Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - you have blood on your hands

[Muffinmam]

Am I being unreasonable to say that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - the Duke of York and member of the Royal Family has blood on his hands following the tragic suicide of Virginia Giuffre?

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has faced zero consequences for his role in Virginia Giuffre‘s sexual abuse and trafficking because he’s rich and his powerful mummy paid off the victim and the British police failed to pursue charges against him. To be clear, while the age of consent in the UK is 17 years old this does not apply to trafficking victims and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has never faced criminal charges.

He probably thinks he’s got away with it now she’s gone.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14649791/Virginia-Giuffre-suicide-perth-mansion.html

I do find it odd that he stayed 'friends' with Sarah after their divorce yet their marriage was unviable and he has had no significant romantic interest (as in, like, adult woman in normal healthy relationship) since. There is something very strange about him as a man. He also dated a soft porn star, famously, in his early twenties. It all indicates a quite disturbing attitude to women, even before these allegations broke.

The Royal Family wouldn't have wanted that hanging over them and putting a dampener on the Platimum Jubilee celebrations. Better to pay someone off and not have to deal with the press coverage of a court case.

I don't think it would have just been the Queen's decision, she would have been given advice by 'the men in grey suits'.

I bet it would have been put to VG's legal team about the Queen's age and health as well.

That's just my view anyway.

Ashamed for being a rape apologist?

Precisely, savory, and worse still - knowing that such people can't respond - they can always lay the blame on them later (implied or otherwise) by claiming that they "didn't know/didn't understand"

I do not think so
17 is legal age
You have no idea what happened
You have no idea what other issues this poor girl may have had

Virginia had consensual sex with him and made a huge fuss about it many years later. I am sorry she has died, but she made her own choices

That's their job- to fall on their swords for their overlords. You have to wonder what they get out of it.

It's not the first time Charles "hasn't understood" either. People should be examining and questioning this indecently over privileged, and more to the point, untouchable institution.

I couldn't have put it better myself, Tomatotater ...

'Allegations' is the word, that's all they were, she chose the make these 'allegations' to the most prominent person. In a court of law, rather than public opinion, one is innocent until proven guilty. It seems that the law is expected to work differently for certain types of allegations, equating an unsubstantiated allegation with proof.

It never fails to astound and disgust me how many people will fall over themselves to blame victims and fawn over rich, powerful men. It’s just a big old coincidence that he was Epstein’s good friend, eh?! The same way Trump was. The same way Charles was with Jimmy Saville. They’re all in on it together as far as I can see. When you have immense wealth and power you can do whatever the hell you want to whoever you want and people will go to great lengths to cover it up, pretend it doesn’t happen, look the other way….

Though I also think the Royal Family is totally anachronistic in this day and age and cannot see the point of it, or why anyone loves them so much.

What 'rape'? What proof?

I support the royals
Have met Charles Camilla and Will
All charming

Overall I'm not even sure what difference a conviction would have made to his image when we're already aware he was happy to go along with a convicted paedophile and lie about their continued connection, to say nothing of all the rest.

I think the difference would be vindication for his victim rather than any impact on him, unless he was incarcerated @Puzzledandpissedoff

There is no proof what happened. She may very likely have been mentally ill (she had her children taken away) and made the whole thing up. Who knows point is no one knows the facts bar she was obviously making stuff up in her last weeks of life due to mental illness!

I understand that view. But I would say it's immoral. Were the jubilee celebrations more important than justice and the life of any victims?

So you want the law changing to fit your beliefs? The age of consent is a matter of law, however that doesn't match your prejudices.

Williams godfather Lauren s Van Der Post impregnated a 14 year old when he was well into his 50's. A child who had been entrusted into his care by her parents.

Even if she did make everything up ( I don't believe she did) why did Andrew continue to hang out with Epstein after being given advice about his conviction for child sex trafficking? Shows how much the Royals care or take any notice of their patronages, when he was patron for the NSPCC!. Why did he stay with him for a week, being seen waving very young girls out of his house? He obviously spent a lot of time with him, invited him into the heart of the RF and spent a lot of time with him. He was not clandestine about his procilivities. he had pictures all over the place of naked young girls. He clearly couldn't care less about any of that.

I think it was to avoid details. I don't know what the truth is here. But it is a sordid immoral business whatever side you are on.

No one knows what truly happened, yes, but why would a 41 year old be hanging around with a 17 year old girl, just 5 years older than his oldest daughter? What was he thinking? Legal or not, at 17 you are still a child in so many ways. There is no doubt that this woman had many issues, no doubt caused by the fact that no one stood up for or protected her, throughout her life.

Only 2.7% (approx) reports of rape result in charge, let alone conviction. Tell me, do you think that the other 97.3% of women and girls who reported rape are lying?

You're very probably right, Zonder, but then for whatever reason Virginia also chose to accept the payoff which meant that the question of Andrew's guilt would never be properly examined - not that it would anyway of course, since there's simply no way the RF would have allowed him to enter a witness box

And on the question of "Were the jubilee celebrations more important than justice and the life of any victims?", I suspect that's exactly the RF's position, even though they pretend otherwise
After all why bother about "the little people" when they know their own situation's pretty well unassailable?

What a mess. It's tragic isn't it?

Agree, if he wasn’t culpable why the millions of pounds payout. I wonder what his daughters think of the whole debacle. Tragic really.