Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Andrew breaking the law

189 replies

Gizzagizza · 24/10/2025 21:54

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.

OP posts:
Ratsinthefloorboards · 25/10/2025 14:23

Noseyoldcow · 25/10/2025 13:52

I’ve always wondered why Virginia was the only one to come forward to claim she was pimped out to Andrew. Surely there were others? Why haven’t they come forward?

Lownie has explained that there are at least ten others but many of them now are settled with families and careers and understandably don’t want the publicity associated with testifying.

eggandonion · 25/10/2025 14:29

Did Prince Andrew travel without any security?

Ratsinthefloorboards · 25/10/2025 14:29

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 25/10/2025 14:19

Was ‘abuse of power’ particularly well known back then? I don’t think it was mentioned in my teacher safeguarding, which was obviously less thorough then than now.

I’d like to repeat that no one has said she consented- we agree she couldn’t- just that Andrew likely wouldn’t have known her ‘consent’ was coerced.

I hope the RF- and other people in positions of power and influence like politicians- are getting better education on grooming. It’s glaring obvious in cases like Saville, Epstein, numerous others, that ‘useful idiots’ were groomed into providing a veneer of respectability to predatory men.

Repeatedly. Where are the advisors? Pointing out the flattery and generosity come at a price.

If you look at some of the photos of Giuffre other than the famous one in Ghislaine Maxwell’s mews house with Prince Andrew, she looks SO young in among groups of thirty to forty year olds. She wasn’t in uniform, she was in ordinary clothes a teen would wear. People must have known. They just didn’t care enough to ask.

upinaballoon · 25/10/2025 15:13

Ratsinthefloorboards · 25/10/2025 13:26

Just to add, Giuffre in her book states that Epstein mentioned he knew which way her brother came home from school when she hesitated over coming to work for Epstein ft.

So although she was paid well and provided with expensive clothes it was clear she had to obey when Epstein pimped her out to people he wanted to impress. The inference was clear that her brother would be hurt otherwise. That is about as far from consent as you can get!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/15/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-abuse-epstein-maxwell

I heard that piece about the brother - I think on Woman's Hour this week.
When I have time I'll look up Maria Farmer(?). Was she a secretary there. I think she was threatened.

upinaballoon · 25/10/2025 15:29

upinaballoon · 25/10/2025 15:13

I heard that piece about the brother - I think on Woman's Hour this week.
When I have time I'll look up Maria Farmer(?). Was she a secretary there. I think she was threatened.

I remembered the name correctly and have just read the Wiki about Maria Farmer.

BerkleyChoo · 25/10/2025 15:32

eggandonion · 25/10/2025 14:29

Did Prince Andrew travel without any security?

Good point. Surely, other people must have been aware of what he was going. I vaguely recall some discussion about his security having to give evidence if there were any proceedings.

MrTiddlesTheCat · 25/10/2025 15:34

eggandonion · 25/10/2025 14:29

Did Prince Andrew travel without any security?

Apparently it's only being questioned now, as it appears he had police officers with him when he went to Epstein Island, who may or may not have turned a blind eye to the criminality going on.

Gizzagizza · 25/10/2025 16:12

Pharazon · 25/10/2025 13:53

No it was not. Paying for sexual services of a child aged 16 or 17 and having sex with a traficked woman or child aged 16 or 17 only became offences in 2003 with the passing of the Sexual Offences Act.

Ok, thank you. So what Andrew did was not illegal.

OP posts:
PrizedPickledPopcorn · 25/10/2025 16:14

LeavesOnTrees · 25/10/2025 16:00

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3970mxwz9vo.amp

It would appear even Prince Andrew doesn't believe his actions were innocent...

I don’t understand. Innocent or not, making enquiries about the person who’s accusing you is normal, imo.
If someone said stuff like that about me, right now, I’d be asking around about who they are despite having done nothing wrong myself. I’d want to know what kind of person was accusing me, someone with history of crime or blackmail? Who?!

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 25/10/2025 16:15

I absolutely question where his security was. They would have been more clued up about what was going on than him, as they’d have seen behind the scenes more. No one was trying to impress them!

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 25/10/2025 16:27

MrTiddlesTheCat · 25/10/2025 15:34

Apparently it's only being questioned now, as it appears he had police officers with him when he went to Epstein Island, who may or may not have turned a blind eye to the criminality going on.

If I wanted someone to turn a blind eye, I would make them complicit.

LeavesOnTrees · 25/10/2025 18:14

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 25/10/2025 16:14

I don’t understand. Innocent or not, making enquiries about the person who’s accusing you is normal, imo.
If someone said stuff like that about me, right now, I’d be asking around about who they are despite having done nothing wrong myself. I’d want to know what kind of person was accusing me, someone with history of crime or blackmail? Who?!

Using a tax payer funded MET police protection officer to look into a 17 year old trafficked girl's past could be argued to be an abuse of power.

Does anyone know if him sleeping with a trafficked American citizen in 2001 in the UK was illegal under American law ?
I think it was.
It was illegal when he skept with her in the US.

Ghhbiuj · 25/10/2025 18:50

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 25/10/2025 13:08

She was not in a position to consent. I find it very hard to believe that he did not know that she was not in a position to consent. Sex without consent is rape. And rape was illegal at the time.

It was wrong, it wasn't seen that way at the time

PurpleBrocadePeacock · 25/10/2025 19:04

I think the enquiry needs to be in the money side too. VG said that she was paid 15,000 for the first encounter. How much did Andrew pay Epstein and he pocketed? Or what favour was the encounters in exchange for? If there were cash payments, what or who was the source of those funds?

Security (for example accompanying a client to a night clubs) at that time would turn a blind eyes to prostitutes, escorts, and likely drugs. If they had moral qualms, they would quit. But they might prove to be witnesses now.

CurlewKate · 25/10/2025 19:09

There will always be people saying it’s all Guiffre’s fault. So profoundly depressing.

jumpingthehighjump · 25/10/2025 20:08

CurlewKate · 25/10/2025 19:09

There will always be people saying it’s all Guiffre’s fault. So profoundly depressing.

Yes and how DARE people say "but she was smiling in the picture"
WTAF

DV victims smile in family photos even though their husband punched them 2 nights ago
Such ignorance

MaxandMeg · 25/10/2025 20:42

Quite apart from the Epstein thing I think he's used his position as a trade envoy to enrich himself on the taxpayers' tab. His relationship with Kazhakstan and the amount of money he's been gifted from there certainly needs to be looked into.
Also there are charities that were promised money, and raised money for, who have never received anything. On one occasion many thousands were raised and the charity only received £200.

AreYouSureAskedNaomi · 25/10/2025 20:59

CurlewKate · 25/10/2025 19:09

There will always be people saying it’s all Guiffre’s fault. So profoundly depressing.

This

Dearg · 25/10/2025 21:11

Gizzagizza · 25/10/2025 16:12

Ok, thank you. So what Andrew did was not illegal.

Really struggling to understand where you are going with this Op.

We do not know, ( or I certainly don’t) that what Andrew is alleged to have done was a one time event.

Are you looking for a get out clause? Because I am not seeing any redeeming features here.

Gizzagizza · 25/10/2025 21:44

Dearg · 25/10/2025 21:11

Really struggling to understand where you are going with this Op.

We do not know, ( or I certainly don’t) that what Andrew is alleged to have done was a one time event.

Are you looking for a get out clause? Because I am not seeing any redeeming features here.

No, I’m not looking for a get out clause. What Andrew did to Virginia Giuffre was immoral even if it was not illegal. I just wanted to understand whether he had done anything illegal. I think it is important because if he did act illegally then further action should be taken. The fact his actions were not illegal does help to contextualise things a bit (ie in different times different things are considered acceptable), but I’m not trying to excuse what he did. Just trying to get the facts straight.

OP posts:
PrizedPickledPopcorn · 25/10/2025 21:50

CurlewKate · 25/10/2025 19:09

There will always be people saying it’s all Guiffre’s fault. So profoundly depressing.

Where? Who? I haven’t seen anyone say that. Are you misreading them?

mathanxiety · 25/10/2025 22:01

Gizzagizza · 25/10/2025 16:12

Ok, thank you. So what Andrew did was not illegal.

What exactly are you trying to assert here?

He's squeaky clean?
He's being held to a higher standard of conduct than he should be?

There's a strong whiff of hair splitting in this thread. It's repugnant.

Gizzagizza · 25/10/2025 22:13

mathanxiety · 25/10/2025 22:01

What exactly are you trying to assert here?

He's squeaky clean?
He's being held to a higher standard of conduct than he should be?

There's a strong whiff of hair splitting in this thread. It's repugnant.

I’m not asserting anything: what Andrew did was immoral. Virginia Guiffre’s story is heartbreaking. This does not mean, however, that we should ignore whether what Andrew did was legal or not.

OP posts:
meercat23 · 25/10/2025 22:14

This is a little bit off topic but if you bear with me a bit I think it is relevant.

I think people who have never been groomed maybe do not quite understand how it works. Out and out trafficking works through threats and violence but grooming can be more subtle and manipulative.

I was groomed once, not I hasten to say for any sexual puropse but in the context of a religious set up. I was targeted because I was vulnerable but also because I had contacts with other people who could possibly be brought in. Please don't think that I am equating what happened to me with the kind of abuse and damage the victims of Epstein and his cronies suffered but I think I may have some understanding of the process

I was constantly flattered and encouraged to think of myself as special, one of the insiders if you will. It took me a couple of years to realise that these people did not genuinely have my interests at heart and were using me for their own ends.

As I said, there was no element of sexual exploitation involved for me but I can see how it could work in the same way with those young girls encouraged to see themselves as beautiful and special and privileged rather than used and abused. When they finally saw the situation for what it really was they would maybe not at first recognise their own blamelessness. I am old now and it took me literally years to process what happened.

Easy to say, look at the picture, she looks happy to be there. Maybe at the time she thought she was happy to be there. Much later, when she realised how she had been used, she would have had to come to terms with all those feelings and the much worse ones that replaced them. From the evidence of the long term damage done to VIrginia and probably to many others, it seems as if coming to terms with it all was not always possible.