Andrew and social services

[autumnfallingleaves]

AIBU to wonder if social care have become involved with Andrew Mountbatten’s daughters and Grandchildren? And if not, why not?
he’s clearly a sex offender of a very young woman and I’m not sure but possibly a paedophile. I guess he’s not been charged with anything as yet so that probably answers my question. Just sitting here and thinking about how different life would be for him if he’d lived in an ordinary family

I think in an ordinary family someone once paying for sex with someone of legal age it would barely even be noticed. Andrew has been all over the news because he’s a royal; on this particular occasion his standing in society has worked against him.

For one is daughters are adults.
While what he has done is disgraceful there is a big difference between pedophiles and what Andrew did.
Pedophiles go after children under the age of 13 and usually have an age preference.

Andrew is a predator and even if he was in an ordinary family child services would not be involved, as again is girls are adults and since no charges have ever been laid its a he said she said situation. So they can’t be involved.

We really really don't need any more threads about Andrew.

The minimising is desperate. He has been all over the news because he is a rapist, was friends with sex traffickers and lied about it all.

Agreed - the reported meeting with Andrew was in March 2001 so this would have made Virginia 17.5 and in the UK over 16 and the age of consent. The age of consent varies throughout the world and even in different us states. Shockingly it can be 12 or 13 in some places.
So not a paedophile but an unpleasant character being heavily involved with people who would exploit vulnerable teenagers

I think the 15k (first payment) for the abuse of a minor was a gift from Epstein.

Andrew - and particularly Sarah - were Grifters of the highest order, especially from Epstein's pocket.

I don't like the guy and I think he has a lot of questions to answer, and I would like to see him answer them.

But at the moment it's all speculation and hearsay.

At the moment he is not a convicted rapist or paedophile. Whether this remains the case over the coming months/years remains to be seen.

I don’t think social services would become involved because an adult had consensual sex with someone over the age of consent.

He’s gross, but there’s nothing to suggest he’s a paedophile and a risk to children.

And he was the only one, was he?

We all know that it was massive, involved a lot of girls and a lot of men. Who are hiding in plain sight while everyone demands Andrew loses everything.

Because sadly, even being a convicted served time in prison child sexual offender (which he is not) does not mean you are banned from contact with children.

I have two convicted child sexual abusers in my family. One sentenced to 3 years in prison. Both abused a close family member they were in a position of authority over. One had absolutely no restrictions whatsoever. The other was only banned from spending more than 12 hours in the same dwelling (so essentially overnights) with a child without the parents’ permission. It has not stopped either from extensive unsupervised contact with children and for at least one of them, reoffending. 🤷🏻‍♀️

It wasn't consensual, she was trafficked. British law at the time held that trafficked women are unable to give free consent.

Aren't his daughters adult women in their 30's??

Having sex with a trafficked girl or woman can never be consensual regardless of her age. Non consensual sex is rape. Virginia’s age is a red herring.

I don’t think that has been proven…

She was young and vulnerable and probably didn’t know what she was getting herself into - and no doubt was exploited.

But - I don’t think there’s any evidence that he knowingly trafficked her to the UK, or coerced her into it.

The whole thing is very grubby and I feel sorry for her, but there isn’t really any evidence he’s broken the law nor is a paedophile. Unacceptable conduct for someone in his position, yes.

If there was evidence of criminality - he would have been prosecuted. He hasn’t, because there isn’t.

@beatingandbearing I hope all the attention on Andrew doesn’t stop any investigations on anyone else involved

It’s not like Andrew will be getting any jobs with children, the extended family can make their own decisions about letting grandchildren etc near him. It’s not like he isn’t recognisable to the public.

What about all the unknown males who were as bad or worse than him?

Honestly the obsession with Andrew is ridiculous.

No. He is not a rapist.

No. He is not a paedophile.

In fact to suggest that he is is bloody offensive to children who have been genuine victims of child sexual abuse.

The woman was 17.5. In the UK she was over the age of consent.

He’s a sleaze, that’s not in question. But to suggest that his children and grandchildren were in any way at risk is just pathetic really.

And before anyone says “yes but she wasn’t over the age of consent in the US,” nobody seemed to care about that when that kid was arrested for having sex in Dubai.

You really are an odious little man.

I am sure you understand (even though you might pretend not to) the difference between behaviour that is morally reprehensible and behaviour that is illegal.

The point is that Andrew, Epstein and Virginia were not a tight little trio. There were other men and other girls. Virginia spoke out - well done to her - but there are probably so many more we just don’t know about, not just girls but men, rich men, powerful men, but men who don’t have Andrew’s position in society.

Andrew is not a paedophile. The world is not divided into good people and paedophiles. Many absolute festering twats are not paedophiles. Many disgusting and hateful people have never broken a law. I am sure we do not have to think too hard about examples where this applies.

I agree. It has been heavily suggested that some very big names have been linked to Epstein and Maxwell

He’s not a paedo, VG was legal everywhere except Florida or wherever she brought charges.

He’s not a sex trafficker, there’s no evidence he knew she was a prostitute (until afterwards). Using prostitutes isn’t illegal in US or UK.

He is a sleaze, but that’s always been blessed by the law everywhere.

Naive.
A good man would have looked at Virginia and said. You don’t have to do this. Which makes him a rapist. Andrew spent £££’s on prostitues in Thailand. How old were they????

Yes but I think they have young children themselves. I assume OP was concerned about them (and potentially historical abuse of his daughters?).

This is so spot on. I can’t stand him and in no way think he’s got any less than he deserves but the world seems absolutely focused on him, and not who else is involved with possibly far more disgusting behaviours and actions.

There's no suggestion he's a paedophile, it seems pretty clear he his interest is in women.

He allegedly had sex with a young woman/women with whom it was (allegedly) obvious were being trafficked.

There's nothing about that that puts his family in danger, even if he'd been convicted. Don't be a loon.

I think Virginia G could possibly be counted as statutory rape given she was trafficked. However, proving Andrew was aware of this could be impossible given that most involved are deceased or unlikely to give a balanced view.

I am actually surprised anyone is surprised that rich, powerful men abuse and take advantage of young girls. Is anyone actually shocked at this, or is everyone expecting Andrew to somehow to have been above all that because he was a Prince. I mean, I guess so given that he’s lost his title.