Prince Andrew

[Tevion28]

Do you think guilty or innocent

It does not mean that you or I or anyone is obliged to presume Andrew innocent

Sure, knock yourself out.

Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Even if he didn't have an explicit conversation with anyone about these girls being trafficked and coerced, he will have known that Epstein having loads of teenage girls around his house that could be given to visiting men was not legit.

He's a perverted shitty priveleged upper class creep. Rumours were around a long time before this ever came to the public's attention. Lets just say he was rumoured to be a fan of the unusual in his private life However, this appeared to be consenting, age appropriate adults, but who knows? I suspect he's guilty, the evidence all points that way. But unfortunately having money and influence buys you a very different kind of justice to the justice that most people have access to. The first two in this sorry tale have been dealt with (albeit one by suicide). It would be a travesty for him to get away with his part. I think it's about time the Queen threw him under a royal coach and horses the proverbial bus. The monarchy isn't going to retain any fans by refusing to hand him over to the USA

Because having a stream of pretty girls under 18 giving massages to guests is exactly 'behaviour of the sort'. And that's the minimum he saw

Yep.

He can't have missed the 'exotic' artwork everywhere either.

Whilst everyone is screaming Guilty does no one look at who is funding all this?

Well I've no doubt lawyers are expecting payment, that is what lawyers do.

But I'm not sure the point you're making. Because legalities cost money we shouldn't be made aware of this heinous behaviour from a prince of the realm? Is that it?

@EdenFlower

I'm not sure what crime can actually be pinned on Andrew.

If he can be prosecuted and sentenced for sleeping with a 17 year old who has been trafficked, then all the other men she and her fellow victims slept with will be guilty of the same crime?

Yes, and hopefully they will be brought to justice too.

"He came across as thick but also assuming we are all thicker when in fact we were all able to see through him from his body language alone without hearing his actual words"

This.

Someone who must surely have had detailed legal advice before that Maitlis interview still did not manage to grasp the foolishness of throwing out there (it looked off hand to me when I watched the interview) at least two totally unsubstantiated claims (Pizza Express Woking and medical condition preventing sweating) which he has since not been able to prove - and then genuinely thinking to himself that just saying those things was enough - arrogantly enough to tell Maitilis after the interview that he thought the interview went well.

Unbelievable.

The above neatly puts it in a nutshell how he believed he need only "tell his version" and that should be enough for the public, the court case, any accusers to drop any allegations.

@merrymouse Andrew was the official trade ambassador for the UK. Somone so naive that they could go to a party of rich men in their forties, fifties and sixties who were kissing and having sex upstairs with 16, 17 and 18-year-olds, is far to naive to have any official role.
To be clear I think he is guilty. And if my 17-year-old DD said she was going to a party where all the girls attending were her age, and all the men were forty plus, my alarm bells would be bringing so strongly and I would be ringing the police.
Any parent who didn't have major alarm bells ringing at this situation really needs to do courses about grooming and child exploitation. There are lots of free ones available online.

But there will always be some defending men's behaviour. I remember some defending 7 and 8-year-old boys sleeping in Michael Jackson's bed for a "sleepover". Somehow when men are famous, some people apply different standards than they would to Jimmy who lives in a council flat.

He's guilty. In some ways I don't blame the Queen for protecting him as he is her son but I don't think she needs to bother. Nothing will happen to him anyway.
I do feel sorry for his daughters though.

@bubblesbubbles11 Prince Andrews PR firm advised him not to do the interview. And when he insisted, they resigned a week before the interview. They obviously knew it would be a car crash.

Like others say, on the UK 17 is above the age of consent. And no one can prove either way whether he knew about her being trafficked. He’s a sad embarrassment to the institution, beyond there isn’t and has never been any real evidence of his guilt. Lots of people are making good money out of this so won’t let the story die - lawyers, the press. But no one has anything on him that proves he knowingly engaged in sex trafficking. He isn’t going to be convicted of anything.

And I would respect the Queen a lot more if she withdrew all support for him.

Guilty. And he should not try to go into acting as his interview was terrible!

Prince Andrew has made an “unprecedented” request for all witness testimony in the SEX ABUSE case against him to be KEPT SECRET.

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/prince-andrew-makes-unprecedented-request-for-evidence-in-sex-abuse-case-to-be-kept-secret/ar-AASfCyA?ocid=msedgntp

*Any parent who didn't have major alarm bells ringing at this situation really needs to do courses about grooming and child exploitation. There are lots of free ones available online.

But there will always be some defending men's behaviour. I remember some defending 7 and 8-year-old boys sleeping in Michael Jackson's bed for a "sleepover". Somehow when men are famous, some people apply different standards than they would to Jimmy who lives in a council flat.*

I agree. But some parents (hopefully a very small %) just don't care enough/or don't care enough to know, where their offspring are. For the Michael Jackson situation, perhaps the koudos of saying your kid was at Neverland, or the pay off, who knows, was greater than the sense of protection you should have for your child

@sst1234

Like others say, on the UK 17 is above the age of consent. And no one can prove either way whether he knew about her being trafficked. He’s a sad embarrassment to the institution, beyond there isn’t and has never been any real evidence of his guilt. Lots of people are making good money out of this so won’t let the story die - lawyers, the press. But no one has anything on him that proves he knowingly engaged in sex trafficking. He isn’t going to be convicted of anything.

But for the civil case-who has to prove what?

Does he have to prove that he didn't know VG was trafficked does she have to prove that he did?

Does the GM case now prove that VG was trafficked?

Guilty
And I wish the queen would stop protecting him

I'm not completely up to speed on the law, but isn't there the defence of "not knowing" a victim was trafficked available to a person accused ? I have a memory of a campaign to remove it as a possible get-out.

Also doesn't UK law extend to behaviour overseas when it comes to some sex offences ? To catch predators who fly out to poorer countries ?

"And I would respect the Queen a lot more if she withdrew all support for him"

This.

@SpongeBobJudgeyPants yes I agree some parents don't care. I remember some saying Virginia had a pretty sad family background?
And yes I agree for some parents they care more about the status than protecting their children.

@RoyalFamilyFan Exactly VG's Dad worked at Trump's club where she also worked and met Maxwell and Epstein. How his alarm bells were not going off I don't know? He thought she was being flown all over the world and treated to various things with nothing expected in return? I don't believe it for a minute.

"I agree. But some parents (hopefully a very small %) just don't care enough/or don't care enough to know, where their offspring are."

Didn't VG's father get her her job at Mar a Lago & take her to JE's the first time she went there?

@RoyalFamilyFan

And I would respect the Queen a lot more if she withdrew all support for him.

Yes, this. Totally tone deaf to the public feeling about sex offenders to prevent him facing trial in the USA.

If it can be proved he can be guilty, the charge is he cause VG 'emotional distress'.

It's a civil case, not a criminal one.

She is asking for a payout for the distress she was caused.

She has clearly targeted one of the many men as she knows he has the means to pay up.

Whether he is guilty or not, she doesn't cover herself in glory by her behaviour now, IMO.

Guilty.
If he had protection officers with him they are as well.