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.

Men like that often can’t help but boast about who they are and what they’ve got, so you may be surprised. They also probably didn’t imagine a time when this would all come out because those sorts of men feel untouchable and above answering to anyone.

Are you related or in a relationship with Andrew mountbatten?

What?

Why are you looking g at UK law when he did this in the US?

I'm under the impression that the allegations are that he had sexual relations with VG once in the UK and twice in the US.

I’m interested in whether Andrew has broken the law in any jurisdiction.
What he did to Virginia Giuffre in the UK was morally repugnant, but it seems that it was probably not against the law in the UK at that time. It may have been against the law in the US (and from previous responses I think it probably was, but I’m not sure.)
There are now so many allegations against Andrew that it seems likely he broke the law in other ways even if he didn’t break the law with VG (in the UK).
It’s difficult to know how many of these allegations are substantiated by evidence of any kind - and I would be interested to find out - but I guess that’s one for another thread!

But what does it matter if what he did is legal or not?? His banishment from society is not based on whether he committed a crime or not, and same goes for Fergie. They both had dealings with epstein, and as others turned out continued the friendship long after his conviction

Agreed.

And VG I think first pressed charges in the US in relation to the activities on soil US where the law was different to the UK in that the age of consent was 18 at that time. The US law enforcement wanted to speak to AMW but he has avoided it.

The photo taken in the UK is conflating the whole situation.

I think he broke the law in the states because she was under age of consent
But it would be incredibily difficult to prove he knew her age. If he was to say she told me she was 18 or Epstein said she was 18 then how do the courts prove otherwise?

He had sex with her in the UK but i dont think laws were broken

Right.

Multimillionaires regularly bring 17 year old girls with them on overseas trips?

There is something going around, I can't remember the source, possibly Giuffre's book that he ordered her from a book of photos, like a catalogue.

I want to stress I do not know if this is true. If it is then AMW should have known she was trafficked.

Those poor girls. Those vile men.

Virgina sued Andrew in New York State (a civil claim, not a prosecution, she did not “file charges” as a PP as said). The only tangible outcome of that claim would be a damages award (i.e. payment of money) from Andrew, not any kind of criminal finding. The claim was based on Andrew having sex with Virginia three times - once in London, once in New York and once on Epstein’s island.

The reason why Virginia sued in New York State rather than London is essentially because she couldn’t bring a claim in London - the events took place in 2001, 20 years before her lawsuit was filed - she would have been long out of time to bring any civil claim in the UK over these actions. But obviously she wanted the London allegation included because she had the photo of her and Andrew in London - that was very powerful evidence.

Helpfully for Virginia, New York State has what is called a “long arm jurisdiction” that meant she was able to sue Andrew there for events which happened in London and the Caribbean and had only the most tenuous connection to New York (She also sued on the very last day she was able to in order to avoid her case being out of time to litigate there). The court would have had to consider whether the actions she alleged were legal or not in each of the countries where they took place.

Surely we know enough now to be clear that we should believe women when they say that men have abused them. Being made to smile and look happy is routine for women forced into porn and prostitution, why are people still so naive? If you always believe the woman you will very occasionally be wrong, if you always believe the accused male you will almost always be wrong.

We have a long thread about a customer complaining about a woman not being smiling enough in her workplace. Most agree she should be friendlier to customers. VG would be expected to seem happy enough to be there.

Or maybe she was just trying to make the best of it and survive her life circumstances. Showing sadness admits vulnerability to her captors.

I haven’t read this thread and I probably won’t - there are some vile Andrew apologists on here .
We don’t know a fraction of what happened re the Windsors and Epstein .
What did all the Windsors know and when ?
Epstein was first convicted in 2008 - it was public knowledge.
Epstein was emailing the palace well over a decade later to complain about the wording of their statement trying to distance themselves from him .

But my main point is. -stop calling young victims ‘women’ . They were girls .
Some could have been children .
The media has done this and it’s easy to overlook but it’s subtle brainwashing
The same media will call Andrew’s daughters ‘girls’ when they are mid 30s at least .

Note the difference.

Very well said Ukisgaslit

Some of the posts on here are thoroughly depressing. I had to stop reading.

I’d ask anyone who is ignorant about grooming and trafficking to read about the MO of Ghislaine Maxwell and why she is behind bars.

This is a story of the rich, powerful elite exploiting young, poor, vulnerable women for sex. It’s utterly disgusting on every level and you can’t consent if you are under duress. I’d like to remind everyone too that Epstein more than hinted to VG that her siblings would be endangered if she did not comply.

Also it’s important to note that the royal family do not pay out circa £12 million to anyone for no reason. They wanted any possibility of a trial to be disappear and they have been covering up or turning a blind eye to AMW’s alleged crimes, both sexual and financial, for years.

And I am thoroughly fed up of the narrative that other powerful men have got away with similar alleged crimes in the USA and that AMW was a useful high profile scape goat. Just no. Of course others in the States need to be brought to justice but that doesn’t diminish what AMW has allegedly done. We in the UK need to deal with our own and apply the law as we would to any other British citizen irrespective of what is happening in the USA. If punishments are uneven overall across this group of hideous men then AMW has to accept that, even though he had a life of immense wealth and privilege, with which he could have chosen to do a lot of good, he alone made intentional decisions and behaved in ways that led to his current predicament.

Well said. He brought every single bit of this on himself. I don't know how anyone can excuse his actions.

And as for the ignorance regarding sex trafficking, coercion, manipulation and grooming.... I've seen it time and time again on here. I could repeat what some posters have said about the survivors but I won't because it is disgusting and I won't give it oxygen.

Thank you @Ratsinthefloorboards and @jumpingthehighjump

The deflecting and downplaying and victim blaming is clear to see .

The posters trying that approach to try to get the royals off the hook aren’t fooling anyone .

Agree, they are not fooling anyone. I think their deference and admiration for the Royals (who are, after all, just a dysfunctional family) overrides every single thing. They can do no wrong in their eyes.

I agree.

I think some hardline monarchists sense that the royal family could be in real trouble over this because of the way they have not only failed to curtail AMW’s behaviour for many years despite being informed about it by senior diplomats and intelligence sources but paid off VG to try to silence her and avoid a trial and then continued to cover up the rest.

So some posters are doing everything they can to downplay, diminish and distract from what happened.

Leaving aside the appalling misogyny imbued in this approach, I really don’t think this is the correct path because if you truly love the uk and British tradition and the institution of the monarchy, then I would have thought that you want your head of state, and head of the C of E, to be morally and financially unimpeachable. After all, they are supposed to represent us and our values.

As a Republican I simply think that AMW’s behaviour illustrates that:

**we were one helicopter crash or polo accident away from having to tolerate AMW as monarch.

**this awful situation is a fine example of why we need to elect a head of state who stands and falls on their own merits irrespective of their wealthy influential family

**that we no longer should be supporting family members, hangers on, separate offices filled with staff for all of the individuals within one family who may not have the aptitude for charitable work or indeed may be corrupt or a predator? The current rules for the RF assume they are all upright citizens and this is completely inappropriate and inadequate for a modern democracy in the 21st century.

There has been push back from Princess Anne who said we need to think about there not being enough people to carry out charitable works in a slimmed down monarchy but she seemed to overlook that there are many other possible approaches other than top down.

France for example manages just fine where democracy filters down to your local town and village and a local mayor visits local public projects.

Spot on.

In a court case, you would first need to establish AMW had sex with VG.
That she wrote it in a book is not really evidence, and in other cases she was described as unreliable.
Then you would need to establish that she was unwilling, or and that he knew she was trafficked
The arrest was on the allegations of passing on confidential information, but again we do not know all the circumstances. Did he know the information was confidential, what training did he have; was he asked to forward on this information, etc.
The removal of titles by the RF was due to him continuing to associate with Epstein after Epstein's conviction, despite saying he had ended contact.
That the police have asked other people to come forward, implies they have very little evidence of law breaking.
He may have behave 'inappropriately' at Ascot in 2003? but you need to define what exactly this is, and was it a criminal offence.
In other words was anything criminal, and what evidence is there.
(I read something in the paper recently that implied ALL involved in the trade envoy stuff, were passing on information, so it would be difficult to single AMW out)!

I am not sure that passing on confidential government files to a convicted sex trafficker could be thought of as 'not knowing'!

If Andrew is prosecuted for anything I would bet good money it will be for some kind of financial irregularity. Which isn't right but I think the fact that politicians let him act how he did as trade envoy means the espionage won't be prosecuted. The sex crimes seem to be needlessly complicated to prove or prosecute, which sadly isn't limited to sex crimes carried out by AMW, judging by recent cases.

Financial crimes are straight forward and won't implicate others in the establishment. Just like Al Capone in that the actual crime wasn't what they caught him for.

“Fawning” is one of the core trauma response options deployed automatically my our minds and bodies in crisis situations - alongside the more well “fight” and “flight” - behaviours that aim to keep us alive. Of the 3 fawning would most likely be the most successful outcome for a teenage girl vs a load of powerful men (and one woman).