were trafficked, it was pretty obvious from their demeanor and how their pimps behaved. In my view it is no worse to pay a trafficked or non trafficked woman for sex, but I bet a lot of men don't see it like that.

She was 17 so not underage?
He was used to all women throwing themselves at him so would not have thought she was trafficked
It’s not a crime to be friends with a paedophilie?
It’s possible to be married to a paedophile and not know what they are up to
He should have fully cooperated with authorities but it looks like his testimony wasn’t needed

It probably wouldn't occur to PA that the girls were trafficked

But what did he think? That these young, poor girls were normal social contacts of Epstein and Maxwell?

Arrogant and stupid little man. Guilty as sin and he won't be able to stop legal action coming from the US...

@bubblesbubbles11 Trafficking for sex was illegal back then.
The civil case is being heard in a court of law in the US. The court will decide if there is a case to answer, not unqualified people like us.

And being honest, every single sex abuse case of famous people is always answered with - it was okay back then. When that is practically never true. 2001 was not long ago. What is true is that before social media like Twitter, famous people used to be able to hide their wrong doing more easily from the public, and when the public became aware of it, it was harder for them to complain.
In my City adults abused as children in local care homes held regular vigils outside the local Town Hall. They were largely ignored by the local media. Social media changed this as they could tell their stories and reach a lot of local people who were appalled at hat happened. Some people are now in prison as a result.
The Royal Family can no longer hide behind any silencing of mainstream media. Social media publicised wrong doing.

I am more concerned with PA’s dodgy financial dealings than whether or not he had sex many years ago with a 17 year old girl.

VG may once have been a victim, but she has used her victimhood to make a lot of money. And what is this case about? Not an apology but her chance to strike paydirt.

I don’t think either of them come out of it smelling of roses.

Not sure there's much doubt he had sec with her.

As to whether he knew she was trafficked, balance or probabilities, probably yes.

Reason I think this is he was mixing with all the people involved. Good friends with JE. By all account rumours (at least) were abound. Did he really have not the slightest suspicion that JE was providing trafficked girls? Seems really unlikely he hadn't heard a single rumour or any talk.

Which leaves the possibility he heard talk about it but thought that he was the exception and that despite JE being in the trade of providing trafficked girls, the ones introduced to him were somehow not part of that at all? Pull the other one.

Plus, if I was in the business of providing trafficked girls to the rich and famous, I would make sure those customers were as culpable as me so they had incentive to keep their gobs shut if anyone came knocking.

It's Al guess work though, of course.

I've never liked this guy before all of this stuff came to light. Hedonistic, loves the drink, selfish, arrogant, thinks he's something special. I never thought I would say I felt sorry for Sarah Ferguson either but I do.

I think he's guilty as sin.

"you do know that some of the girls who were abused in the Rotherham abuse scandal were actually grateful to their abusers because 'they bought them presents' ...yes, because that is how shit their life had been up to that point"

I agree with the above.

And I don't think I am a prude to remember a far more stark cultural vibe during the Rotherham days of "nice girls" (who don't put out) and "not so nice girls" - i.e. they put the onus on the child (especially if it was a working class child) to know right from wrong and "just not do it" rather than the onus on national legislation /the state etc to be alive to these things and stand up for the vulnerable (the children) and not brand them as "just immoral". Ever watched a TV programme called "Three Girls"???

The only thing that rang vaguely true in that interview was when he referred to living at Buckingham Palace with lots of unknown people walking about whom you assumed were staff.

But no doubt he is a vile entitled pig.

@nitsandwormsdodger

She was 17 so not underage? He was used to all women throwing themselves at him so would not have thought she was trafficked It’s not a crime to be friends with a paedophilie? It’s possible to be married to a paedophile and not know what they are up to He should have fully cooperated with authorities but it looks like his testimony wasn’t needed

She was under age in the States.

All this on top of his Air Miles Andy reputation has got this selfish arrogant typical Mumsnet bloke his comeuppance.

And I truly believe that if the evidence against Jimmy Saville had not been so overwhelming, there would have been people on MN defending him. There are always people who defend sex abusers and paedophiles even when the evidence is clear, and it is often women who are the loudest defenders.

@NoraEphronsTurkeyNeck

The only thing that rang vaguely true in that interview was when he referred to living at Buckingham Palace with lots of unknown people walking about whom you assumed were staff.

But no doubt he is a vile entitled pig.

Agreed

It’s not a crime to be friends with a paedophilie?

It shows a severe lack of judgement surely? particularly if you're a public figure

@TheKeatingFive

It probably wouldn't occur to PA that the girls were trafficked

But what did he think? That these young, poor girls were normal social contacts of Epstein and Maxwell?

Well that's it isn't it-he just wouldn't think would he?

There they were, who cares how or why?