Prince Andrew Thread 2

[Roussette]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4442126-Prince-Andrew

Here is previous thread.

I've started a new thread because today and tomorrow is crucial as far as the pending civil case.

And I also had a few comments I wanted to say to posters at the end of the last thread, but it ran out.

So I am not disputing that things were bad then, but they are no different now or worse

I think they are better now
We have coercive control laws, we recognise white girls can be trafficked. Whilst rape convictions are woeful, we have much better support to be heard. VG would never have got heard even in 2009 which is probably why the payout seemed a good idea, let alone at the time.
The views in the 90’s were closer to those of the 60’s when christine keeler was accused of nearly bringing down the government. But she was a “party girl good for a shag that’s it not a good girl you’d marry”. Same as VG, “she loves it”.

@BIWI

Love Island and Naked Attraction would not have been on TV 20 years ago, nor would Ann Summers shops be a part and parcel of many high streets or malls in the UK, or Boots selling vibrators and other sex aids. I think the point is that sex has become much more 'mainstream' - for want of a better word!

They are on after 9 though, the stuff before the watershed is so much cleaner now. Look at a carry on film, that was sunday afternoon entertainment in the 80’s /90’s. Old men letching after scantily clad school girls.

I can’t argue with Ann summers.

Just googled it though and the first Ann summers shop opened in 1970. So it may not have been on every high street (I’m sure it was the 90’s /00’s when they popped up everywhere)

But that is a laugh when most kids don't watch much live TV

No and this is something a lot of tv program producers have campaigned about. They are held to strict guidelines about what they can or can’t put out.

I think there's less porn now than the 80s and 90s, page 3 type stuff was everywhere, calenders, lager cans, the calendars disappeared slowly, banished from offices before, men's canteens, etc.
Remember playboy bedspreads, Argos even did pink ones .

I remember girls in school boasting about older boyfriends and the things they did (oral sex) but looking back I question was it tall tales or abuse?

@EvilPea

It never was ok but It was a different time. Societies views were closer to the 60’s than where we are now. With good girls (the ones you marry) bad girls (the ones you shag in your car). We had page three girls, scantily clad girls at car shows and on the grid at F1. Katie price was hailed a feminist hero for getting her tits out. You’d only be believed in rape cases if it was a stranger and even then you might have dressed provocatively.

Rotherham proved people didn’t believe white western girls could be trafficked

However, it never was ok. It wouldn’t have been a police matter, it would be an eye roll and keep your daughters away from him.

Oh give over it was only 20 years ago not the bloody 1950’s. Decreeing it a ‘different time’ is ridiculous and it is not an excuse for appalling behaviour

Coercive control laws are good. Feminists fought for that and won it.
I agree about Naked Attraction. No way would that have been on. It is much more explicit than films that used to be rated 18's.

Yes, Ann Summers has been around for a long time although way back then, not on main high streets, and they used to just sell "naughty nurse" type of clothing, hen party banners and a few vibrators. That was it. They simply did not sell the range of products they now sell.

@Lockdownbear That is because it is all online now. The internet changed everything.
Teenage girls have always been abused and some have always told tall tales.

@Pemba

Why were they even allowed to fly out there? My DD and her partner had to cancelled a planned ski trip recently, as France changed the rules due to Covid. No non-essential travel I thought?

Again, one rule for us? ....

Verbier is Switzerland, which is currently allowing people to enter provided they are fully vaccinated or have an exemption. So no, not one rule for us.

I also think you're deluding yourself if you think that the 9pm watershed stops children from watching those kind of programmes! They're all over the internet via streaming/catch-up etc.

Prince Andrew and his supporters can try and claim different times all he wants. It wont wash with anyone who was an adult twenty years ago. And I would remind him he was an Ambassador for the NSPCC and said in his own words that he had been taught about recognising the signs of child abuse and exploitation. So he was arguably better informed than the average persona bout what is acceptable and what is not.

Oh give over it was only 20 years ago not the bloody 1950’s. Decreeing it a ‘different time’ is ridiculous and it is not an excuse for appalling behaviour hmm

That’s why I said it wasn’t ok.
But VG wouldn’t have been believed or listened to. It would have been met with an eye roll. Look at all the repeated reports against celebs in the 80’s and 90’s. They were all dismissed as the girls being the issue.
Now it’s (rightly) viewed as it should have been, as disgusting criminal behaviour

@RoyalFamilyFan

Prince Andrew and his supporters can try and claim different times all he wants. It wont wash with anyone who was an adult twenty years ago. And I would remind him he was an Ambassador for the NSPCC and said in his own words that he had been taught about recognising the signs of child abuse and exploitation. So he was arguably better informed than the average persona bout what is acceptable and what is not.

Look who believed the Rotherham girls? Barely anyone even with all the training. It didn’t happen to white girls in western countries

I mean it wasn’t believed to happen to white girls from western countries

If ever I needed that edit button to clarify a post

@EvilPea no it is still viewed as okay by many people today. The threads on MN are full of apologists for Andrew saying he did nothing wrong.

Even then the parents were blamed for not looking after their girls.

[quote RoyalFamilyFan]@EvilPea no it is still viewed as okay by many people today. The threads on MN are full of apologists for Andrew saying he did nothing wrong.[/quote]
My feeling is that’s exactly how andrew sees it. These girls were willing participants, they “loved it” so (in his head) he did nothing wrong.
I’m not sure he would have the capacity to accept it was wrong and therefore he is an abuser of vulnerable young girls. Even if found guilty in court

Oh give over it was only 20 years ago not the bloody 1950’s. Decreeing it a ‘different time’ is ridiculous and it is not an excuse for appalling behaviour hmm

And 20 years prior to the 90’s was the 70’s, we are as far away from the 90’s now as a society as the 90’s were to the 70’s. there is a slow progression of views, it didn’t happen over night.

David Allen Green's detailed analysis of the agreement

davidallengreen.com/2022/01/a-legal-look-at-the-giuffre-settlement-agreement-on-which-prince-andrew-is-seeking-to-rely/

@EvilPea Youth workers believed the girls. The police just saw them as slags.
Did you watch Four Lives about the four gay men murdered? This happened just a few years ago and the police were appalling. Murder, rape, assault and sex trafficking is still ignored by the police, or the evidence is not properly gathered.
That does not mean Andrew should not be prosecuted and see prison time. I doubt that will happen as the rich are usually above the law.

Just googling.
civil ceremonies were introduced in 2005
Rape in marriage was illegal in 2003
Gay adoption rights 2002

The allegation relates to 2001. Not the 1990s.

@RoyalFamilyFan
No it’s on my planner to watch when the kids are back, but I know the case very very well. Again, those in authority believing “those that love it” vs “good boys and girls”.

Yes the youth workers believed them, they saw it. But the people who needed to listen didn’t believe it could happen.

Andrew, even with all his nspcc training wouldn’t have believed these nice white girls were anything but girls who “were gagging for a shag”.

It’s like the rough sex gone wrong defence. All the same ilk. A few serious case reviews will have different police attitudes on that in 10 years (at least I fucking hope so).

This happened just a few years ago and the police were appalling.This happened just a few years ago and the police were appalling.

They still are.