Andrew breaking the law

[Gizzagizza]

So, can I just get this straight - at the time Prince Andrew slept with the 17 year old Virginia Giuffre - was it illegal in the UK to have sex with a prostitute who was under 18? Was illegal to have sex with someone who had been trafficked? I know it is now.

It was not illegal for a rich man to sleep with a 17yr old at a party friend’s house.

Trafficking wasn’t something I’d heard of back then. I certainly wouldn’t have associated it with an American girl.

Thank you. I know prostitution with adults is not illegal, but apparently it is with under 18s. However, I heard this was not the case back when PA slept with VG and I just want to check if that’s correct.

Prostitution is legal, pimping is not (I’m ignoring ages). That’s where the trafficking is relevant. I don’t know when laws were made though - which I think is your question…

He didn’t ‘sleep with’ Virginia Roberts. He had sex with her. He knew very well that Epstein procured girls for himself and other men in certain positions as ‘favours’.

There was legislation even back then in place that could have secured a criminal conviction for both men and Maxwell at the time. Fairly minor criminal convictions, but convictions nevertheless.

I did once make a note of the relevant statute(s) and will check for it.

(Not that the police or CPS (as was) would have touched such a case with a barge pole.)

She probably looked enthusiastic as sadly her entire life she was made to have sex with disgusting old pervs including her own father and his friends

No, I don’t that’s what pp is saying. We know, we believe her, we’ve heard her story and it’s tragic. We don’t think she was happy to be there.

At the time, in that situation, having been groomed, she may have looked happy. Andrew is having a photo taken with a happy looking young woman who’s meeting an English Prince. What we know wouldn’t have been obvious to him. I believe that’s what PP meant.

We have no idea if he knew she was trafficked - indeed she looks rather enthusiastic in the picture and asked to have a photo

What a thoroughly depressing sentence to read.

You don't have evidence of that, as far as I am aware. The CPS requires proof to bring a charge.

But true. People have photos taken with celebrities all the time. I have a photo of my then 5yo ds taken with the then Prince Charles. Should they bring a charge of child abuse? Of course not.

2001 the photo was taken 2003 the 'under 18s should be treated as victims' came in or was added... so 2 years early on the pic, thats just a very quick google scan though and i dont know the timeline of all the times they met...

You can not really be saying that your DS having a photo taken with PC is the same as the Photo we are discussing?

Was there a convicted sex trafficker in the same picture? Was it taken in a private residence, owned by a convicted trafficker and taken by an abuser?

We know all this and yet you seem to think she is complicit because she smiled (and because your DS smiled when having a picture taken with PC)

Trafficked women all over the world appear to be enjoying/willing/happy because they have no choice.
Their smiles are used by rape apologists everywhere.

He knew Epstein pretty well and Epstein prolifically trafficked women for his friends’ pleasure. I think he knew everything. Hence why he claimed to have not met her at all to try and get out of it. Why didn’t he just say we had consensual sex? If that’s what happened?

Also why did he pay her millions if it was just consensual sex with a woman he met one night? He must have had sex with loads of women over the years.

when he was in the navy he was universally despised in a way William and Harry were not when they served. I met him in real life and he was very much surrounded by yes people and believe his own legend. I can well imagine he did everything that’s alleged.

Surely the issue is not the Guiffre allegations which have not been proven in a court of law but what has actually proven to have been the case and the damage to the monarchy arising out of that.

It is established fact that 1) Andrew accepted hospitality from Epstein and was seen in public with Epstein after Epstein’s conviction was in the public domain 2) Andrew (because he told us in the TV interview) didn’t have a problem with that because he thought the priority was to behave ‘honourably’ in relation to his ‘friend’ 3) Andrew misrepresented when he ceased contact with Epstein as the release of emails recently have shown.

The above is damaging enough without anything else!!

Agree, and this is why the 'allegedly' appears to have been dropped in most media.

He is a perfect example of the MN phrase;

'when someone shows you who they are, believe them.'

This is true and shows he is a scumbag, but that in itself is not illegal.

No. But it more than justifies the removal of titles and all state financial support.

These facts alone would mean, for example, that I would be unwilling to be in his company or eg have my child receive an award from him.

Ok, thank you. So it was not illegal at the time.

According to Chat Gpt :
The Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the Criminal Law Act 1977 covered offences such as:

• Procuring a woman to have unlawful sexual intercourse in the UK or abroad (s.30–31 of the 1956 Act).
• Living on the earnings of prostitution (s.30).
• Detaining a woman against her will in a brothel (s.24).

Even though the age of consent was 16, consent obtained through trafficking, coercion, or manipulation would not be regarded as true consent under the law. So, if she had been trafficked by Epstein or others into London for that purpose, then any sexual act with her could be criminal, even in 2001.

Me not chat gpt :
So I assume a court case would have to prove Prince Andrew knew she was trafficked/coerced. Considering he remained friends with Epstein AFTER he was convicted in the US, I would argue he knew but just didn't care.

In his tv interview he stated he was an honorable man who would help the FBI with their investigation , he has not done this.

I believe men like this know that ordinarily a 17 year old would never want to sleep with them, but their sense of entitlement lets them carry on regardless.

And that is absolutely a choice you can make- as would I.

What we can’t do is chuck him in prison, lock him up, etc.

And what we shouldn’t do is call him a paedo or even rapist, because those words mean something different.
By law, at the moment, money can buy consent.

I don’t believe that, but legally it is the case.

Not automatically chuck him in prison, but he should be brought to justice with a trial.
This will never happen though and men like this get away with shit like this all the time.

It's depressing.
He's not a peado, as she was 17 (and no evidence he did anything with prepubescent children) BUT I believe he sexually exploited / slept with Virginia and that makes him a rapist. Epstein and Maxwell were convicted for trafficking.

An 'honorable' man (his word) would have stayed well away.

I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. VD spoke out but she isn't the only one. She said there were 3 occassions involving her, one of which involved 8 other trafficked girls. But Andrew's 'friendship' with Epstein went on for years. There's still a heck of a lot more to come out.