Andrew shouldn’t lose his titles

[KindCompassion]

Removing Prince Andrew’s titles legally will take up a lot of Parliament’s precious time that could be better spent changing the law to ensure that men like Epstein who raped 13-15 year old girls pre 2004 can actually now be prosecuted.
They cannot at the moment. It is the Jimmy Savile loop hole. Most of his victims were this age because he knew after 12 months he had got away with raping them.

The Ministry of Justice and Sarah Sackman MP, the Minister responsible are ignoring this.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/25/thousands-of-women-abused-as-children-may-be-unable-to-get-justice-due-to-legal-anomaly

Am I unreasonable for saying we shouldn’t waste time stripping his titles, and instead insist that child rapists are prosecuted?

Yes because she was trafficked and therfore unable to give consent however she is now sadly deceased and without a victim in a he said she said can we prove a crime? (Im not sure if there is a statute of limitations on rape cases with traffic victims)

The CPS seem unwilling to prosecute even with video evidence of someone saying no screaming begging etc they dont see it as evidence so I cant see a deceased trafficked victim who had well documented mental health issues going anywhere near a court room im sorry but I dont think its going to happen

Let him live in exhile for real this time die a death of anonymity and no big funeral when he pops off

This is MN, not DM.

Oh lovely, so it’s OK to suggest a survivor of sexual abuse who wants the loophole in the law closed is supportive towards a suspected sex offender but not OK to call them out for it.

When someone shares that they have been sexually abused and that they will never get justice because of a loophole in the law and they wish that loophole to be closed ‘Is that you Beatrice / Fergie / Eugenie’ is not an appropriate response. It is mocking someone else’s pain.

Prince Andrew

@Theunamedcat Quite. I do think that the limited resources of the police and judiciary could be put to better use by investigating existing trafficking gangs and helping the women and girls who are currently or imminently in danger of exploitation.

As you say, going after someone in a 'he said, she said' situation where the alleged victim is deceased is an exercise in futility and box ticking.

I agree with some the posters upthread that PA has been made into a whipping boy, whereas there are probably other prominent men (or people) who are equally guilty of what took place on Epstein's island and his various mansions. The witch-hunt against PA has deflected attention from these others who should also be brought into the light of day. This is not to say that I defend or have sympathy for him. His life and that of his ex wife is now effectively over.

He should be fully investigated. Losing his titles should be the least of his worries.

I agree. The titles are cosmetic anyway, I personally couldn’t give a shiny shit about his titles. What matters is that he be acknowledged by the world to be a paedophile, a liar and a grifter. And for his family to distance themselves.

Which have now happened.

The real justice is that his reputation is now utterly shattered. And deservedly.

It seems that 90% of people haven’t read my original post sadly.
Thank you @nowweare for also appreciating the critical point I was making and pointing out the unpleasantness of the people below.

The fact that so many people missed the point fills me with a lot of sadness, and explains why the thousands of victims affected by this vile loophole will never get justice.

Others are insinuating that I am his wife or daughter, which as a victim of the disgusting loophole I mentioned I find deeply distasteful. It’s not even witty or original, just pathetic. I can only generously assume that they have limited reading comprehension and social skills.
@Whammyyammy
@Brefugee
@thankgoditssaturday

I don't think half the country was duped by Savile at all - unless you mean those who were children at the time and unable yet to recognise the signs of a predator.

Loads of parents were wise to him and protected their kids from getting near to him. I wonder how many sincerely-written letters from kids asking Jim to fix it for them to meet him and do something fun mysteriously never made it to the postbox?

Terry Wogan and the producers of the Children In Need programme knew all about him - and fiercely stood in his way when he wanted to be involved. Esther Rantzen knew. John Lydon knew. Most of the BBC knew - and it was almost treated as a running 'joke'.

The man hid who he was in plain sight. Even if you didn't know exactly how bad he was, he was very obviously 'concerning' enough that you wouldn't want to get close to and be associated with him. Charles trusted him (lifelong bachelor as he was) as a 'marriage advisor'. Thatcher invited him to her house for Christmas every year for over a decade.

Yet we are to believe that not one of Charles' many experienced advisors and protection team ever realised that he might be somebody to recommend Charles distance himself from? One of the most influential, powerful and famous people in the world - and none of them even as on the pulse regarding clear potential threats to their employer as Johnny Rotten was? Really?!

I agree with others who suggest that Andrew may be being protected because of what he knows and the very prominent people he could destroy if he actually faced a proper trial and justice and chose to take them down with him.

Can't he have his titles stripped (essential) and be investigated? This prick has no place in the royal family that WE pay for.