Prince Andrew

@taf2002 it is not a "culture." It is a worldwide human rights problem and it occurs before our very eyes every day. Educate yourself on sex trafficking before you make such ignorant comments like "she was 17, why wasn't she a virgin at home with her mom"?
 
canbelto said:
@taf2002 it is not a "culture." It is a worldwide human rights problem and it occurs before our very eyes every day. Educate yourself on sex trafficking before you make such ignorant comments like "she was 17, why wasn't she a virgin at home with her mom"?
Click to expand...

That's an outright lie. I did NOT say "she was 17, why wasn't she a virgin at home with her mom"? & you know it. I admitted I was ignorant on the subject. Excuse me for not being familier with the seamier side of life.
 
I would like to respectfully request that this thread title be changed to something like "Prince Andrew (and other royals) and the Epstein scandal" because "Prince Andrew" is rather vague and I keep forgetting what the thread is about and not clicking on it. :D
 
AxelAnnie said:
Ah conclusion jumping. Did you read the PR piece? Here I go again. Andrew and M/H have each made bad PR moves. And nothing has been proven about rape.
Click to expand...

BS. The media is full of it, as are some royal observers and trolls. The media loves rocking, slanting and setting a full-on negative narrative about the Sussexes. Why? Read Prince Harry's September press release. The Sussexes refuse to play the media's game, and they don't have to. In fact, with their recent suits against media outlets, M&H have drawn a line in the sand, and it's about time.

The 'bad pr moves' broken record the media are blaring in connection with the Sussexes is being put on full blast because the worst tabloid outlets are being sued by the Sussexes, and because as Harry said, he and Meghan refuse to play the game that killed his mother. There will be no media kowtowing by the Sussexes. The media has no leverage against the Sussexes, so the media instead plays bs 'negative stories' hardball. And that's not going to work for the media either.

But yeah, keep on drinking the media's kool-aid in trying to connect Meghan/Harry's actions, behaviors, and decisions in any way with the loutish, entitled Prince Andrew.

In addition, this thread was started to discuss Prince Andrew's travails, not to connect him with the Sussexes. :drama:

Zemgirl said:
Well, the article that we all read discusses the PR woes of both Prince Andrew and the Sussexes. This does not mean that they consider "not playing nice with the press" to be equal to the alleged sexual assault of teenagers.
Click to expand...

For the umpteenth time, Meghan & Harry do NOT have to 'play nice with the press,' no matter how many people think they should. The Sussexes have been making the right decisions for their own lives, and they will continue to do so. They are both made of tough stuff, and they don't frighten easily.

In today's world, the Sussexes are able to speak directly to the public with their Instagram, and they have found other unique ways to promote their causes other than going directly through the royal reporters. There are a number of occasions where M&H have chosen responsible reporters to give news coverage and interviews to, including Omid Scobie, Alan Jones, and Bryony Gordon. These are journalists who cover news stories (not gossipy made-up stories) in a fair, balanced and professional way.
 
Last edited:
MacMadame said:
I would like to respectfully request that this thread title be changed to something like "Prince Andrew (and other royals) and the Epstein scandal" because "Prince Andrew" is rather vague and I keep forgetting what the thread is about and not clicking on it. :D
Click to expand...

There's already a thread in PI about the Epstein scandal including posts about Prince Andrew's involvement, which practically no one is clicking on. :drama:

That Epstein thread should probably be merged with this one, as maybe PI is not the first place people would think to go when they think of the Epstein scandal.
 
taf2002 said:
I guess I have questions because the situation is way outside of my own experiences. At age 17 I was still a virgin so I don't think anyone could have preyed on me. I was actually approached at 17 by a 40ish man & reacted with disgust & horror. I also went home & told my mother so if something had happened to me she would have had that information.

Per her own words Ms Giuffre was recruited at her place of work & apparently wanted to please Epstein & his procurer. I think most of us wouldn't have given a shit what they wanted. And she talks about dancing with Andrew in a nightclub so other people must have been around. I would have screamed bloody murder. So I just want to understand.
Click to expand...

@taf2002 this is your own words. You said at age 17 you were a virgin. You were lucky enough to be brought up in a safe supportive environment. But you can't imagine how other 17-year-olds are not brought up in those environments and would be vulnerable to the mix of sex, drugs, and money that Epstein used to lure girls to his "paradise islands" and mansions?

I honestly don't know how you can't understand this. Anyone who has ever worked in a school (in both rich and poor neighborhoods) has had to make that call to child protective services because we suspect sexual abuse going on at home, or that a parent (very often the mother) is actively pushing the daughter towards prostitution. So if you are still
"ignorant" to the "seamy" sides of life I think you just have purposely closed your eyes. I guarantee someone you know right now has been the victim of sexual abuse or is being sexually abused.
 
Cachoo said:
I think M&H are going through young, royal couple growing pains. They'll learn.
Click to expand...

See my comments in the royalty thread (post #693), as this thread should be about Prince Andrew...

Royalty Thread #10 -Archie Phase 2 - Bold and Bald Still

A new patronage for Kate, passed on from the Queen. https://whatkatewore.com/2019/12/04/kate-is-festive-for-family-action-farm-visit-patronage-announcement/#more-62146
www.fsuniverse.net

attyfan said:
... while Archie may get that title when Charles becomes king, Harry and Meghan may also reject it, since doing without the title may make it easier for the child to fit into non-royal life.
Click to expand...

True. As well, Harry never liked being called a prince, and so as much as possible, Harry wants to protect his son from having to go through what he endured growing up.

canbelto said:
Trump now claims he "doesn't know" Prince Andrew despite meeting with him earlier this year:
Click to expand...

I guess he doesn't know Epstein either. :blah:

taf2002 said:
I agree. My question is was she trafficked with Jeffrey in the 1st place? Did he snatch her off the street? Did she ever tell anyone? Where were her parents? I'm not doubting that she was mistreated, I'm just saying there is still a lot of questions.
Click to expand...

I had a lot of questions too, but my questions were answered through reading a number of news stories, and looking at documentaries and interviews, etc. Posted in the Epstein thread are links to stories and interviews with Giuffre explaining how she was abused at the age of seven by a family friend and later by a family member. She left home as a teenager and she eventually got a job working as a coat attendant at Mar-a-lago (Trumpster land -- young Virginia's father worked there on the golf course apparently). Ghislaine Maxwell noticed young Virginia and latched onto her, offering her training and work as a masseuse, which young, impressionable Virginia thought was a real job offer. And it went from there, if you will take the time to look at all of the news stories and at the recent BBC interview with Giuffre, which are posted in the Epstein thread:

Jeffrey Epstein's death by apparent suicide, conspiracy theories/investigations, and legal aftermath

This probably merits its own thread in PI... https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-dead-in-manhattan-correctional-center-reports ETA from Vox.com: Jeffrey Epstein is dead. His story isn’t over.
www.fsuniverse.net

The thing that is eye-opening and mind-blowing is exactly what turn-of-events prompted young Virginia to buck up the courage to try and escape Epstein's and Ghislaine's clutches. What happened which led to Virginia escaping and meeting her current husband and savior is so astounding, it seems like a movie, and will likely become one down the road. The other part of this is all the other young women's and young girls' stories of being abused by Epstein. The sheer volume and cruelty of Epstein's crimes is head-spinning, as are the enabling and the cover-ups.

I will suggest once again that the Jeffrey Epstein thread be merged with this one.
 
canbelto said:
... vulnerable to the mix of sex, drugs, and money
Click to expand...

I agree with your post, except that Epstein's and Ghislaine's main hook to lure these young girls (mostly from poor backgrounds) was not sex and drugs, it was money and false offers of work and training for a legitimate career. It can not be understated how Epstein's sex trafficking operation worked so easily and for so long because of so many people looking the other way, and/or actively enabling and engaging in cover-up activities (especially by powerful individuals and law-enforcement agencies).
 
Human trafficking is complicated including the fact some people willingly enter into situations for various reasons. If someone wants to have better understanding of some of the complexities in identifying the trafficked person, the very large economic reasons (we're talking billions of dollars) and the structural framework that supports the process, I suggest Noel Busch-Armendariz's book Human Traffacking: Applying research, theory, and case studies. Sage Publications
You can order the book from Amazon or Barnes Nobel.
 
rfisher said:
Human trafficking is complicated including the fact some people willingly enter into situations for various reasons. If someone wants to have better understanding of some of the complexities in identifying the trafficked person, the very large economic reasons (we're talking billions of dollars) and the structural framework that supports the process, I suggest Noel Busch-Armendariz's book Human Traffacking: Applying research, theory, and case studies. Sage Publications
You can order the book from Amazon or Barnes Nobel.
Click to expand...

Very true that it is complex and the reasons varied. It is also a difficult subject to read about.

i haven’t followed the whole story about Epstein but last night I read all about his background on Wikipedia. My eyes were crossing. What an ugly man. This went on for years.
 
His punishment is going to be not walking with the family at Christmas? And I thought that maybe he'd do the "honorable" thing and talk to investigators.
 
canbelto said:
His punishment is going to be not walking with the family at Christmas? And I thought that maybe he'd do the "honorable" thing and talk to investigators.
Click to expand...

When I read that I really hoped it was the way the reporter wrote it rather than Phillip and Charles thinking that was somehow “punishment.” The complète and total lack of empathy for what the victims have been through (regardless of whether or not Andrew was involved) is startling. That that sentence was written and got through and editor and was published. Wow.
 
mag said:
When I read that I really hoped it was the way the reporter wrote it rather than Phillip and Charles thinking that was somehow “punishment.” The complète and total lack of empathy for what the victims have been through (regardless of whether or not Andrew was involved) is startling. That that sentence was written and got through and editor and was published. Wow.
Click to expand...

What’s even more disturbing is that article has all the signs of being one of those things selectively leaked to royal reporters for some good PR. Like look at Philip, 98 and laying down the law. But if to them the worst “punishment” is not doing the Christmas church walk then ... I actually don’t have words for that.
 
The ET Canada piece is drawn from this article in The Telegraph, which says nothing about walking to church:

www.telegraph.co.uk

Prince Philip told Prince Andrew to 'take his punishment' after summoning his son to Sandringham

Disgraced Prince Andrew was forced to drive 140 miles to Sandringham for a showdown with Prince Charles - a week after a similar meeting with his father Prince Philip.
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

So what we have is unsourced speculation by a writer for ET Canada based on reading an article in The Telegraph, which in turn says, "The heir to the throne is understood to have had “strong words” with his brother on Monday" and "It is thought that Charles, 71, wanted to reinforce the Queen’s wish that Andrew step back from royal duties 'for the foreseeable future.'"

This is not serious journalism.

:blah:
 
Last edited:
Given that the first article also mentioned that Philip hates "trial by press", they probably just want to signal familial disapproval (given that Andrew is still presumed innocent), without looking like they believe Andrew guility of any specific criminal offense.
 
rfisher said:
Human trafficking is complicated including the fact some people willingly enter into situations for various reasons.
Click to expand...

Lured on false premises, such as you are going to be a dancer/work in the entertainment industry in the place we're taking you to. The girls/women that agree are often desperate.
 
I think Andrew clearly belongs in jail. But there's no reason to think his family has no empathy for the victims, especially by the words of some random article. They seem to be as horrified & disgusted as everyone else. But what punishment can his family do other bar him from the family? They are not law enforcement. Some families close ranks & act like their loved one is innocent. The RF is not doing that.
 
canbelto said:
@taf2002 this is your own words. You said at age 17 you were a virgin. You were lucky enough to be brought up in a safe supportive environment. But you can't imagine how other 17-year-olds are not brought up in those environments and would be vulnerable to the mix of sex, drugs, and money that Epstein used to lure girls to his "paradise islands" and mansions?

I honestly don't know how you can't understand this. Anyone who has ever worked in a school (in both rich and poor neighborhoods) has had to make that call to child protective services because we suspect sexual abuse going on at home, or that a parent (very often the mother) is actively pushing the daughter towards prostitution. So if you are still
"ignorant" to the "seamy" sides of life I think you just have purposely closed your eyes. I guarantee someone you know right now has been the victim of sexual abuse or is being sexually abused.
Click to expand...

She was asking a question to educate herself on the topic. Nothing wrong with that - it’s how we learn.
 
Vagabond said:
A lot of people belong in jail. Take my brother. Please!

The alleged events happened eighteen years ago, and I would expect that the statute of limitations has run.
Click to expand...
If that were true, the FBI wouldn't be investigating and want to talk to Andrew.

I believe for sex crimes against a minor, the statute of limitations are broader because it can take a while for a young person to both process what happened and have the courage to report it.
 
Vagabond said:
A lot of people belong in jail. Take my brother. Please!

The alleged events happened eighteen years ago, and I would expect that the statute of limitations has run.
Click to expand...
Where is this case to be adjudicated?

RAINN
irty-four states impose limits on when a rape case can be brought forward, ranging from 3 to 30 years after the assault. These statutes of limitations were created to ensure that evidence presented in trial has not deteriorated over time. But some crimes, such as murder or sexual abuse of a child, have been deemed too heinous to warrant any limitation. Several states have now extended that same protection to rape and sexual assault, too.

When states do pose a statue of limitations on rape cases, it varies based on the severity of the crime. Hawaii, for example, gives victims six years to prosecute charges for first-degree sexual assault but only three years for second- or third-degree. On the other end of the spectrum, the California State Assembly recently voted to repeal its 10-year limit on all felony sexual abuses. The bill still has to pass the Senate and governor before it becomes law.
Click to expand...
 
EDITED.

I was mistaken. I thought that there was only one alleged incident that had taken place in London. Apparently, there were three, including one in New York and on in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Please see Post #95 below.
 
Last edited:
You are confusing the age of consent with the statute of limitations. They are not the same thing. in many jurisdictions, if the victim of a sex crime is underage, the statute of limitations is longer. There are many different rules depending on the jurisdiction, the crime, etc. In some jurisdictions, the victim has X number of years after they turn 18 as an example. In others, it's even longer.

I don't know what the rules are in England but the FBI is investigating the case and wants to talk to Prince Andrew. Therefore, I wouldn't be too quick to assume that he has no possibility of legal troubles. We don't know what exactly the FBI wants to talk to him about. There may be other accusations of other crimes, for example. These crimes may have taken place in other places besides England.

IMO, as long as the investigation continues and he is of interest to the investigators, he could be in legal trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Sylvia
Allegations of abuse in Australian figure skating and related issues
2 3
Replies
68
Views
26K
deegee
D
LeafOnTheWind
Random curiosity question on Forum Statistics (not a priority issue)
Replies
1
Views
2K
SHARPIE
SHARPIE
Sylvia
Ice Shows in Europe 2024
Replies
13
Views
4K
YukiNieve
YukiNieve
Sylvia
Lorraine Hanlon Comanor: "I Was Supposed to Be on the 1961 Flight That Crashed, Killing the U.S. Skating Team"
Replies
1
Views
1K
AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)
AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)
canbelto
Bridgerton thread (with spoilers)
Replies
28
Views
5K
canbelto
canbelto
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information