As an aside from the question of Prince Andrew’s guilt or innocence in the case of Virginia Guiffre, I have never seen explained in any article exactly how she was “trafficked”, or what methods of coercion were used to force her to have sex with Andrew and others. Was she a drug addict whose drugs were withheld by Epstein if she didn’t cooperate? Was she threatened with physical violence? Was she locked away without any way to contact the outside world and get help? And where were her parents when she was being flown around the world by Epstein?
As Virginia was under-aged but not a child, she would have been old enough to run away from Epstein/Maxwell unless some extraordinary methods of restraint were used against her. Perhaps this will come out in the lawsuit, but it is curious that this question is never addressed in any articles about Epstein and his cohorts.
I agree with you. More questions need to be asked of her because at that age I had left home and was starting to make my way in the world. And most girls of that age are sexually active. I have no love for Andrew, but something is decidedly strange about this woman’s protestations. More information please.
I believe she was groomed into pr*stitution by Maxwell and Epstein, which is illegal in the UK. Adults cannot engage with under 18’s in sex**l activity in exchange for money or gifts. That is considered child sex**l exploitation.
I agree. In a recent News item, she started to say that Prince Andrew had not responded to a letter from her lawyer asking for recompense. She was stopped mid-sentence by someone at her side but it would seem that it was this that led to the filing of the law suit. Is that not blackmail? Give me money (no doubt a considerable sum) or I’ll blacken your name.
I also wonder how the Californian agency that was used by Epstein came to register her as a “hostess” when she was under age, as this would have put their licence in jeopardy..
The point was well made that she certainly didn’t look her age and certainly seemed a happy and willing participant. Should men demand to see someone’s identity document before posing in a photograph with them? The very same country that doesn’t require an ID to vote? This is lunacy.
A few years ago my husband inadvertently balked at holding onto a child of 4 when a friend suddenly put the child in front of him on the camel he was starting to ride. I ascertained afterwards that he does not want to touch a child or in fact have anything to do with them. Can’t blame him.
The photo was offered as evidence that they had met, something he had denied. Her accusation is of a more serious nature than posing for a photo. Her willingness to participate in her exploitation is irrelevant, she was too young to consent to it, if, indeed, it occurred.
Just as women are advised to take precautions, so must men. So yes, if in doubt, ask for ID before you seal the deal, as it were.
I didn’t make the law, I just state it as it’s stands in regards to exploitation. Our young people need protecting, even from themselves.
…I heartedly agree with your last sentence but notwithstanding, why are many young people seemingly able to leap onto this newest trans bandwagon without let or hindrance? – nay, in some high profile instances, downright encouragement!
By targeting vulnerable young people, groomers don’t necessarily need drugs to control their victims, they bring them in with cash payments and in the case of Maxwell and Epstein, promises of jobs and training and connections were apparently made. Threats apparently followed later. There are documentaries with their victims speaking out and their testimonies are far more compelling and believable than the interview given by Prince Andrew. Being young and naive isn’t a crime, having s*x with someone under 18 in exchange for money/goods/services is, because it’s exploitation.
Recently one of the Rochdale grooming gang members spoke out whilst fighting deportation to say that what he did wasn’t that big of a crime. Reading some of the comments on here, I see where he got that impression.
I’m sure the difference in response in these comments to Epstein/Maxwell/Windsor behaviour compared to Rochdale Cab Driver behaviour couldn’t possibly be related to the race/religion/class of the perpetrators.
17 year old girl is recruited to have sex with rich and glamorous men,while leading a life of luxury. There have always been such young ladies, and in this case she is supposed to have been recruited by her older sister, with the complicity of her mother. I think 17 is old enough to know that high class prostitution is just that. The age thing is an absurdity. Paedophiles want sex with pre- pubescents, not fully formed young women five years past puberty. Marriage with girls just past puberty is the reality for most of the planet’s population.
It doesn’t matter whether you think its absurd or not. The law is the law is it not? The law in regards to child s*xual exploitation is 18 not 16 so if you choose to engage in these activities, whether you believe it or not. The law, as it stands puts you in the company of paedophiles. The lesson to be taken away from this is do not engage in s*xual activities with anyone under 18, just in case.
Age of consent in the U.K. is 16. In the United States it varies according to the States. In New York it is 17 and in Florida 18. Guess, Where ever P.Andrew had his first (sex)encounter with the girl has yet to be found out. But as somebody mentioned before, not many journalists want to investigate
She wasn’t recruited through her mother. Virginia Guiffre came from a troubled background and was molested when she was very young. Predators are very good at spotting vulnerable girls, and even better, nice people are quick to victim blame and call them ‘runaways’ or ‘teenage prostitutes.’ Many of Epstein’s other victims were ‘recruited’ from a modelling agency called ‘Perfect 10’ run by a Ron Eppinger. It was a front to ensure a steady stream of young girls.
It’s entirely plausible that Andrew was naive in believing that she actually wanted relations with him, I suspect Epstein will have groomed Andrew too. I highly doubt Andrew would’ve paid her cash, Epstein will have used Andrew for his connections and used her to get them. That doesn’t make her responsible, which many on here like to think. Parents can also be groomed. Those who were ultimately responsible were Epstein and Maxwell. Prince Andrew doesn’t help himself though, by avoiding speaking to the FBI and that awful interview he gave in defence of himself. Have no doubt though, the young girls were victims and not to blame for their predicament.
The law in regards to child s*xual exploitation is 18 not 16 in the UK, herein lies the difference. It’s not simply a case of consensual s*x, if payment was made in one form or another. IF he engaged in relations with her then his defence really lies in whether or not he knew she was being paid for services rendered. She is a victim though as she could not consent to being pimped out by Epstein.
To me the whole tale of how she was recruited by Epstein from Trumps Mar a Lago resort stinks.
In one document, the transcript of Giuffre’s deposition, she describes how Maxwell brought her and her father from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club, where they both worked, to the Epstein mansion, gaining their trust
She was working as a massage therapist at the time and you can’t help but wonder whether she and her father were complicit when Epstein recruited them.
Her father may have been complicit, however, due to her age, she could never consent to being pimped out by Epstein! In Florida, she couldn’t legally consent to s*x at all! Stop looking to blame a minor for her exploitation! Seriously!
The documentary on Netflix features women who openly admit that without any coercion, just the promise of money, procured teenaged girls for Epstein to sleep with but classify themselves as victims as well. It makes no sense at all.
I believe they saw themselves as victims because they themselves were still in school at the time and he used them to introduce their friends to him. Yes they were paid, but were they old enough to really understand the gravity of their actions? They now have to live with the knowledge that they sold their friends into child prostitution.
possibly. As I have never sold anyone into prostitution, I personally cannot say exactly what is going through their mind. I would speculate that when dealing with their own guilt, there will have been people who pointed out that as they were children at the time, they were not responsible, that as they were being manipulated by Epstein and Maxwell, that they were in facts victims too.
That’s something that has also crossed my mind. I wonder what evidence there is to prove that she was trafficked or otherwise coerced.
She could just as easily have been a naive starstruck youngster who was led to believe she would break into Hollywood by servicing the rich and famous. But wouldn’t the penny have dropped sooner rather than later?
I will be very interested to see what she brings to court.
Cheryl Jones
1 year ago
This girl was SEVENTEEN not 12. In the UK that is above the age of consent and there is no sense Andrew is going for ‘a child’ in the way that a paedophile would. Maybe he did shag her or maybe he didn’t. The fact is there is no evidence that could prove it either way, and no evidence that could prove intent to sleep with an underage girl or knowledge she was underage (underage in America anyway) or that she was being trafficked, which also isn’t proven. The photo proves nothing. So he met her at a party and posed for a picture with her, so what? Famous guys get that kind of request all the time. I have a picture like that of me with a few celebrities, it doesn’t mean anything. She doesn’t look scared or unhappy either. I also notice that as someone who claims to have been trafficked to multiple rich famous men that Andrew is the only one she has named. Why?
I’m not a royalist and I’m no fan of Andrew but if I look objectively this is a very thin story and, unless there is some bombshell of evidence we haven’t seen, would be very hard to prove in a court after so much time. But it is very good for filling column inches and a great way to have a dig at the ‘white supremacist’ monarchy. And call me cynical but this woman seems to be enjoying talking about her oppression a bit too much and gaining a bit too much financially for me to assume she’s doing this entirely for justice and victims of abuse. Party girls (the ladettes) were a thing in the 90s and considered themselves edgy and uber feminist, drinking and shagging like guys. Tara PT, Amanda De Cadenet, Zoe Ball, and others. It *was* a different time and people were less puritanical and a lot more hedonistic than they seem to be today. Randy Andy was considered a good looking royal playboy and I’m sure had plenty of action. Rock stars never much cared if the groupie was 20 or 16 if they looked like a woman and didn’t seem to have much of a problem chasing after them. Doesn’t make them paedophiles or rapists just dogs who take it when it’s on a plate. Icky? Sure. Illegal? Prove it.
In 1982, I was at a charity dinner in London. Jimmy Savile was the main celebrity and an 18 year old girl wanted a picture with the Great Man. She cuddled up to the old paedo (he was about 56 at the time) and I took their picture using her camera. I wonder if she still has that image. At the time, I thought nothing of it. Even if that photo was published today, it is not proof of sexual relations between them.
At 18, you’re old enough to consent, even to being exploited, in the eyes of the law. Virginia Guiffre was 17 and in the eyes of the law it makes a difference in regards to CSE. Your point has no point in this debate.
J Bryant
1 year ago
“The taint of connection with Epstein spilled out, with Prince Andrew alongside Bill Gates and the former CEO of Victoria’s Secret in the list of those whose reputations have turned to dirt.”
So far as I can tell, Bill Gates is untainted by his alleged association with Epstein or, for that matter, by his now public affair that led to his divorce. In fact I saw him on TV only last week advising the world on how to combat the coronavirus (since when did he become a physician/virologist?).
I’m not suggesting Epstein’s actions were acceptable but, as always with public opinion, there seems to be a double standard. Out-of-favor royals will be held to account but Saint Bill will not, partly, I suspect, because of his deep connections with the liberal media.
Gates has been a nasty, evil little pxxxx from Day 1. His former Microsoft partner claimed, believably, that Gates was able to bully and defraud him out of part of his Microsoft ownership, and then two decades later, we had the unedifying spectacle of Gates behaving like the hooligan he is in court when Microsoft was being sued for unfair business practices, then successfully buying the American Government in order to reverse the ruling against him. I wouldn’t trust Gates an inch, let alone as far as I could throw him. He’s the personification of evil, not a saint.
I am no fan of Prince Andrew but I find this article particularly unpleasant for several reasons, but the main one is that it assumes guilt. That is just plain wicked. Virginia Guiffre has been caught out in so many lies I really do not think that she can be automatically believed.
Personally I think that the last thing she – and her lawyers – would want is to be cross-examined and this is precisely why she has picked on Prince Andrew, and him alone, of all the men she claims Esptein “loaned” her to. Did the others not “abuse” her as well? She and her advisors are assuming that the RF will settle out of court, enriching them and “proving” Prince Andrew’s guilt. I think – hope – that they are whistling in the wind and no such thing happens.
I suspect Andrew is targeted for 2 reasons. One; he denied ever meeting her, but she has photos and claims that he was lying about that. We do not know if she has photos to prove she met the others. Two; I think he is an ideal Patsy to deflect from more powerful accusees. He is no Bill Gates or Bill Clinton.
Sadly Prince Andrew is his own worst enemy in this case. He should never have given the interview, it was a car crash.
She has produced one, highly suspect, photo. The RF’s lawyers have asked the FBI more than once for it to be released for independent verification. All requests have been refused. His friends claim that the hands of the man in the photo are not his. if you have ever seen a photo of his hands you would understand why.
Then there is her story about how the photo was taken – she claims that Epstein took it with her camera. Does anyone seriously believe that a control freak like Epstein would allow someone like her to have a photo like that in her camera? Pull the other one. Then, she claimed that it was “in a box of papers” that she gave to a journalist who was writing her story, that she had “forgotten that she had it” and that was how it came into the public domain. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
By the way, neither she nor the author of this article seems to know that the name of the nightclub is “Tramp” and not “Tramps”. I would suggest that neither of them have ever been there, with or without Prince Andrew.
She has produced one, highly suspect, photo. The RF’s lawyers have asked the FBI more than once for it to be released for independent verification. All requests have been refused. His friends claim that the hands of the man in the photo are not his. if you have ever seen a photo of his hands you would understand why.
Then there is her story about how the photo was taken – she claims that Epstein took it with her camera. Does anyone seriously believe that a control freak like Epstein would allow someone like her to have a photo like that in her camera? Pull the other one. Then, she claimed that it was “in a box of papers” that she gave to a journalist who was writing her story, that she had “forgotten that she had it” and that was how it came into the public domain. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
By the way, neither she nor the author of this article seems to know that the name of the nightclub is “Tramp” and not “Tramps”. I would suggest that neither of them have ever been there, with or without Prince Andrew.
You are right though, they desperately need a high profile perpetrator, preferably not an American one, so Prince Andrew is ideal. That doesn’t make him guilty of anything other than being high profile.
I think you’ll find I have said “we don’t know the depth of his complicity” and that as it hasn’t gone through a court of law then he hasn’t been proven innocent. I agree it also doesn’t mean he is guilty. He could simply be a bit of idiot who didn’t take his family’s advice to keep his mouth shut which in turn has made him a useful idiot to those who want take advantage of the situation and, of course, its no crime to be an idiot.
I also believe it’s plausible that he himself is also a victim of Epstein and Maxwell. I did say this in response to someone earlier but their post was removed and mine with it.
No, you still have it wrong.
As he hasn’t been through a court, he is innocent. The court Ms Giuffre would like to take him to is not a criminal court so it cannot determine that he is guilty. Regardless of any outcome there he is innocent.
If there is evidence of his guilt the FBI should charge him criminally. They will not.
I think you might remember someone you met and slept with though 🙂 That is exactly what he said in the infamous interview – that he would – and he got criticised for that too! What was he supposed to say – I’ve slept with women who were so unimportant that I don’t remember them so why should I remember her?
JR Stoker
1 year ago
We continue to progress our splendid modernisation of our legal system. This prince has not been found guilty of anything in any old fashioned court of law, but thank goodness we have bitter and derogatory journalism to do the job instead. Ditto Ms Maxwell.
How about we wait until the outcome of a trial before expressing an opinion? And even then, let’s have something intelligent and thoughtful rather than this load of vindictive spite.
He hasn’t been found guilty in a court of law because the charges were filed in the USA and he refused to go and speak to the FBI, that doesn’t make him innocent.
Pointing out the obvious, it doesn’t make him guilty either. He offered to speak to them in the UK; it is not clear why this was not pursued by the American authorities as it is a perfectly normal process. Given what is happening to Ms Maxwell and has happened to other persons the justice departments in the USA wish to talk to on various matters (Dr Mike Lynch is another carefully avoiding conversations on American soil) his lawyer doubtless advised him very strongly against accepted any invitation to go there!
…they aren’t actually interested in talking to him, unless they enjoy the potential electoral benefit of his having to do the “Perp Walk” in NY, NY and in the presence of the US Press…
…let’s bear in mind that all the key legal officials here are politicians first and foremost, and it’s a career-maker even for the FBI types because of the cross-over between elected officials and appointed “civil servants” at this level in the US system…
Nor does it make him guilty. Nor were there any charges (a term usually reserved for those accused of a criminal offence). The court in question was a civil court where any aggrieved claimant can use it to extort money. For that reason there are few attempts to extort money from poor people.
JR Stoker
1 year ago
What’s the point of Sarah Ditum?
Anybody could write this nasty mud slinging, at least Prince Andrew served in the RN in a war, and did something to promote British exports
Giles Chance
1 year ago
Prince Andrew is a low-IQ, over-indulged favourite of his mother who carries on the long tradition of stupid, badly-behaved British royal princes in an age (unluckily for him) when bad royal behaviour is not regarded sympathetically as an expression of “character” but very unsympathetically, as a symptom of decline , corruption and imminent termination.
I’d be interested to know what his A-Level grades were.
I believe the stupidest Royal is Harry, who only did two A-Levels of which one, Art, was non-academic anyway. He got a D in the other, Geography, which along with Biology is traditionally sat by thickoes such as William, who did Geography, Art and Biology.
Prince Charles is also pretty thick; he also could only manage two A-Levels, History and French. Edward and Anne both did English, History and Politics. I don’t know her grades but his CDD result makes him one of the worst qualified people to get into Cambridge, resulting in this contemporary protest: http://www.curls.org.uk/retarded-eddie/eddie.jpg
He supposedly has IQ advisers, so why did he make things worse by doing the interview? Charles and Diana set a trend for disastrous interviews so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Harry has now joined in the fun.
Andrew, like his father, is also a war veteran who put his life on the line to protect his comrades. Few others in the modern world have done that.
R S Foster
1 year ago
…I make no comment on the substance of this unappetising series of events because I do not think enough of the facts are in the public domain to do so on the basis of reason as opposed to prejudice.
However I would ask the writer and others taking a censorious view…bearing in mind the age of consent in the UK is 16 unless you are “In a position of trust”…a teacher, youth worker or some such (ie not just someone who is well-known or better-off than the 16-year old in question)…
…at what age can a young woman consent to have sex with someone older than her, and for what reason? would a young man be able to consent at the same age? does it matter if you are consenting to somebody of your own sex, or another one? Is there an “acceptable” age or wealth difference, and how is it to be policed? Perhaps young people should simply remain chaste until a marriage approved by their parents?
I’d also be interested if they think that relevant age should be older or younger than the one at which the same young person could legitimately be offered irreversible and life-changing surgery and a permanent drug-dependency in order to get a body which approximates one of the other sex?
Perfectly serious questions, which do not expect either the writer or any of the other commenters to offer an answer to…
Child sexual exploitation (CSE) is a type of sexual abuse. When a child or young person is exploited they’re given things, like gifts, drugs, money, status and affection, in exchange for performing sexual activities. … They may trust their abuser and not understand that they’re being abused. CSE laws protect young people up to the age of 18. I think policing sex laws can be really difficult especially in regards to horny young teens but because they’re naive we do need something in place to protect young people from predators, and their own naivety, to a certain degree. There is though, a big difference between a couple of kids experimenting with their sexuality and a middle aged person promising the world in exchange services rendered. Personally I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of children being offered irreversible life changing surgeries to get a new body. It concerns me greatly how many parents are keen to encourage this. Not sure how successful society would be enforcing the idea of young people remaining chaste until a parental approved marriage, in all honesty.
…I’m aware of some law in respect of CSE…I’m just far from certain that on the basis of the evidence in the public domain, one could have any confidence that an offence had been committed under Sections of 47/50 of the 2003 Act, certainly without a criminal trial (which there hasn’t been, as yet)…nor that anyone who spent time with the young women in Epstein’s entourage could not reasonably believe they were over 18…and I’m not familiar with any subsequent legislation…is there any?
My point is that in these matters, however horrible it might look…that clearly doesn’t make it an offence in law…and I’m far from sure there is anything like enough evidence in the public domain even to take a view as to how horrible it might or might not have looked at the time…and indeed that WHEN the age of consent is 16 and IF young women are allowed to exercise that consent unconstrained…which clearly they are, at least in law…it is extremely unjust to take a view on anybody’s private conduct, absent a full-scale criminal trial, and a guilty verdict, to the effect that money or other inducements were known to have changed hands, and that the recipient of any favours offered knew they had and could not reasonably believe that the person offering those favours was over 18.
Absolutely clarity on all these facts matters…
Last edited 1 year ago by R S Foster
Andrew Crisp
1 year ago
In Denmark the age of consent is 15 years old, so this wouldn’t have been “a case” here. But putting legality aside, it is the moral duty of a mature adult towards the gullible and exploitable, even if willing, to not lead them into degrading themselves by using them as a sexual plaything.
Michelle Johnston
1 year ago
Whilst everyone here knows the law and the technical nature of the transgression there is I think in many of the comments a weariness and a wariness with the victim narrative.
To what extent is someone at 17 capable of making a judgement about what is ‘best’ for them at that moment in time and then many years later regretting the consequences of that decision.
Is an inducement always coercion?
Is an introduction always trafficking?
And to what extent if the person in question was unhappy with her initial decision and its consequences was she unable to reverse out and leave. This seems to have gone on for several years was she effectively a prisoner? No she became involved with her husband and never returned to the US.
Indeed much of the two half year period she worked and shuttled between places she was of course 18.
That does not exonerate anyone but a good deal more context is required and indeed if we find out that at 17 she saw this as an opportunity that to can help people who pass down the same road and make them aware they may profoundly regret earlier decisions.
Andrew really is not important in this, the behaviour of young woman their motivations and their inability to see the multiplicity of seductions in what they are being offered and their dangers is.That is quite separate from the arguments of accountability and we already know what part of his anatomy Andrew uses as a compass. The Law can decide on his punishment but that is the least important element for society as a whole.
I think it can be argued that not everyone here knows the law in regards to Child s*x exploitation which is why they keep saying that being over 16 she was able to consent and I keep pointing out that in this situation the age of consent in the UK is 18 because services were apparently rendered. She claims she was groomed into prostitution when she was under the age of consent. This implies Epstein and co broke the law and she was a victim. The law says that if true, she was a victim. The decisions she made once turning 18 are irrelevant because the law states she is old enough to live with those decisions which is why the case is focused on the actions of a 17 year old and those who apparently exploited her.
But no-one has proved she was trafficked at all so your point is moot. You can’t prove they had sex, that he knew she was only 17 or that she was an unwilling trafficked victim of Epstein. Right now it’s just her word against Andrew’s about something 20 years ago. You are looking at this through the lens of an emotional SJW raging against the patriarchy and you’ve already decided he’s guilty, she’s telling the absolute truth and the press don’t have their own agenda. My advice to you is to remember the principle of innocent until proven guilty and try to be a little bit more objective.
I’m actually just pointing out the law that states in cases of child sexual exploitation the legal age of consent is 18 not 16. I’m not the person who is implying that she is a lying little sl*g, which is what many are doing on here. There are many heinous miscarriages of justice that have happened in this country because the victims were seen as silly little girls who shouldn’t be believed. It’s another factor that helps predators target them. Epstein pleaded guilty to the charge of engaging with a minor in child prostitution, but no lets ignore that and focus on discrediting his victims. I also don’t see how any of this has anything to do with the patriarchy? I haven’t decided Prince Andrew as guilty, Epstein on the other hand…
I agree with that. My issue with the whole thing is the shocking lack of evidence and how it is being lapped up and weaponised by the media. Andrew being a spoilt rich dumbass doesn’t mean he is guilty or shouldn’t get due process of the law like everyone else rather than trial by media and the ridiculous assertion that women always tell the truth, don’t use sex as leverage and are incapable of lying or greed.
yes I assume it would, not sure what that has to do with CSE though. Whilst I’m sure there are many feminists that might argue that marriage is exploitive of women, I would wholly disagree. Personally I think 16 is too young to get married but I don’t make the laws.
D Ward
1 year ago
Interesting to read this after having read Ayaan HirsinAli’s article in today’s UnHerd about child marriage being legal in the US.
Of course most royal families are the products of female ancestors who probably averaged about age thirteen at the time of initial conception … has human nature changed in 1200 years? Unlikely. That being said, as a third child, Prince Andrew was probably not encouraged to think deeply about things. If public sentiment had not moved the goalposts during his lifetime he probably would have been OK. Ms Giuffre has not been an innocent for a long time. The kindest way to describe her career has been that she managed to widen her circle of friends while increasing her standard of living along with it.
Girls/women actively seek out older men with higher social status (more power) so why are you horrified by the image of a 40 year old with a 17 year old ? Is it a left wing distaste for royalty , or a lesbian distaste for men ?
Iris C
1 year ago
Is that really a photo of Prince Andrew? Nothing like him, and his face in the original photo which was alleged to be him, looked like a cut-out to me..
Prince Andrew stepped back from his royal duties because of his unwise friendship with Epstein but the prominent Americans who also enjoyed the same hospitality were not obliged to do so because they were not hounded by THEIR press.
Prince Andrew was accused of sexual assault for ONE REASON – he was alleged to have had sex with an under-age hostess who has been sexually active for several years prior to that – 17 being under-age in the USA
Clearly the author of this article would not allow women to have authority over their own bodies
.
Jonathan Story
1 year ago
Buckingham Palace has made a major gaff in settling out of court. Andrew is endilibly smeared. He said he would protest his innocence; he has bent to media winds. Once again, the MSM have a future victim. This time, its the UK cionstitution. Well done; cowards all.
Julie Kemp
1 year ago
Some very pertinent comments below. ‘Dumbass’ and ‘spoilt’ sure resonates, but so does having more information in readiness for legal argument.
Alan Osband
1 year ago
He provides copy for lesser woke feminists to earn a buck
Peter Lee
1 year ago
They need a job. Prince Harry was sane whilst he was in the military.
Prince Andrew should have done the same thing.
Alan Thorpe
1 year ago
I’m surprised that The Queen didn’t suddenly remember something to help him out as she did with Burell.
Ron Wigley
1 year ago
Have to say following a reread, Lindsay Snoman wins all of these exchanges, vindicated by events and settlements, congratulations Lindsay you have the heart and mind to protect the young who are not yet fully developed.
Vijay Kant
1 year ago
What’s the point of the Queen? The royalty only legitimises and preserve the British class system. This class system only denigrates the working class, the most economically productive members of the society, and extols the upper class, the most economically unproductive members of the society. Do we really need such an economically irrational society in the 21st century?
You are right, of course, but I think the class system is so deeply ingrained that the demise of the royals would not damage it much.
Heike Kleschautzky
1 year ago
I think this a very good article with a wide angle view.
Am absolutely shocked about the hideous misogyny displayed in the comments.
Is this who Unherd subscribers really are?
As an aside from the question of Prince Andrew’s guilt or innocence in the case of Virginia Guiffre, I have never seen explained in any article exactly how she was “trafficked”, or what methods of coercion were used to force her to have sex with Andrew and others. Was she a drug addict whose drugs were withheld by Epstein if she didn’t cooperate? Was she threatened with physical violence? Was she locked away without any way to contact the outside world and get help? And where were her parents when she was being flown around the world by Epstein?
As Virginia was under-aged but not a child, she would have been old enough to run away from Epstein/Maxwell unless some extraordinary methods of restraint were used against her. Perhaps this will come out in the lawsuit, but it is curious that this question is never addressed in any articles about Epstein and his cohorts.
I agree with you. More questions need to be asked of her because at that age I had left home and was starting to make my way in the world. And most girls of that age are sexually active. I have no love for Andrew, but something is decidedly strange about this woman’s protestations. More information please.
I totally agree with you. I am very suspicious of her motivations and she certainly looks like a young adult.
I believe she was groomed into pr*stitution by Maxwell and Epstein, which is illegal in the UK. Adults cannot engage with under 18’s in sex**l activity in exchange for money or gifts. That is considered child sex**l exploitation.
On her own admission she was “on the game” from her very early teens. So whoever groomed her into prostitution it wasn’t Epstein and Maxwell.
oh well that makes it alright then! (That was sarcasm btw) as long as they weren’t her first pimps!
That is not what I said so don’t put words into my mouth. All I am saying is that his was no ingenue for him to corrupt when she met Epstein.
I agree. In a recent News item, she started to say that Prince Andrew had not responded to a letter from her lawyer asking for recompense. She was stopped mid-sentence by someone at her side but it would seem that it was this that led to the filing of the law suit. Is that not blackmail? Give me money (no doubt a considerable sum) or I’ll blacken your name.
I also wonder how the Californian agency that was used by Epstein came to register her as a “hostess” when she was under age, as this would have put their licence in jeopardy..
If all the letters that her lawyers have sent have been asking for money no wonder none of them have been answered! Of course it is blackmail.
She was an extortionist. In any society ruled by law she would have been prosecuted.
Agreed, but the rules of normalcy don’t apply in the morally corrupt USA
The point was well made that she certainly didn’t look her age and certainly seemed a happy and willing participant. Should men demand to see someone’s identity document before posing in a photograph with them? The very same country that doesn’t require an ID to vote? This is lunacy.
A few years ago my husband inadvertently balked at holding onto a child of 4 when a friend suddenly put the child in front of him on the camel he was starting to ride. I ascertained afterwards that he does not want to touch a child or in fact have anything to do with them. Can’t blame him.
The photo was offered as evidence that they had met, something he had denied. Her accusation is of a more serious nature than posing for a photo. Her willingness to participate in her exploitation is irrelevant, she was too young to consent to it, if, indeed, it occurred.
Just as women are advised to take precautions, so must men. So yes, if in doubt, ask for ID before you seal the deal, as it were.
I didn’t make the law, I just state it as it’s stands in regards to exploitation. Our young people need protecting, even from themselves.
…I heartedly agree with your last sentence but notwithstanding, why are many young people seemingly able to leap onto this newest trans bandwagon without let or hindrance? – nay, in some high profile instances, downright encouragement!
By targeting vulnerable young people, groomers don’t necessarily need drugs to control their victims, they bring them in with cash payments and in the case of Maxwell and Epstein, promises of jobs and training and connections were apparently made. Threats apparently followed later. There are documentaries with their victims speaking out and their testimonies are far more compelling and believable than the interview given by Prince Andrew. Being young and naive isn’t a crime, having s*x with someone under 18 in exchange for money/goods/services is, because it’s exploitation.
Recently one of the Rochdale grooming gang members spoke out whilst fighting deportation to say that what he did wasn’t that big of a crime. Reading some of the comments on here, I see where he got that impression.
I’m sure the difference in response in these comments to Epstein/Maxwell/Windsor behaviour compared to Rochdale Cab Driver behaviour couldn’t possibly be related to the race/religion/class of the perpetrators.
17 year old girl is recruited to have sex with rich and glamorous men,while leading a life of luxury. There have always been such young ladies, and in this case she is supposed to have been recruited by her older sister, with the complicity of her mother. I think 17 is old enough to know that high class prostitution is just that. The age thing is an absurdity. Paedophiles want sex with pre- pubescents, not fully formed young women five years past puberty. Marriage with girls just past puberty is the reality for most of the planet’s population.
It doesn’t matter whether you think its absurd or not. The law is the law is it not? The law in regards to child s*xual exploitation is 18 not 16 so if you choose to engage in these activities, whether you believe it or not. The law, as it stands puts you in the company of paedophiles. The lesson to be taken away from this is do not engage in s*xual activities with anyone under 18, just in case.
Not quite . A Girl of 17 in the Uk is free to have sex.
Age of consent in the U.K. is 16. In the United States it varies according to the States. In New York it is 17 and in Florida 18. Guess, Where ever P.Andrew had his first (sex)encounter with the girl has yet to be found out. But as somebody mentioned before, not many journalists want to investigate
She wasn’t recruited through her mother. Virginia Guiffre came from a troubled background and was molested when she was very young. Predators are very good at spotting vulnerable girls, and even better, nice people are quick to victim blame and call them ‘runaways’ or ‘teenage prostitutes.’ Many of Epstein’s other victims were ‘recruited’ from a modelling agency called ‘Perfect 10’ run by a Ron Eppinger. It was a front to ensure a steady stream of young girls.
It’s entirely plausible that Andrew was naive in believing that she actually wanted relations with him, I suspect Epstein will have groomed Andrew too. I highly doubt Andrew would’ve paid her cash, Epstein will have used Andrew for his connections and used her to get them. That doesn’t make her responsible, which many on here like to think. Parents can also be groomed. Those who were ultimately responsible were Epstein and Maxwell. Prince Andrew doesn’t help himself though, by avoiding speaking to the FBI and that awful interview he gave in defence of himself. Have no doubt though, the young girls were victims and not to blame for their predicament.
Weren’t the girls in Rochdale a lot younger? weren’t they well under the age of consent which is 16 in this country?
The law in regards to child s*xual exploitation is 18 not 16 in the UK, herein lies the difference. It’s not simply a case of consensual s*x, if payment was made in one form or another. IF he engaged in relations with her then his defence really lies in whether or not he knew she was being paid for services rendered. She is a victim though as she could not consent to being pimped out by Epstein.
To me the whole tale of how she was recruited by Epstein from Trumps Mar a Lago resort stinks.
She was working as a massage therapist at the time and you can’t help but wonder whether she and her father were complicit when Epstein recruited them.
Her father may have been complicit, however, due to her age, she could never consent to being pimped out by Epstein! In Florida, she couldn’t legally consent to s*x at all! Stop looking to blame a minor for her exploitation! Seriously!
He would given his name went down as one of the men who enjoyed their company too.
The documentary on Netflix features women who openly admit that without any coercion, just the promise of money, procured teenaged girls for Epstein to sleep with but classify themselves as victims as well. It makes no sense at all.
I believe they saw themselves as victims because they themselves were still in school at the time and he used them to introduce their friends to him. Yes they were paid, but were they old enough to really understand the gravity of their actions? They now have to live with the knowledge that they sold their friends into child prostitution.
They seem to see themselves as victims NOW because the victim narrative SELLS.
possibly. As I have never sold anyone into prostitution, I personally cannot say exactly what is going through their mind. I would speculate that when dealing with their own guilt, there will have been people who pointed out that as they were children at the time, they were not responsible, that as they were being manipulated by Epstein and Maxwell, that they were in facts victims too.
Of course he bloody has!
That’s something that has also crossed my mind. I wonder what evidence there is to prove that she was trafficked or otherwise coerced.
She could just as easily have been a naive starstruck youngster who was led to believe she would break into Hollywood by servicing the rich and famous. But wouldn’t the penny have dropped sooner rather than later?
I will be very interested to see what she brings to court.
This girl was SEVENTEEN not 12. In the UK that is above the age of consent and there is no sense Andrew is going for ‘a child’ in the way that a paedophile would. Maybe he did shag her or maybe he didn’t. The fact is there is no evidence that could prove it either way, and no evidence that could prove intent to sleep with an underage girl or knowledge she was underage (underage in America anyway) or that she was being trafficked, which also isn’t proven. The photo proves nothing. So he met her at a party and posed for a picture with her, so what? Famous guys get that kind of request all the time. I have a picture like that of me with a few celebrities, it doesn’t mean anything. She doesn’t look scared or unhappy either. I also notice that as someone who claims to have been trafficked to multiple rich famous men that Andrew is the only one she has named. Why?
I’m not a royalist and I’m no fan of Andrew but if I look objectively this is a very thin story and, unless there is some bombshell of evidence we haven’t seen, would be very hard to prove in a court after so much time. But it is very good for filling column inches and a great way to have a dig at the ‘white supremacist’ monarchy. And call me cynical but this woman seems to be enjoying talking about her oppression a bit too much and gaining a bit too much financially for me to assume she’s doing this entirely for justice and victims of abuse. Party girls (the ladettes) were a thing in the 90s and considered themselves edgy and uber feminist, drinking and shagging like guys. Tara PT, Amanda De Cadenet, Zoe Ball, and others. It *was* a different time and people were less puritanical and a lot more hedonistic than they seem to be today. Randy Andy was considered a good looking royal playboy and I’m sure had plenty of action. Rock stars never much cared if the groupie was 20 or 16 if they looked like a woman and didn’t seem to have much of a problem chasing after them. Doesn’t make them paedophiles or rapists just dogs who take it when it’s on a plate. Icky? Sure. Illegal? Prove it.
In 1982, I was at a charity dinner in London. Jimmy Savile was the main celebrity and an 18 year old girl wanted a picture with the Great Man. She cuddled up to the old paedo (he was about 56 at the time) and I took their picture using her camera. I wonder if she still has that image. At the time, I thought nothing of it. Even if that photo was published today, it is not proof of sexual relations between them.
At 18, you’re old enough to consent, even to being exploited, in the eyes of the law. Virginia Guiffre was 17 and in the eyes of the law it makes a difference in regards to CSE. Your point has no point in this debate.
“The taint of connection with Epstein spilled out, with Prince Andrew alongside Bill Gates and the former CEO of Victoria’s Secret in the list of those whose reputations have turned to dirt.”
So far as I can tell, Bill Gates is untainted by his alleged association with Epstein or, for that matter, by his now public affair that led to his divorce. In fact I saw him on TV only last week advising the world on how to combat the coronavirus (since when did he become a physician/virologist?).
I’m not suggesting Epstein’s actions were acceptable but, as always with public opinion, there seems to be a double standard. Out-of-favor royals will be held to account but Saint Bill will not, partly, I suspect, because of his deep connections with the liberal media.
Gates has been a nasty, evil little pxxxx from Day 1. His former Microsoft partner claimed, believably, that Gates was able to bully and defraud him out of part of his Microsoft ownership, and then two decades later, we had the unedifying spectacle of Gates behaving like the hooligan he is in court when Microsoft was being sued for unfair business practices, then successfully buying the American Government in order to reverse the ruling against him. I wouldn’t trust Gates an inch, let alone as far as I could throw him. He’s the personification of evil, not a saint.
I want to see the film of all this shenanigans to knock the halo off Mr Gates head
The Clintons seem to be getting yet another free pass by the left also
Don’t they just.
I am no fan of Prince Andrew but I find this article particularly unpleasant for several reasons, but the main one is that it assumes guilt. That is just plain wicked. Virginia Guiffre has been caught out in so many lies I really do not think that she can be automatically believed.
Personally I think that the last thing she – and her lawyers – would want is to be cross-examined and this is precisely why she has picked on Prince Andrew, and him alone, of all the men she claims Esptein “loaned” her to. Did the others not “abuse” her as well? She and her advisors are assuming that the RF will settle out of court, enriching them and “proving” Prince Andrew’s guilt. I think – hope – that they are whistling in the wind and no such thing happens.
I suspect Andrew is targeted for 2 reasons. One; he denied ever meeting her, but she has photos and claims that he was lying about that. We do not know if she has photos to prove she met the others. Two; I think he is an ideal Patsy to deflect from more powerful accusees. He is no Bill Gates or Bill Clinton.
Sadly Prince Andrew is his own worst enemy in this case. He should never have given the interview, it was a car crash.
She has produced one, highly suspect, photo. The RF’s lawyers have asked the FBI more than once for it to be released for independent verification. All requests have been refused. His friends claim that the hands of the man in the photo are not his. if you have ever seen a photo of his hands you would understand why.
Then there is her story about how the photo was taken – she claims that Epstein took it with her camera. Does anyone seriously believe that a control freak like Epstein would allow someone like her to have a photo like that in her camera? Pull the other one. Then, she claimed that it was “in a box of papers” that she gave to a journalist who was writing her story, that she had “forgotten that she had it” and that was how it came into the public domain. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
By the way, neither she nor the author of this article seems to know that the name of the nightclub is “Tramp” and not “Tramps”. I would suggest that neither of them have ever been there, with or without Prince Andrew.
She has produced one, highly suspect, photo. The RF’s lawyers have asked the FBI more than once for it to be released for independent verification. All requests have been refused. His friends claim that the hands of the man in the photo are not his. if you have ever seen a photo of his hands you would understand why.
Then there is her story about how the photo was taken – she claims that Epstein took it with her camera. Does anyone seriously believe that a control freak like Epstein would allow someone like her to have a photo like that in her camera? Pull the other one. Then, she claimed that it was “in a box of papers” that she gave to a journalist who was writing her story, that she had “forgotten that she had it” and that was how it came into the public domain. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
By the way, neither she nor the author of this article seems to know that the name of the nightclub is “Tramp” and not “Tramps”. I would suggest that neither of them have ever been there, with or without Prince Andrew.
You are right though, they desperately need a high profile perpetrator, preferably not an American one, so Prince Andrew is ideal. That doesn’t make him guilty of anything other than being high profile.
I think you’ll find I have said “we don’t know the depth of his complicity” and that as it hasn’t gone through a court of law then he hasn’t been proven innocent. I agree it also doesn’t mean he is guilty. He could simply be a bit of idiot who didn’t take his family’s advice to keep his mouth shut which in turn has made him a useful idiot to those who want take advantage of the situation and, of course, its no crime to be an idiot.
I also believe it’s plausible that he himself is also a victim of Epstein and Maxwell. I did say this in response to someone earlier but their post was removed and mine with it.
Courts don’t prove people innocent.
very true, His guilt hasn’t been proven nor has it been disproven. All we have is accusations and speculations.
Courts don’t disprove guilt.
No, you still have it wrong.
As he hasn’t been through a court, he is innocent. The court Ms Giuffre would like to take him to is not a criminal court so it cannot determine that he is guilty. Regardless of any outcome there he is innocent.
If there is evidence of his guilt the FBI should charge him criminally. They will not.
Can’t you tell us?
Yes, he has very short, stubby fingers, thick close to the hand and thinner at the tip, a bit like a pyramid. So does Prince Charles.
I have pictures of me meeting people I don’t remember too. 20 years is a long fricking time
I think you might remember someone you met and slept with though 🙂 That is exactly what he said in the infamous interview – that he would – and he got criticised for that too! What was he supposed to say – I’ve slept with women who were so unimportant that I don’t remember them so why should I remember her?
We continue to progress our splendid modernisation of our legal system. This prince has not been found guilty of anything in any old fashioned court of law, but thank goodness we have bitter and derogatory journalism to do the job instead. Ditto Ms Maxwell.
How about we wait until the outcome of a trial before expressing an opinion? And even then, let’s have something intelligent and thoughtful rather than this load of vindictive spite.
He hasn’t been found guilty in a court of law because the charges were filed in the USA and he refused to go and speak to the FBI, that doesn’t make him innocent.
No charges have ever been filed against him by the FBI. This is the first and it is a civil suit and not a criminal one.
Doesn’t make him guilty either
Pointing out the obvious, it doesn’t make him guilty either. He offered to speak to them in the UK; it is not clear why this was not pursued by the American authorities as it is a perfectly normal process. Given what is happening to Ms Maxwell and has happened to other persons the justice departments in the USA wish to talk to on various matters (Dr Mike Lynch is another carefully avoiding conversations on American soil) his lawyer doubtless advised him very strongly against accepted any invitation to go there!
…they aren’t actually interested in talking to him, unless they enjoy the potential electoral benefit of his having to do the “Perp Walk” in NY, NY and in the presence of the US Press…
…let’s bear in mind that all the key legal officials here are politicians first and foremost, and it’s a career-maker even for the FBI types because of the cross-over between elected officials and appointed “civil servants” at this level in the US system…
Nor does it make him guilty. Nor were there any charges (a term usually reserved for those accused of a criminal offence). The court in question was a civil court where any aggrieved claimant can use it to extort money. For that reason there are few attempts to extort money from poor people.
What’s the point of Sarah Ditum?
Anybody could write this nasty mud slinging, at least Prince Andrew served in the RN in a war, and did something to promote British exports
Prince Andrew is a low-IQ, over-indulged favourite of his mother who carries on the long tradition of stupid, badly-behaved British royal princes in an age (unluckily for him) when bad royal behaviour is not regarded sympathetically as an expression of “character” but very unsympathetically, as a symptom of decline , corruption and imminent termination.
I’d be interested to know what his A-Level grades were.
I believe the stupidest Royal is Harry, who only did two A-Levels of which one, Art, was non-academic anyway. He got a D in the other, Geography, which along with Biology is traditionally sat by thickoes such as William, who did Geography, Art and Biology.
Prince Charles is also pretty thick; he also could only manage two A-Levels, History and French. Edward and Anne both did English, History and Politics. I don’t know her grades but his CDD result makes him one of the worst qualified people to get into Cambridge, resulting in this contemporary protest:
http://www.curls.org.uk/retarded-eddie/eddie.jpg
When you are rich, famous, and well-connected you don’t really need qualifications. University just becomes a rite of passage.
He supposedly has IQ advisers, so why did he make things worse by doing the interview? Charles and Diana set a trend for disastrous interviews so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Harry has now joined in the fun.
Andrew, like his father, is also a war veteran who put his life on the line to protect his comrades. Few others in the modern world have done that.
…I make no comment on the substance of this unappetising series of events because I do not think enough of the facts are in the public domain to do so on the basis of reason as opposed to prejudice.
However I would ask the writer and others taking a censorious view…bearing in mind the age of consent in the UK is 16 unless you are “In a position of trust”…a teacher, youth worker or some such (ie not just someone who is well-known or better-off than the 16-year old in question)…
…at what age can a young woman consent to have sex with someone older than her, and for what reason? would a young man be able to consent at the same age? does it matter if you are consenting to somebody of your own sex, or another one? Is there an “acceptable” age or wealth difference, and how is it to be policed? Perhaps young people should simply remain chaste until a marriage approved by their parents?
I’d also be interested if they think that relevant age should be older or younger than the one at which the same young person could legitimately be offered irreversible and life-changing surgery and a permanent drug-dependency in order to get a body which approximates one of the other sex?
Perfectly serious questions, which do not expect either the writer or any of the other commenters to offer an answer to…
Child sexual exploitation (CSE) is a type of sexual abuse. When a child or young person is exploited they’re given things, like gifts, drugs, money, status and affection, in exchange for performing sexual activities. … They may trust their abuser and not understand that they’re being abused.
CSE laws protect young people up to the age of 18.
I think policing sex laws can be really difficult especially in regards to horny young teens but because they’re naive we do need something in place to protect young people from predators, and their own naivety, to a certain degree. There is though, a big difference between a couple of kids experimenting with their sexuality and a middle aged person promising the world in exchange services rendered.
Personally I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of children being offered irreversible life changing surgeries to get a new body. It concerns me greatly how many parents are keen to encourage this.
Not sure how successful society would be enforcing the idea of young people remaining chaste until a parental approved marriage, in all honesty.
…I’m aware of some law in respect of CSE…I’m just far from certain that on the basis of the evidence in the public domain, one could have any confidence that an offence had been committed under Sections of 47/50 of the 2003 Act, certainly without a criminal trial (which there hasn’t been, as yet)…nor that anyone who spent time with the young women in Epstein’s entourage could not reasonably believe they were over 18…and I’m not familiar with any subsequent legislation…is there any?
My point is that in these matters, however horrible it might look…that clearly doesn’t make it an offence in law…and I’m far from sure there is anything like enough evidence in the public domain even to take a view as to how horrible it might or might not have looked at the time…and indeed that WHEN the age of consent is 16 and IF young women are allowed to exercise that consent unconstrained…which clearly they are, at least in law…it is extremely unjust to take a view on anybody’s private conduct, absent a full-scale criminal trial, and a guilty verdict, to the effect that money or other inducements were known to have changed hands, and that the recipient of any favours offered knew they had and could not reasonably believe that the person offering those favours was over 18.
Absolutely clarity on all these facts matters…
In Denmark the age of consent is 15 years old, so this wouldn’t have been “a case” here. But putting legality aside, it is the moral duty of a mature adult towards the gullible and exploitable, even if willing, to not lead them into degrading themselves by using them as a sexual plaything.
Whilst everyone here knows the law and the technical nature of the transgression there is I think in many of the comments a weariness and a wariness with the victim narrative.
To what extent is someone at 17 capable of making a judgement about what is ‘best’ for them at that moment in time and then many years later regretting the consequences of that decision.
Is an inducement always coercion?
Is an introduction always trafficking?
And to what extent if the person in question was unhappy with her initial decision and its consequences was she unable to reverse out and leave. This seems to have gone on for several years was she effectively a prisoner? No she became involved with her husband and never returned to the US.
Indeed much of the two half year period she worked and shuttled between places she was of course 18.
That does not exonerate anyone but a good deal more context is required and indeed if we find out that at 17 she saw this as an opportunity that to can help people who pass down the same road and make them aware they may profoundly regret earlier decisions.
Andrew really is not important in this, the behaviour of young woman their motivations and their inability to see the multiplicity of seductions in what they are being offered and their dangers is.That is quite separate from the arguments of accountability and we already know what part of his anatomy Andrew uses as a compass. The Law can decide on his punishment but that is the least important element for society as a whole.
I think it can be argued that not everyone here knows the law in regards to Child s*x exploitation which is why they keep saying that being over 16 she was able to consent and I keep pointing out that in this situation the age of consent in the UK is 18 because services were apparently rendered. She claims she was groomed into prostitution when she was under the age of consent. This implies Epstein and co broke the law and she was a victim. The law says that if true, she was a victim. The decisions she made once turning 18 are irrelevant because the law states she is old enough to live with those decisions which is why the case is focused on the actions of a 17 year old and those who apparently exploited her.
But no-one has proved she was trafficked at all so your point is moot. You can’t prove they had sex, that he knew she was only 17 or that she was an unwilling trafficked victim of Epstein. Right now it’s just her word against Andrew’s about something 20 years ago. You are looking at this through the lens of an emotional SJW raging against the patriarchy and you’ve already decided he’s guilty, she’s telling the absolute truth and the press don’t have their own agenda. My advice to you is to remember the principle of innocent until proven guilty and try to be a little bit more objective.
I’m actually just pointing out the law that states in cases of child sexual exploitation the legal age of consent is 18 not 16. I’m not the person who is implying that she is a lying little sl*g, which is what many are doing on here. There are many heinous miscarriages of justice that have happened in this country because the victims were seen as silly little girls who shouldn’t be believed. It’s another factor that helps predators target them. Epstein pleaded guilty to the charge of engaging with a minor in child prostitution, but no lets ignore that and focus on discrediting his victims. I also don’t see how any of this has anything to do with the patriarchy? I haven’t decided Prince Andrew as guilty, Epstein on the other hand…
I agree with that. My issue with the whole thing is the shocking lack of evidence and how it is being lapped up and weaponised by the media. Andrew being a spoilt rich dumbass doesn’t mean he is guilty or shouldn’t get due process of the law like everyone else rather than trial by media and the ridiculous assertion that women always tell the truth, don’t use sex as leverage and are incapable of lying or greed.
I think the lesson middle aged men need to take from this is, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
You can marry in Scotland at 16. One assumes sexual relations would follow..
yes I assume it would, not sure what that has to do with CSE though. Whilst I’m sure there are many feminists that might argue that marriage is exploitive of women, I would wholly disagree. Personally I think 16 is too young to get married but I don’t make the laws.
Interesting to read this after having read Ayaan HirsinAli’s article in today’s UnHerd about child marriage being legal in the US.
I think the age of consent varies from state to state
It’s all very complicated… can public figures please stop referring to 14 year olds as “young women “.
14 year olds *are* young women. They are physically mature but not emotionally or legally mature.
Of course most royal families are the products of female ancestors who probably averaged about age thirteen at the time of initial conception … has human nature changed in 1200 years? Unlikely. That being said, as a third child, Prince Andrew was probably not encouraged to think deeply about things. If public sentiment had not moved the goalposts during his lifetime he probably would have been OK. Ms Giuffre has not been an innocent for a long time. The kindest way to describe her career has been that she managed to widen her circle of friends while increasing her standard of living along with it.
Cheryl, i like many of your comments but have some doubt about a 14yo being a primigravida.
What did he do before withdrawing form public duties?
f**k knows
Girls/women actively seek out older men with higher social status (more power) so why are you horrified by the image of a 40 year old with a 17 year old ? Is it a left wing distaste for royalty , or a lesbian distaste for men ?
Is that really a photo of Prince Andrew? Nothing like him, and his face in the original photo which was alleged to be him, looked like a cut-out to me..
Prince Andrew stepped back from his royal duties because of his unwise friendship with Epstein but the prominent Americans who also enjoyed the same hospitality were not obliged to do so because they were not hounded by THEIR press.
Prince Andrew was accused of sexual assault for ONE REASON – he was alleged to have had sex with an under-age hostess who has been sexually active for several years prior to that – 17 being under-age in the USA
Clearly the author of this article would not allow women to have authority over their own bodies
.
Buckingham Palace has made a major gaff in settling out of court. Andrew is endilibly smeared. He said he would protest his innocence; he has bent to media winds. Once again, the MSM have a future victim. This time, its the UK cionstitution. Well done; cowards all.
Some very pertinent comments below. ‘Dumbass’ and ‘spoilt’ sure resonates, but so does having more information in readiness for legal argument.
He provides copy for lesser woke feminists to earn a buck
They need a job. Prince Harry was sane whilst he was in the military.
Prince Andrew should have done the same thing.
I’m surprised that The Queen didn’t suddenly remember something to help him out as she did with Burell.
Have to say following a reread, Lindsay Snoman wins all of these exchanges, vindicated by events and settlements, congratulations Lindsay you have the heart and mind to protect the young who are not yet fully developed.
What’s the point of the Queen? The royalty only legitimises and preserve the British class system. This class system only denigrates the working class, the most economically productive members of the society, and extols the upper class, the most economically unproductive members of the society. Do we really need such an economically irrational society in the 21st century?
You are right, of course, but I think the class system is so deeply ingrained that the demise of the royals would not damage it much.
I think this a very good article with a wide angle view.
Am absolutely shocked about the hideous misogyny displayed in the comments.
Is this who Unherd subscribers really are?