Prince Andrew

[Tevion28]

Do you think guilty or innocent

Whatever about the legalities, morally he's a total cesspit. Which wouldn't necessarily matter if he was some regular rich guy, but he's a prince of the U.K., who didn't actually miss out on the throne by much. Quite why people don't have a problem with that I'll never understand.

This

Those photos of him in central park with Epstein. I wonder what he was saying

Gimme the cctv tapes?

Imagine if Charles had gone to Saville to personally break off their friendship, because a phone call would be the cowards way!

Unfortunately pa just doesn't get it, he really doesn't.
I don't know what would make him understand.
I think he still sees himself as desirable.
From his pov he would have women hanging around him I imagine at any club but someone epsteien knew was a known entity, sworn to silence etc.

Pa must have said to epsteien... Will she keep this quiet... And what on earth did epsteien say?

He wouldn't just randomly sleep with her without assurances.
I doubt he would have slept with a girl that young who was random in a club??

[quote JinglingHellsBells]@gilorga It's not wrong but she has chosen someone who is high profile and also who has the means to pay. She should if it's a matter of ethics, pursue them all.[/quote]
Wow. Implying a victim is less credible because she isn't pursuing all her rapists, only one? That's a new one.

"JinglingHellsBells"

"what more do you want her to do?"

I want the Queen to agree that all of Prince Andrew's titles (and Harry and Meghan's whilst we are at it) are removed immediately as a sign of respect for the law and for the UK.

Seriously now, what benefit has the UK got from Prince Andrew? because i cannot think of anything.

He may be gullible enough to have not realised (or not want to realise) but he was involved clearly.

It's not wrong but she has chosen someone who is high profile and also who has the means to pay. She should if it's a matter of ethics, pursue them all.

Who on earth thinks like this?! What VG does is her business, she doesn't need to answer to you.

How on earth, can you lump Harry and Megan into Prince Andrew??

Yes the fact that Andrew still has titles is gross.
And the Queen should not be defending his defence with money which lets face it is from us.

This thread is making me angry. Some of the responses 😱.

Newyearoldyou

I lump H and M in with PA under the heading "members of the Royal family (funded by the public) who have made no discernable benefit to the UK at any time in their lives"

The Queen is reportedly spending millions defending Andrew

As I said on another thread, that'll almost certainly be us paying rather than the Queen - unless anyone seriously imagines such a notorious money-grabber would willingly use her own money?

How odd not to know that whatever she does will cost money. If he goes to court his lawyers will still have to be paid. If VG wins, he will have to stump up even more money.

Your misogynistic & stupid.

@JinglingHellsBells

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.

Jesus Christ where have you been for the past 40 years?!

The days of blaming a woman for a man's sins are meant to be behind us.

Virginia Guiffre is not on trial. Stop trying to change the storyline.

Then dig deep and apply the lens of compassion. And intelligence. You are talking about a woman whose childhood was stolen by traffickers. She has suffered immensely.

Andrew must think we are stupid. As if not one person would remember he was at Pizza Express. He said he was there for a children's party. Surely the parents could confirm this? I know when my children's parties were there and who attended. I would certainly know if Prince Andrew attended as I would have been expecting a nanny to bring his children, not him.

@ParkheadParadise

He will be back in public with his 2 daughters for his Mammy's jubilee celebrations.

I doubt it. I think he is going to be kept well out of sight for some to come, if not permanently.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

The Queen is reportedly spending millions defending Andrew

As I said on another thread, that'll almost certainly be us paying rather than the Queen - unless anyone seriously imagines such a notorious money-grabber would willingly use her own money?

I agree it will be us through money given to the Queen.

[quote JinglingHellsBells]@gilorga It's not wrong but she has chosen someone who is high profile and also who has the means to pay. She should if it's a matter of ethics, pursue them all.[/quote]
She has filed lawsuits against Epstein, Maxwell, Dershowitz as well as Andrew

I'm no fan of his, and maybe he did have sex with the young women while visiting Maxwell etc, as men will do. It doesn't mean he would know the circumstances of them being there. What puzzles me is that these young women, some of whom have been interviewed in the media recently, say things like 'I was invited to their hotel room/house etc where they raped me .... and this continued for the next 3/4 years'. Another interview yesterday was from the mother of one of these girls, who said that the girl was paid $300 for each time she went. So as it appears none of these girls were actually imprisoned by Maxwell/Epstein but chose to keep going back to them, travelling with them, then it seems that it was clearly sex for money. Yes, Maxwell and Epstein are/were vile predatory individuals, but there's something that doesn't add up (and no I am not victim blaming - if anything it seems a case of impressionable young women who were attracted to the glamorous lifestyle and taken advantage of). 'Trafficking' is generally used to mean something much worse than this, where girls are taken from their home/country and kept against their will for sex.

Not sure how she intends to deal with jurisdiction issue.

Why can’t she just sue in Australia if justice is really what she is after.

@ParkheadParadise they tried to have Andrew appear in public at Philips funeral where Andrew spoke to the press at length. There was a public outcry at that. So I think he will be hidden away for the Jubilee celebrations. If he is not, I think there will be another backlash.

@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.

I agree with this and it may be difficult for those born in a different era to understand what it was like.

I recall in my youth having to deal with many sleazy old men (including many celebrities) who just felt entitled. I was in a position to rebuff them, VR and the others weren't. I think Prince Andrew is the tip of the iceberg and if my experiences are anything to go by, then I would say that a very high proportion of the rich and famous from that era are equally guilty as it was almost an expected norm.

Referring to other posts on here I would also add that if anyone got to Epstein I think it would have been Trump rather than the RF. I also think PAs visit to Epstein was felt essential as I imagine Epstein may have been trying to blackmail PA - he was a very nasty man who would go to any lengths to get what he wanted. IMO PA is just very dim and sleazy, not clever enough to be calculating so is probably, technically innocent.

@TheReluctantPhoenix

Not sure how she intends to deal with jurisdiction issue.

Why can’t she just sue in Australia if justice is really what she is after.

This has already been to court. It is what Andrews lawyers argued. The court overruled the jurisdiction argument.

@gilorga

This thread is making me angry. Some of the responses 😱.

You should have seen some of the previous threads, victim blaming was rife

MN were prompt with deleting the reported posts.