Should school disassociate itself from Prince Andrew?

[LostinLondon]

I've always thought PA was a bit of a bumbling fool and was never very impressed that he is the patron of my sons school. But this latest news really sticks in the teeth.
Is it really appropriate that he carries on in his role at the school or am I just being alarmist? Even if the pedophile allegations are untrue, he's clearly got some dubious relationships on the go and exactly what sort of role model is he to teenage boys??
Any thoughts from more objective MNers would be appreciated!

I am no fan of PA but I think you are being alarmist. A woman has accused him of having legal, consensual sex. Sordid it would seem but we need to wait and see.

Lol is this serious? He's not been proven to have done anything! Innocent unti proven guilty isn't it?

He is accused of having sex in the USA with a woman who was a)under the legal age of consent in that country and who was b) working in the sex industry.

His close business associate Epstein had sex with a 14 year old and Prince Andrew - against advice - chose not to disassociate himself from that friend.

In the circumstances he doesn't seem to be a suitable role model for teenagers.

While he might be innocent of the allegation, it seems certain that he has been very unwise indeed in his choice of friends. I wouldn't want any young person I knew to go within a mile of Prince Andrew.

The USA does not have a single age of consent. It varies from state to state with 16 being the most common age.

The woman concerned has alleged two encounters with Prince Andrew when she was 17. According to her these took place in London (age of consent 16) and New York (age of consent 17). She has filed court papers in Florida where the age of consent is 18, allowing her to claim she was a minor at the time. However, on the basis of her statement, it does not appear that she was under the legal age of consent in the locations where the alleged encounters took place.

The woman concerned describes herself as a victim of sexual abuse. I am appalled that you describe her as working in the sex industry.

Prince Andrew did cut all ties with Epstein in July 2011. One could argue that he should have done so earlier. Many people remain loyal to friends longer than they should.

I think the phrase 'sex slave' which I've seen used is a bit lurid. I think it's all to impossible to be both working in the sex industry and to be a victim of abuse. (Lots of people who are trafficked end up working as prostitutes. Sex workers who have agreed to one kind of activity are then raped/abused/beaten by clients.)

Paedophile is a misnomer anyway. That refers to a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. No one is suggesting that is the case here.

I agree that it is possible for someone to be working in the sex industry and also a victim of abuse. However, I don't think the woman in this case would agree that she was working in the sex industry. I accept that you could argue that it is a question of definitions given that she claims to have been paid following her first alleged encounter with Prince Andrew (albeit not by him). But I still don't think it is the right way to describe her. As someone who has been involved with child protection for many years I would never describe a victim as working in the sex industry. The nearest I would ever get is "forced to work in the sex industry". But in the case of this woman I would simply describe her as a victim of abuse if her allegations are true.

In the organisation I worked for we used the word 'survivor.'

I'm amazed by people who have never had any friends who ever did anything dodgy.

I don't think Prince Andrew has done a single thing wrong in this story. Shall hide this stupid thread like all the others.

It's exactly that, stupid!! Typical mumsnet hysteria

I don't think the OP was stating that there was now clear evidence Prince Andrew should be charged with a criminal offence.

The question is more about the status of the 'Prince Andrew brand'. Is that helping or hindering the 'brand' of a school - presumably independent - which wants to attract and retain the custom of wealthy parents.

Prince Andrew, as far as I know, has shown poor judgment in his choice of business associates. As a result his role in the promotion of British industry abroad was limited or brought to an end. Inevitably his latest vigorous denials of impropriety will arouse a sceptical result in some. (Remember all that brilliant work Jimmy Savile did for charity?)

If I was running a school, for purely commercial reasons I'd want to dump the Prince.

How is habeus corpus relevant, though?

As I understand Marrianne's post, she is talking about whether it is any longer commercially advantageous for this school to continue to have an association with the Prince. That's a private matter, nothing to do with the criminal law.