Page 4 | Andrew breaking the law

Gizzagizza · 2025-10-24T20:54:54+00:00

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.

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 25/10/2025 22:25

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.

Edited

Honestly that isn’t what people are saying. No one has said ‘it’s fine, look, she’s happy’. Just that for all the reasons you describe, Andrew probably won’t have considered her to have been unhappy or unwilling.

meercat23 · 25/10/2025 22:36

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 25/10/2025 22:25

Honestly that isn’t what people are saying. No one has said ‘it’s fine, look, she’s happy’. Just that for all the reasons you describe, Andrew probably won’t have considered her to have been unhappy or unwilling.

Show quote history

I would hope that is what they mean. Elsewhere I have heard other opinions.

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 25/10/2025 22:40

That’s awful, then, Meercat. On MN all I have seen have prefaced it with ‘she appeared/looked happy’ as opposed to she was happy.

mathanxiety · 25/10/2025 22:45

Gizzagizza · 25/10/2025 21:44

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.

Show quote history

For some reason, you're refusing to explore the question of whether a seventeen year old in a foreign city, in the residence of two wealthy and well connected adults who had already sexually assaulted her and had been pimping her out to others under threat of harm to her family members, could in practical terms be capable of consent here.

Why are you skipping so blithely past the concept of consent and focusing on age?

mathanxiety · 25/10/2025 22:51

@meercat23- that's a horrible situation, and I'm glad you were able to get away.

New York's Child Victim Act was designed to allow extension to the statute of limitations so that people who were exploited, abused, groomed, etc as minors could bring cases years later. This was the legislation VG relied on to accuse PA. His lawyers did what they were paid to do, obv.

BeeWitchy · 25/10/2025 23:14

The American Congressional Committee investigating Epstein and his associates - business dealings, trafficking etc. - would like to speak to Andrew. If he’s done nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. And they are willing to speak to him virtually - so he does not have to leave the UK.

Looks to me like a good chance to prove his innocence. Or not.

This ITV Video is about 14 minutes long and worth watching and it’s also worth reading the description below it.

The whole tranche of Epstein files may still be released. The Democrats and a few republican senators could force this through once the govt shutdown ends. They only need one more signature on the petition and as soon as the speaker of the house -Mike Johnson-swears in the latest Democratic representative she will sign, bringing the number to the 218 signatures required.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/0CFAulq5wPc

Original poster

Gizzagizza · 25/10/2025 23:27

mathanxiety · 25/10/2025 22:45

For some reason, you're refusing to explore the question of whether a seventeen year old in a foreign city, in the residence of two wealthy and well connected adults who had already sexually assaulted her and had been pimping her out to others under threat of harm to her family members, could in practical terms be capable of consent here.

Why are you skipping so blithely past the concept of consent and focusing on age?

Show quote history

I’m not refusing to explore that - I don’t think she was capable of consent in that situation. However, it was not illegal for Andrew to sleep with a trafficked 17 year old at that time. It should have been, but it wasn’t.

OP posts:

LeavesOnTrees · 26/10/2025 00:18

If she was not capable of consent then it was illegal for him to have sex with her.
This is covered under the The Sexual Offences Act 1956.

The problem is that it's incredibly difficult to prove this in court, especially as he is denying even having met her, let alone sleeping with her, let alone knowing she was trafficked and thus incapable of consent.

Part One covers :
Rape (2)A man commits rape if—

(a)he has sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal) who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and

(b)at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether that person consents to it.

I would say he was pretty reckless as to whether she consented.

22Causing prostitution of women.
(1)It is an offence for a person—

(a)to procure a woman to become, in any part of the world, a common prostitute

She was paid 15k apparently for the London encounter.

Virginia also stated he bought her an alcoholic drink at the nightclub, she was under 18. That is also illegal. Plus :
4Administering drugs to obtain or facilitate intercourse.
(1)It is an offence for a person to apply or administer to, or cause to be taken by, a woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower her so as thereby to enable any man to have unlawful sexual intercourse with her.

This would cover Epstein :

23Procuration of girl under twenty-one.
(1)It is an offence for a person to procure a girl under the age of twenty-one to have unlawful sexual intercourse in any part of the world with a third person.

CrimsonStoat · 26/10/2025 00:20

Gizzagizza · 25/10/2025 23:27

I’m not refusing to explore that - I don’t think she was capable of consent in that situation. However, it was not illegal for Andrew to sleep with a trafficked 17 year old at that time. It should have been, but it wasn’t.

Show quote history

Why are you using the euphemism "sleeping with" when referring to Andrew? It makes you sound like you're trying to minimise what he's done.

Particularly when you have no problem talking about sex when you mention prostitutes and trafficked girls.

CrimsonStoat · 26/10/2025 00:34

BeeWitchy · 25/10/2025 23:14

The American Congressional Committee investigating Epstein and his associates - business dealings, trafficking etc. - would like to speak to Andrew. If he’s done nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. And they are willing to speak to him virtually - so he does not have to leave the UK.

Looks to me like a good chance to prove his innocence. Or not.

This ITV Video is about 14 minutes long and worth watching and it’s also worth reading the description below it.

The whole tranche of Epstein files may still be released. The Democrats and a few republican senators could force this through once the govt shutdown ends. They only need one more signature on the petition and as soon as the speaker of the house -Mike Johnson-swears in the latest Democratic representative she will sign, bringing the number to the 218 signatures required.

Boof!

I think there's going to be more about Andrew in those files.

And if we think that him voluntarily not using his titles doesn't wash now, it definitely won't when the files eventually are released.

He'd be best (for himself) taking himself off to some quiet remote place in a country far away. For the sex trafficking victims, he should stay right here.

Ratsinthefloorboards · 26/10/2025 00:47

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.

Absolutely. Lownie said in a podcast the other day that the sexual
abuse should be investigated further, and has grabbed more headlines, and he believes more information will emerge, but the financial abuse is where serious questions need to he asked about how much the rest of the family knew.

Divebar2021 · 26/10/2025 00:54

LeavesOnTrees · 26/10/2025 00:18

If she was not capable of consent then it was illegal for him to have sex with her.
This is covered under the The Sexual Offences Act 1956.

The problem is that it's incredibly difficult to prove this in court, especially as he is denying even having met her, let alone sleeping with her, let alone knowing she was trafficked and thus incapable of consent.

Part One covers :
Rape (2)A man commits rape if—

(a)he has sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal) who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and

(b)at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether that person consents to it.

I would say he was pretty reckless as to whether she consented.

22Causing prostitution of women.
(1)It is an offence for a person—

(a)to procure a woman to become, in any part of the world, a common prostitute

She was paid 15k apparently for the London encounter.

Virginia also stated he bought her an alcoholic drink at the nightclub, she was under 18. That is also illegal. Plus :
4Administering drugs to obtain or facilitate intercourse.
(1)It is an offence for a person to apply or administer to, or cause to be taken by, a woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower her so as thereby to enable any man to have unlawful sexual intercourse with her.

This would cover Epstein :

23Procuration of girl under twenty-one.
(1)It is an offence for a person to procure a girl under the age of twenty-one to have unlawful sexual intercourse in any part of the world with a third person.

So how do you prove that she was not consenting if on the face of it she appears to be in fact consenting. She’s chatty, smiling etc. So we can agree now that VG was coerced and trafficked but that was not done by Andrew so how do you prove that he knew?. And if the payment was also made by another person how do you prove Andrew knew she was a prostitute. ( I personally don’t think he’d have any problems using a prostitute but you need to be able to show he knew). What you need is evidence such as emails / recordings between the parties where Andrew is told that a girl of 17 is being brought to the U.K. for him to have sex with and she’s being paid to have sex with him.

The issue with the protection officers is different - they’re not in the bedroom with him to witness anything. If they were attending a private party in the US they may have had support from local police protection or they may not. If they didn’t then they wouldn’t have had much access to US intelligence reports. In any case their remit is to consider an attack on Andrew not to check the ID’s / set up / ages of guests attending a party where Andrew was going to be. I met a US protection officers who was with Prince Harry in his Vegas party era and he told me he politely tried to rein Harry in ( for reputational reasons) but ultimately he had no remit to do that and Harry made his own decisions as I dare say Andrew did.

FlamingoFloss · 26/10/2025 01:04

TheAutumnCrow · 24/10/2025 22:49

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.)

Are you someone who is part of the law/legal system? The whole thing is so very complicated when you look at the ‘known’ facts. Do I think he is complicit? Absolutely. Based upon what is publically factual is he a criminal? No. Based upon what we know, is he an absolute pervert? God, yes

mathanxiety · 26/10/2025 01:29

Divebar2021 · 26/10/2025 00:54

So how do you prove that she was not consenting if on the face of it she appears to be in fact consenting. She’s chatty, smiling etc. So we can agree now that VG was coerced and trafficked but that was not done by Andrew so how do you prove that he knew?. And if the payment was also made by another person how do you prove Andrew knew she was a prostitute. ( I personally don’t think he’d have any problems using a prostitute but you need to be able to show he knew). What you need is evidence such as emails / recordings between the parties where Andrew is told that a girl of 17 is being brought to the U.K. for him to have sex with and she’s being paid to have sex with him.

The issue with the protection officers is different - they’re not in the bedroom with him to witness anything. If they were attending a private party in the US they may have had support from local police protection or they may not. If they didn’t then they wouldn’t have had much access to US intelligence reports. In any case their remit is to consider an attack on Andrew not to check the ID’s / set up / ages of guests attending a party where Andrew was going to be. I met a US protection officers who was with Prince Harry in his Vegas party era and he told me he politely tried to rein Harry in ( for reputational reasons) but ultimately he had no remit to do that and Harry made his own decisions as I dare say Andrew did.

Show quote history

Erm, she's a seventeen year old girl in the company of people you know are not related to her, in a foreign country, and you are aware they know she's in your bedroom and hopping into your bed.. You've been to the homes of the man in NYC and the Caribbean and you call him your friend.

It is simply preposterous to suggest he thoight she was an appropriate sex partne, unless he was used to bedding teenage girls for many years and thought nothing of it.

Are you saying that PA is so incredibly stupid that he didn't recognise that this teenager was in a very vulnerable situation, or are you saying he simply didn't care? It has to be one or the other.

And it doesn't matter that she was paid - the question of rape revolves around consent. In the context of her life, payment was the way her abusers covered their own asses. She was not a free agent. She was not able to negotiate a price. She was not in a position to say no, payment or no payment.

TheAutumnCrow · 26/10/2025 06:01

Troll account set up to discredit Virginia Giuffre linked allegedly to Maxwell(s).

Major Observer article today. See below.

Some really interesting and heartbreaking stuff in here. (Another young female victim trafficked by Maxwell, Carolyn Andriano, who gave vital evidence to convict her, died by suicide in 2023.)

observer.co.uk/news/international/article/deep-dive-into-the-twitter-troll-account-set-up-to-bring-down-virginia-giuffre

jumpingthehighjump · 26/10/2025 06:37

That would not surprise me. I look at the website set up by her brothers in support of Ghislaine and they are totally deluded, and claim she is an innocent in all of this.
As if.

upinaballoon · 26/10/2025 08:13

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.

Show quote history

Hair-splitting is precisely what lawyers would do in a case if a criminal charge was brought.
I think the OP is wanting to know details, not trying to suggest that A is squeaky clean.

LeavesOnTrees · 26/10/2025 08:25

Divebar2021 · 26/10/2025 00:54

So how do you prove that she was not consenting if on the face of it she appears to be in fact consenting. She’s chatty, smiling etc. So we can agree now that VG was coerced and trafficked but that was not done by Andrew so how do you prove that he knew?. And if the payment was also made by another person how do you prove Andrew knew she was a prostitute. ( I personally don’t think he’d have any problems using a prostitute but you need to be able to show he knew). What you need is evidence such as emails / recordings between the parties where Andrew is told that a girl of 17 is being brought to the U.K. for him to have sex with and she’s being paid to have sex with him.

The issue with the protection officers is different - they’re not in the bedroom with him to witness anything. If they were attending a private party in the US they may have had support from local police protection or they may not. If they didn’t then they wouldn’t have had much access to US intelligence reports. In any case their remit is to consider an attack on Andrew not to check the ID’s / set up / ages of guests attending a party where Andrew was going to be. I met a US protection officers who was with Prince Harry in his Vegas party era and he told me he politely tried to rein Harry in ( for reputational reasons) but ultimately he had no remit to do that and Harry made his own decisions as I dare say Andrew did.

Show quote history

I can't prove anything.

The OP asked if what Prince Andrew did was illegal. I found the relelvant laws in place at the time, which show that what he did was illegal (if you believe Virginia Guiffre -which I do).

The difficulty in proving cases like this in court is precisely why men like Prince Andrew get away with it time and time again.

Original poster

Gizzagizza · 26/10/2025 09:25

CrimsonStoat · 26/10/2025 00:20

Why are you using the euphemism "sleeping with" when referring to Andrew? It makes you sound like you're trying to minimise what he's done.

Particularly when you have no problem talking about sex when you mention prostitutes and trafficked girls.

Show quote history

Noted - I won’t say that again.

OP posts:

upinaballoon · 26/10/2025 11:02

LeavesOnTrees · 26/10/2025 08:25

I can't prove anything.

The OP asked if what Prince Andrew did was illegal. I found the relelvant laws in place at the time, which show that what he did was illegal (if you believe Virginia Guiffre -which I do).

The difficulty in proving cases like this in court is precisely why men like Prince Andrew get away with it time and time again.

Show quote history

The difficulty in proving cases is why the Crown Prosecution Service rejects cases all the time, I believe. They don't bring a charge unless they feel that it will win. I mean any types of cases.
I don't know if Virginia Giuffre could have brought a criminal charge against Prince Andrew. Someone might tell me. Whether she could or not, it looks as if she, with the advice of lawyers I suppose, decided that she'd get a lot further by bringing a civil charge against him.
I didn't understand the difference between a criminal case and a civil case until Serenster explained it to us about 3/4 years ago.

LeavesOnTrees · 26/10/2025 11:27

In buying 17 year old Virginia G an alcoholic drink in a nightclub, Prince Andrew was breaking the law under the Licensing Act 1964.

It was an offence to buy or attempt to buy alcohol for someone under 18 in a licensed premises (such as a pub, bar, or nightclub).

Obviously if that was the only accusation against PAndrew I don't think anyone would care.
But if this is true he broke the law.
( I imagine his lawyers are aware of this and is probably why he is denying ever meeting her).

Needspaceforlego · 26/10/2025 11:30

Something makes me doubt he knew she (or the other girls were trafficked). Even if he did know its a very difficult thing to prove. Its not exactly something Epstien will have emailed.

I just don't think it would have been on anyones radar 20-25 years ago. Similar to grooming.

He is a Prince, if he was looking for one nighters, he could have done a Prince Harry, picked a woman up and gone round the back of the pub or had a bit more class and booked a room.

Needspaceforlego · 26/10/2025 11:33

LeavesOnTrees · 26/10/2025 11:27

In buying 17 year old Virginia G an alcoholic drink in a nightclub, Prince Andrew was breaking the law under the Licensing Act 1964.

It was an offence to buy or attempt to buy alcohol for someone under 18 in a licensed premises (such as a pub, bar, or nightclub).

Obviously if that was the only accusation against PAndrew I don't think anyone would care.
But if this is true he broke the law.
( I imagine his lawyers are aware of this and is probably why he is denying ever meeting her).

To argue that out in court means also proving beyond reasonable doubt he knew her age. Which again is impossible.

You can hear his defence, "I assumed as she was in an over 18s nightclub she was indeed over 18"

Needspaceforlego · 26/10/2025 11:37

LeavesOnTrees · 26/10/2025 08:25

I can't prove anything.

The OP asked if what Prince Andrew did was illegal. I found the relelvant laws in place at the time, which show that what he did was illegal (if you believe Virginia Guiffre -which I do).

The difficulty in proving cases like this in court is precisely why men like Prince Andrew get away with it time and time again.

Show quote history

Totally agree, its very hard to prove, and their is the passage of time, memories fade.
If Andrew is to be belived that he is TT then a lot of the time he'd have been the only sober person there.

BemusedAmerican · 26/10/2025 11:37

TheAutumnCrow · 26/10/2025 06:01

Troll account set up to discredit Virginia Giuffre linked allegedly to Maxwell(s).

Major Observer article today. See below.

Some really interesting and heartbreaking stuff in here. (Another young female victim trafficked by Maxwell, Carolyn Andriano, who gave vital evidence to convict her, died by suicide in 2023.)

observer.co.uk/news/international/article/deep-dive-into-the-twitter-troll-account-set-up-to-bring-down-virginia-giuffre

Thanks for the link. I'd love to see Jay Beecher and Andrew Lownie together on a panel.