Forum menu
As for zeitgeist, we’re talking about 1999 here. I’m the same age as Andrew as my mother liked to remind me. I I was 39 in 1999 and wouldn’t have gone near Virginia Roberts whether 18 or 17.
Yet you assume he danced with her in public where he was likely to get papped and then had sex with her.
Surely what you're saying makes it *far* less likely.
mysogeny
It the opposite. If VR was a lad nobody would be talking about abuse.
What's mysogenistic(sp?) is assuming women always have to be the victim.
Or a massive level of realism.
Realism/reality is what Andrew is facing, Bazzer. You're the one in fantasy land.
Margaret got plenty of flak for dating Roddy Llewellyn, a 25-year-old because of the age difference. And there wasn't any doubt about the legality of seducing one's gardner.
. If VR was a lad nobody would be talking about abuse.
Incorrect. We have moved on from this view - even an old dinosaur like me. Read recent reports about female teachers abusing male pupils. its no longer the 1950s grandad 😉
If it was just consensual sex why would you go to the trouble of flying her over here from the US, there are hundreds of sex workers in London that could have done the job? There girls were groomed and controlled to provide a guaranteed discrete service to rich and famous clients by Maxwell, they were young, damaged and naive enough to be manipulated into servicing old men and to do it seemingly willingly. Text book trafficking.
Or a massive level of realism.
Given how much of her history is available on line for you to look at, and she's written an autobiography that goes into reasonable depths about her history, that none of the people in it have chosen thus far to dispute. She's either a victim of terrible abuse at the hands of infinitely older, educated people with vast taps of resource the depths of which that she can't begin to fathom, or at the centre of an elaborate scam to distract and bemuse a member of the royal family into paying out millions by means of a long fantastically plotted ruse.
That's where I think your version of "reality" can be handily placed.
I know you are only ( badly) making a point but a nasty streak of mysogeny and victim blaming has arrived in this thread
Has I totally knew that was coming, play the man instead of the ball.
Do you not think its nieve to think that there are not people out there who want to take advantage of a situation, you are quite happy to think that Andrew would take advantage of a situation but not Roberts.
This whole claim of victim blaming thing is a means to shut down the conversation. Its a modern way being too lazy to actually argue a point. If you can never question the other side then justice is dead.
This whole claim of victim blaming thing is a means to shut down the conversation
What conversation?
The possibility that a formally abused 17 yr plots a couple of decades long scam to wrestle millions in cash and sully the reputation of man formally known as "Handy Andy"?
That conversation?
Oh dear how does saying "i know you are only making a point" become "playing the man" its theexact opposite. By saying that I excuse the man but refute the point.
That’s where I think your version of “reality” can be handily placed.
Its not my reality, I am just putting an alternative argument. The main argument on here seems to be predicated on the fact she had no control over her actions and should not be responsible for them. This does seem to be the way people think these days, its always someone else's fault. Yeah she had a rough time and may have been looking for a way out. She got a way out, she had a fantastic time, had sex with people SHE DECIDED to have sex with, now thats everyone elses fault but hers.
or at the centre of an elaborate scam to distract and bemuse a member of the royal family into paying out millions by means of a long fantastically plotted ruse.
No just opportunism.
but a nasty streak of mysogeny and victim blaming has arrived in this thread
I was referring to that bit of your post when I mentioned playing the man.
Thats aimed at you and the thread in general as my post makes clear because thats what you are doing and it stinks. Quite honestly i am disgusted with what you have posted. its vile.
Has anyone seen any informed comment on why Andrews accuser wasn't a witness in the Maxwell case? Presumably a reason to keep the two very separate?
This whole claim of victim blaming thing is a means to shut down the conversation. Its a modern way being too lazy to actually argue a point.
We're addressing each point you make, knocking them down one by one. You now use block capitals to make a point for which you have no basis or proof.
All that we've seen so far says she was coerced into entering a room with a person about double her weight, considerably stronger, untouchable by law as far as she knew at the time and knew she was expected to have sex. Block capitals or not I suggest you're plain wrong. She was in no position to decide what happened in that room.
I am just putting an alternative argument
No. You're just speculating wildly. An argument is a carefully constructed series of reasoned statements setting out a version of events with facts that may be disputable or not. So if you've any of that, bring it on. If not make yourself familiar with the case.
had sex with people SHE DECIDED to have sex with
So the fact hat she's repeatedly stated in filed court documents that she didn't consent to sex is just her lying, right?
While I disagree with bazzer that the victim in this case may have been a willing victim, I think it's naive to think that there are never cases where someone might choose this kind of "lifestyle".
Everyone's personal morality is different. Once you are legally old enough to consent to sex, you may choose to do so in situations that the majority of people would not. An absolute "it could never happen" is unreasonable. It's easy to cry "victim blaming" and ignore that in a small minority of cases there genuinely is no victim.
And that doesn't excuse the behaviour of the men/women taking advantage of the situation.
Thats aimed at you and the thread in general as my post makes clear because thats what you are doing and it stinks. Quite honestly i am disgusted with what you have posted. its vile.
Well change my mind then? instead of just insulting me?
Are we not allowed to challenge the motives of people who make accusations against individuals? Is that victim blaiming?
Doing that is vile where starting a thread entitled "Prince Andrew, what a cowardly little ****" isn't ? He claims that he doesn't think he slept with her and we have to dismiss that out of hand based on what? His nick name "handy Andy"
What is truly vile is trial by media based on the fact people don't really like someone.
I honestly don't know what happened and neither does anyone on this thread, we don't know the motives or how damaged or not she is by all this or if she is perfectly happy and sees it as a pay check. What I do know is the majority of people have really closed views and are not at all curious about the subtleties and its the subtleties that define the morality of it all if not the legality.
We have entered an age where it is not acceptable to challenge certain claims and I find that pretty scary.
So the fact hat she’s repeatedly stated in filed court documents that she didn’t consent to sex is just her lying, right?
If there is evidence that she told Andrew that she didn't want to have sex with him and he disregarded that and went ahead, then I am the first one to nail him to the wall. Is there evidence of this?
Also have you heard of something called cognitive bias?
Of course there isn't evidence, there was no CCTV with sound (unless Epstein knows otherwise)
Also have you heard of something called cognitive bias?
You're demonstrating it perfectly.
Has anyone seen any informed comment on why Andrews accuser wasn’t a witness in the Maxwell case? Presumably a reason to keep the two very separate?
There's a lot of legal comment on 'lawtube', LegalMindset, Rekieta Law, Uncivil Law, Robert Gouveia for example. I can't link direct to anything specific.
From memory the logic could have been: VR trafficed 'Caroline' knowing 'Caroline' was underage and told 'Caroline' to lie about her age so she'd potentially be incriminating herself with her testimony and undermining the prosecution case. She's being sued by at least one of the other girls. Plus she's said a lot publicly, so she'd be easy to pick apart on inconsistencies.
Then you get her claim that:
"Epstein, for purposes of pleasure and blackmail, had also paid Giuffre to have sex with numerous high-profile individuals, including “prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister and other world leaders.”
As a witness she could have been asked about that. Can she really stand up that claim? Serving Presidents and that "prime minister" will have accounted for their time really tightly, yet she's not naming them. Looks bad on the stand.
Plus they had far more credible witnesses, and 4 was enough.
We have entered an age where it is not acceptable to challenge certain claims and I find that pretty scary.
For shame. No one is preventing Andrew from challenging in court her version of events - you'll note in fact; the extraordinary lengths he seems to want to go through not to do that.
You're essentially arguing that it's scary that people find her believable, whereas (god love him) Jive has put forward the idea that abuse like this has gone on for decades and decades. We used to live in an age where women like Virginia were routinely dismissed as hysterical or vengeful or just simply lying whores - the claim you yourself are making. All that's happened is that she's allowed to have her say in front of a judge and a jury.
sully the reputation of man formally known as “Handy Andy”?
His nickname was Randy Andy. (I suppose he could have had that one also, but it's a new one on me if so.)
she was coerced into entering a room with a person about double her weight, considerably stronger, untouchable by law as far as she knew at the time and knew she was expected to have sex. She was in no position to decide what happened in that room.
Her version:
"I led him into the upstairs bathroom.
"I was doing my best trying to put on a good show for him by slowly undressing and started to pour a bath.
"The room quickly filled with steam as I turned to Andrew and began to kiss his neck and undress him.
I bow to your superior knowledge of sex-based royal nicknames - I knew it was something like that, just couldn't put my finger on it
And i am saying thats utter nonsense given that the age of consent in the UK is 16. By your weird definitions most of us are guilty of having sex with children legally – its bonkers
No, it's a statement of fact. We've already done this and the evidence was provided. It's not my definition, it's what the law says. Why you and Cougar are triggered by it is not obvious to me.
She was a woman, biologically. (I think I actually said “young woman,” didn’t I?) It is possible I suppose that she hadn’t cleared puberty by the age of 17 but it’s highly unlikely.
What do you mean by "biologically"? The ability to have children? If so, we're potentially talking some ten year olds in that category. Do you say they're women?
You’re demonstrating it perfectly.
Not at all I am quite open to either Andrew knew exactly what was going on down to the coercion and everything and also open to the fact Roberts was a willing participant and gained massively out of it.
However I miss typed it, I meant cognitive dissonance with respect to evidence given.
People assume I have a point of view when the reality is my problem is with the way people assume the man, famous person, rich person is always in the wrong and are not prepared to consider the motivations of the parties involved.
Like you admitted there is not even any evidence that Andrew even slept with her yet everyone wants him hanged. This is the point that seems to be missed. We do have to understand there are potentially large sums of money at stake here and that can be a large motivator.
All that’s happened is that she’s allowed to have her say in front of a judge and a jury.
...and of all the people she could have sued she's picked someone who she has a selfie with and a bloke who her lawyer has a massive personal beef with.
The prime minister, the foreign presents, everyone else, she doesn't want her day in court with just those two.
No one is preventing Andrew from challenging in court her version of events – you’ll note in fact; the extraordinary lengths he seems to want to go through not to do that
If we're using reluctance to go to court as our measure then VR has been reluctant to go to court for 20 bloody years and for 99pc of the people she's accusing!
I have a point of view when the reality is my problem is with the way people assume the man, famous person, rich person is always in the wrong
While I agree that the title of thread is a bit provocative, there's no hinderance to people saying exactly what you've just proposed. But you have to be willing to suspend quite a bit of belief to hold the idea that given what is publicly known about this case, that the victims here are Maxwell, Epstein and Windsor.
And I don't think people do always assume it the rich and wealthy that are in the wrong. Look at Saville, for instance.
I've a reply to that, Outofbreath. However, this a public forum and I'm not sure how much of my personal experience I want to share, "I was doing my best trying to put on a good show" says coerced to me.
From the previous page,
But all of that really isn’t the issue here, it’s the trafficking and abuse of position issues that make it unacceptable.
Are we talking about "unacceptable" (ie, morally bankrupt) or illegal?
Andrew isn't being charged with trafficking, that was Epstein and Maxwell. As far as I can work out there is no legal concept "abuse of power," rather it's Abuse of Trust and applies in very specific circumstances (such as teacher/pupil relationships) which don't seem to be the case here. I could be wrong, I'm no lawyer, I'm just trying to understand and to separate out facts from distractions.
Again: the charges against Andrew is that he had sex with her against her will because she was scared of repercussions if she didn't. There's also a count of battery which it also explains as having non-consensual sex with her, which I don't fully understand unless they're using coy language to refer to a BDSM session. To be honest, it's not wholly clear to me either as why they're not calling it rape, unless that's a harder charge to get to stick?
Morally, yes of course, it's horrific from beginning to end. But people don't go to jail for being immoral. I guess it hinges on how much he knew about her situation, he could have been oblivious to the entire thing but given the sheer scale of Epstein's operation that seems vanishingly unlikely to me. Surely no-one is that naive by the age of 40?
So the fact hat she’s repeatedly stated in filed court documents that she didn’t consent to sex is just her lying, right?
Her words:
“I led him into the upstairs bathroom.
“I was doing my best trying to put on a good show for him by slowly undressing and started to pour a bath.
“The room quickly filled with steam as I turned to Andrew and began to kiss his neck and undress him.
If this really happened would PA have known she wasn't consenting?
....and that's assuming it actually happened which we'll never know.
But you have to be willing to suspend quite a bit of belief to hold the idea that given what is publicly known about this case, that the victims here are Maxwell, Epstein and Windsor.
Thing is I don't think there has to be a victim, whilst unsavoury it could just have been fun at the time for everyone involved. Retrospectively with a large dose of cognitive dissonance ( I meant dissonance not bias last time) who knows what she thinks now.
She had a shit childhood no doubt but that does not mean at the time she didn't enter into this willingly and felt happy. She may feel differently retrospectively.
I’ve a reply to that, Outofbreath. However, this a public forum and I’m not sure how much of my personal experience I want to share, “I was doing my best trying to put on a good show” says coerced to me.
double her weight, considerably stronger
And the hypothesis completely changes.
Basically you've decided your conclusion and even when the facts change dramatically, you adjust your hypothesis to support your original conclusion.
No way to reason with that.
Have a good day.
Thing is I don’t think there has to be a victim, whilst unsavoury it could just have been fun at the time for everyone involved
But she's said that it wasn't "fun for her at the time" repeatedly in court and in public. So, in order to make this claim, you've got to assume that that's a lie. So I'll return to the point I made when you joined the thread, You're assuming that she's just cynically trying to make a buck. That's she' splaying at being a victim, just for the pay-out.
What do you mean by “biologically”? The ability to have children? If so, we’re potentially talking some ten year olds in that category. Do you say they’re women?
You know Ranos, you could've saved me a hell of a lot of typing across multiple threads over the last couple of days if you just used google occasionally.
I don't know how often I can say the same thing in slightly different ways, this is getting tedious now. "Child" has a specific meaning in English law. Outside of that, it is ambiguous and potentially misleading. That is all.
But she’s said that it wasn’t “fun for her at the time” repeatedly in court and in public
When has she said it in court?
But she’s said that it wasn’t “fun for her at the time” repeatedly in court and in public. So, in order to make this claim, you’ve got to assume that that’s a lie.
Did she say that to Andrew if they did in fact have sex? If she did and then again nail him to the wall.
You’re assuming that she’s just cynically trying to make a buck. That’s she’ splaying at being a victim, just for the pay-out.
I am assuming nothing, I am saying its possible. Are you assuming it's impossible?
I am assuming nothing, I am saying its possible. Are you assuming it’s impossible?
You can create any number of alternate possibilities. Given that Maxwell's and Epstein's sex trafficking of young women and girls in order to satisfy themselves is now public knowledge through the courts, and one of those women is undoubtedly Giuffre; neither of us have to assume anything.
Edit: In order to say what you've said, you got to make the assumption that although Epstein and Maxwell clearly did what they did, and were guilty, that uniquely amongst all their countless victims, Giuffre was aware, complicit, and manipulative enough to wait decades to miss her chance at a criminal case, in order to go therough the trauma of a civil case...just for the pay out..
Like I said, that level of disassociation is weird.
You can create any number of alternate possibilities. Given that Maxwell’s and Epstein’s sex trafficking of young women and girls in order to satisfy themselves is now public knowledge through the courts, and one of those women is undoubtedly Giuffre; neither of us have to assume anything.
You are though, you are assuming she actually had sex with Prince Andrew and that it was in some way illegal. You are assuming that Prince Andrew knew she was illegally brought to the UK. You are assuming she made it clear to him that she didn't want sex with him and he ignored it.
If you are not assuming that and can point to some evidence other than she's said so 20years later, when he's equally saying he didn't 20 years later then I am all ears.
You know Ranos, you could’ve saved me a hell of a lot of typing across multiple threads over the last couple of days if you just used google occasionally.
I'm not clear on what claim you're making or what evidence you're relying on. It's up to you to clarify and substantiate, not me.
I don’t know how often I can say the same thing in slightly different ways, this is getting tedious now. “Child” has a specific meaning in English law. Outside of that, it is ambiguous and potentially misleading. That is all.
No, "child" has different meanings depending on the context. In this context, you were using it incorrectly.
Are we talking about “unacceptable” (ie, morally bankrupt) or illegal?
I don't think something has the illegal for you to be sued (INAL - and the US is weird so who knows). Clearly if I do commit a crime against you I might have a civil liability for the damage too, but I can be sued for damages if I flood a neighbours house, no crime has been committed but my actions, or inactions have caused a loss to someone else and the civil courts will look to remedy that. I can't see a fundamental reason why if I participate in a legal but sleezy scheme which causes damage to someone else who wasn't a fully willing participant in that scheme (and it is of course for the court to determine that), that I shouldn't be liable to remedy that damage. (In the US they also have the concept of punitive damages which goes beyond just making good the damage, and with Juries able to set damages can result in figures far beyond we would see in the UK).
Again: the charges against Andrew is that he had sex with her against her will because she was scared of repercussions if she didn’t. There’s also a count of battery which it also explains as having non-consensual sex with her, which I don’t fully understand unless they’re using coy language to refer to a BDSM session.
I don't think he's charged with anything (unless the US use that term differently to here). The wording from the court papers is: "Prince Andrew committed sexual assault and battery upon Plaintiff when she was 17 years old. As such, Prince Andrew is responsible for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to New York common law. The damage to Plaintiff has been severe and lasting.". I wouldn't infer much about the battery wording - its lawyer speak for doing it repeatedly, it doesn't mean there was significant violence involved.
To be honest, it’s not wholly clear to me either as why they’re not calling it rape, unless that’s a harder charge to get to stick?
There may be many reasons, once you start labelling it with specific offences like that you run into different legal definitions and e.g. in the UK would require some evidence of penetration, arguments about reasonably inferred consent etc.
Morally, yes of course, it’s horrific from beginning to end. But people don’t go to jail for being immoral.
And Andrew can't go to jail for a civil case either.
I guess it hinges on how much he knew about her situation, he could have been oblivious to the entire thing but given the sheer scale of Epstein’s operation that seems vanishingly unlikely to me.
To some extent, the case should probably hinge around the question of his intent to cause distress. However his outright denials that he even met her would somewhat undermine his credibility if the Jury accept that he did, so make it hard to turn to a "something happened, but I meant no harm" line. In fact I suspect she may even argue that those denials continue to cause her distress!
Surely no-one is that naive by the age of 40?
Smart lawyers might even have tried to argue that as a Prince he is incredibly naive and other people normally shield him from the horrors and risks in the world to an extent normally people don't experience!
PS. I'm all for the man being allowed to test the case in court, and to attempt the arguments before the case gets that far that the case is not valid; I'm astounded at some of the comments here from people who seem to suggest that if her allegations are all (or even mostly) accurate that Andrew might have done nothing wrong?
Poly - I think some of the more confusedfolk on here are forgetting several importnat factors
Its a civil case not criminal
Its US law notUK
civil standard of proof is lower
for what its worth I do not see Andrew as committing a crime in the UK. However thats not the question here
Morally Andrew is contemptible
Literally the first two google hits are a dictionary definition and the Wikipedia entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child#Biological,_legal_and_social_definitions
If you read the next section it answers another of your questions too.
Which context?
for what its worth I do not see Andrew as committing a crime in the UK. However thats not the question here
Possibly if he knew she'd been trafficked?
Morally Andrew is contemptible
Think we're all agreed on that.
I can be sued for damages if I flood a neighbours house, no crime has been committed but my actions, or inactions have caused a loss to someone else and the civil courts will look to remedy that.
That's a good point actually, I hadn't thought of that. There is, presumably, some legalise somewhere which defines this or sets precedence? I don't know how that works.
I don’t think he’s charged with anything (unless the US use that term differently to here).
The wording was mine, if it's incorrect than I apologise, as I said I'm still trying to work all this out.
And Andrew can’t go to jail for a civil case either.
Again, I didn't know that. Thanks.
Smart lawyers might even have tried to argue that as a Prince he is incredibly naive and other people normally shield him from the horrors and risks in the world to an extent normally people don’t experience!
I was going with "it's a bad idea when cousins marry" but that works too. 😁