Genuine wow, I can’t begin to imagine the level of dissociation it must take to bring everyone else down to one’s own level of cynicism and distrust

So if I (male) at 17 had gone to parties on a beautiful island where I had sex with the 40yo female billionaire island owner and kept going back week after week and was openly delighted when I got chosen from many to a trip to Europe with the billionaire you’d be thinking I was being abused?

So whether she was able to make properly informed choices as an adult due to her chaotic childhood is very much open for debate.

That’s a different issue, and doesn’t just apply to sex work.

I got a job doing heavy lifting in my summer holiday at uni. At the time I thought it was really cool and over six weeks I was properly six-packed up. (I may be exaggerating.)

Looking back though it terrifies me. I could have been hurt dropping something, I certainly put a big strain on my joints and back. I made a bad choice.

See also Tree surgeons – they always seem to retire in their 30s and 40s with knackered bodies. Professional boxers?

The law doesn’t protect us from our own bad decisions.

Andrew a victim? No chance.

As for zeitgeist, we’re talking about 1999 here. I’m the same age as Andrew as my mother liked to remind me. I was 39 in 1999 and wouldn’t have gone near Virginia Roberts whether 18 or 17. Because the zeitgeist was that you didn’t even if that was your thing unless you were looking for trouble. Andrew went looking for trouble and found it.

I got a job doing heavy lifting in my summer holiday at uni. At the time I thought it was really cool and over six weeks I was properly six-packed up.

Had you been in the care system?  had you had no decent adult role models?  Where you flattered and deceived into the job

I know you are only ( badly) making a point but a nasty streak of mysogeny and victim blaming has arrived in this thread

So if I (male) at 17 had gone to parties

If as that 17 year, you’d come from a abusive home, had been molested at 7, lived on the street for a while at 14, and been taken in by a 65 year old, who ran a “modelling agency” as a front for prostitution, money laundering and fraud. and you told me that you’re hooking up with a millionaire? Then yes, I would’ve thought that you’re probably being abused.

Apologies for not being a cynic.

Genuine wow, I can’t begin to imagine the level of dissociation it must take to bring everyone else down to one’s own level of cynicism and distrust, given what’s already in the public domain about this case.

Or a massive level of realism.

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.

@tjagain

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.