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

Her accusations have never been examined in court, nor criminal charges brought.

His explanation is he never met her. She produced the photograph, though reportedly admitted she no longer had the original and its authenticity has never been tested in court.

However, at very least, given:

• it’s documented (and he admitted) he chose to socialise with people subsequently convicted of appalling sex abuse of minors

• the disastrous Newsnight interview

• the reportedly huge sum handed over to avoid the civil case, of course with no admission of wrongdoing or liability

• the strong public opinion in response

he’d show humility and awareness to keep well away from public appearances with or without the RF. As would they.

He’s still able to live a perfectly comfortable and privileged life. How his family view or treat him behind closed doors is, of course, entirely up to them.

She’s dead. As she said, they both know what happened and only one of them has been telling the truth. But he surely has to accept his reputation is tarnished regardless.

I wonder, as he settled with her personally, if it’s now legally possible for others to pursue him using evidence she shared with them? I guess only if they can demonstrate/claim damages.

No, but not illegal.

No, the "disinformation" was yours. You wrote, "while the age of consent in the UK is 17 years old..." It isn't; it's 16.

This is not to say I don't agree with your underlying point, however.

Not in the eyes of anyone with a bit of intelligence.

Legal settlements are very normal. Some cases are settled on the basis of economics, where the case would cost more to run than to settle. They can also be done on the basis of reputational damage, and in this case, it was coming up to the Jubilee and they didn't want the publicity to overshadow that.

Makes sense to me.

It's really not. See my PP.

I don’t think at the time this happened anyone would have seen her as a trafficked person - the openness of the situation, the apparent consent and her age of 17. She eventually walked away and was not stopped. Now we have a broader and more nuanced understanding of trafficking and consent, but whilst it was deeply reprehensible to have sex with a 17 yo in these circumstances, I don’t think he is a criminal. It is right that he never has a public role again and he must continue to be disgraced.

Absolutely agree with this
Nice to see some pragmatism is possible

BlueSpikeyPearls

The age of sexual consent being 16 is not a loophole in the law FGS!

It's not a question of "defending" PA, but the fact is she was over the age of consent so no crime was committed if they did have sex.

Sleazy certainly but not a criminal offence.

👏This

A civil case does not find guilt it is about liability for harm and the burden of proof to find someone was harmed is on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. On the balance of probabilities the advice to PA was he would have been found to have caused her harm. That's why they settled.
A individual can not generally prosecute a criminal offence (some circumstances) so when those that could, didn't prosecute PA, the only option was to take a civil case to say he caused her harm. The only sanction for PA is to pay damages if found on balance of probs he caused her harm. He agreed to pay without the case. There was absolutely no benefit from her pursuing the case because all she could get was what was offered but also have to go through the court system.
Paying up doesn't say he was guilty of anything it just says they thought that a court might decide it was probably likely that he harmed her. That's way off proving beyond reasonable doubt he committed a criminal offence. Emphasis on proving.

PA is damaging the reputation of the RF and in extension of our country. Therefore he needs to be properly sacked off form any and all public appearances in anything resembling official uniform or capacity. He can privately join his family but no public facing occasions. It was wise of the Wales not to be seen with PA this Easter.

Has anyone else seen this bizarrely short BBC article? Is it just me or is it encouraging people to read between the lines? www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yle7pxlyno

I don't have a problem with the payout per se because I understand the reasons for it.

Why being colour into this?
There have been some awful case of rich black music stars being abusive.
I think your very real prejudices are coming through there.

Why do you think this is bizarre and what are you reading between the lines?

How could he clear his name? It was his word against hers, and it was years later. I can't imagine it would have been easy to produce actual evidence.

Unlike us less intelligent folk. Still thanks for letting me know, I can sleep easily now.

And to expect the Royal family to be anything but immoral, entitled sleazeballs is delusional. Literally all Royal families in history have been immoral. They do anything to hang onto status and power. Marrying off child brides to cement alliances, killing and ruining people that threaten their power, including family, abandoning numerous illegitimate children, locking away disabled children, telling lies and blaming others, the list is endless. This lot aren't any different.

Does anyone know the actual amount paid to VG? I've heard £3m and £12m. I've looked it up just now and it says "an undisclosed amount".

Apparently she was hit by a bus, & survived. 4 days later she was said to have committed suicide, when she always claimed that she was not suicidal.

Watch your back Harry!

Check out Andrew's service in the Falklands before you post shit like that!

Don't be so bloody dramatic!

You don't know what he did. You know what you want him to have done and that is very different!

Why did she only go after Andrew? Apart from Dershowitz and she had to admit in the end she was wrong about him. Kind of shoots the credibility down doesn't it?

Who's Victoria??!

What's this silly "kidding" shit?

You may have failed to notice but the Queen already dealt with Andrew. He is no longer allowed to perform any duties. He can't use his HRH. He had his military and other patronages removed, and the king has since taken his security away.

He remains the king's brother however, and it's an invidious situation for Charles. It seems that Andrew is still allowed at private family occasions (bar the Coronation) and I think that is right. Presumably the family believe his insistence of innocence.

What more do you want? Shot at dawn? Sent to the Tower?!!!