Empathy for Our Queen? ( As a Mother)

You seem to have difficulty separating infidelity and sxtda-marital sex with consenting adult women (not right, of course), from trafficking under age girls and consorting with a convicted paedophile, trisher.

Extra-marital

Callistemon I have no difficulty separating any of those things. I do know that historically there are stories told about Edward V11 and his predilections although these are of course difficult to prove. But I think there are enough to make them at least considerable. Naturally if there were such allegations amongst other members of the RF it would be equally as difficult to prove. Srill there is a huge posibility that actually all PA has done is be stupid enough to be found out.
But I do accept that those who regard the RF as 'special' might not want to see any of the dark things which have always been part of the world of power and money.

trisher you need to accept there are ‘dark things’ in all walks of life , castles, manor houses, country villages, council estates,
terraced houses.

I do Anniebach the problem is that some think the RF are different

The difference being of ourse that they are less likely to be found out (or have been)

anniebach It isn't "because of one photograph". It is because he was known to be a friend of Epstein's and had visited him in various locations during that friendship - and even after Epstein had been convicted of a sexual crime. He had also been photographed inside the door of one of Epstein's residences where young women were coming and going.

It is alleged that he had sex with an under age girl who had been groomed into an alleged sexual services network run by Epstein. Surely, that requires police investigation or, because he is part of the royal family, do you feel he should not submit to official questions about issues surrounding the alleged network and the allegations made against him?

I certainly do not think he should avoid questioning , but I do
question why one man should hold the answers, he couldn’t have been the only man involved given the number of woman who were willing to give evidence .

A photograph of him with an arm around a girl , a photograph of him waving to Ms Keating, a photograph of him in a public place with Epstein. Why no other photographs taken over the years of other men.

No one said he was the only one wanted for questioning. Maybe they have already questioned the others. The more evidence they have the stronger their case. Why stop at 6 witnesses when you could have 7? Just linear logic, to me.

As to why we're only seeing photos of Andrew it's probably because the newspapers know that there is more shock value when it's a royal and they'll sell more papers with his face than with others we might not have heard of

anniebach

There are many articles and photographs of people, other than Andrew, strongly linked to Epstein

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/10/jeffrey-epstein-trump-clinton-friends
www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/jeffrey-epstein-political-connections-sex-trafficker-856642/donald-trump-5-856643/

The emphasis in the US is on people like Trump, Clinton and other well known public figures.

In this country the emphasis is on Andrew because he is part of the royal family, which is funded by the general public and which is - inexplicably since their conduct throughout the centuries has never, in my opinion, been at all exemplary or respectful of its "subjects - held in high esteem by many people.

In America the woman and her lawyer seemed to need Andrew to give a statement, surely they have many statements
from fellow Americans. How the royal family are funded has nothing to do with the Americans.

Anniebach, if the lady is telling the truth - which she might be - and Andrew did cause Epstein to supply her as a service, and she was also underage for the location where it took place, then he definitely is eligible for questioning by police. In fact even if she's not telling the truth, it's still up to the police to question him to find out. They can hardly just elbow her out of the way.

I agree ReadyMeals , I do wonder why she is concentrating on Andrew, there were many men .

We do not know is she was under age, we know she met him in
London , there is the photograph, if they did have sex she was not under age then.

I am not defending Andrew but question why among the many men she had sex with she seems to only be naming him

I don't know if she was intending to concentrate on Andrew, but since it is British newspapers and British television channel interviewing her, that's probably the side of her experiences they're researching and asking about. If they don't ask about the other men who were abusing her we're not likely to get a chance to hear what she thinks about them or is planning to do about them. We may find out more on the 2nd if the interviewer is not too focused on Andrew

ReadyMeals the interviews with her lawyer were televised in America. One on a street with many reporters .

I think the interview on the 2nd will be mostly about Andrew.

Are the Americans allegedly involved being protected ?

The DM tracked her down a couple of years ago. She told their reporter she wanted to remain out of the spotlight. She also confirmed that PA was one of the men Epstein trafficked her to. The DM recently confirmed this in a leader article, in which they said they hadn't reported on PA's alleged involvement at that time. The paper did after his recent Newsnight interview

And maybe she was reserved for Andrew. Could you imagine the embarrassment of finding out that one of your girls gave him a STD?

She wasn’t ‘reserved’, she said she had sex with Epstein and many men.

She was trafficked like many of Epstein's other 'girls'. From age 12 for some of them, 14, 15 and 16 for others.

Yes, so not ‘reserved’ .

I am in no way excusing Andrew, if guilty he should be sentenced the same as any other man.

I do question her reasons for keeping a photograph of a man who allegedly raped her several times, and the fact that she
names him but no others, she may have done so in statements
but it is one name she keeps speaking of in interviews,

It seems its the main name she's questioned about at the current time. Watch this space I'd say. As you've said Anniebach, PA isn't the only man involved with Epstein and his trafficking of children and young people.

Yes, but it’s odd there is never any reporting of her and her
lawyer naming an American. A famous American would be named in the British press.

And there was the young girl who gave a press interview the day after Andrew’s interview, she said Epstein had asked her to
go to his island where she would meet Andrew, she had not
spoken before.

Am listening to an audio book this week, Camilla gives much support to women who have been raped, she has even visited
other countries and is a patron of some.

She didn’t attend Eugenie’s wedding, had an engagement !

Anniebach are you sure you don't mean "unfair" rather than "odd"? It's certainly unfair but it doesn't seem odd at all since we know newspapers and the broadcast media do like to focus on the more prurient and shocking. They know their readers and viewers are likely to be more fascinated by the idea of a member of the previously stuffy upright royal family getting into this sort of trouble than some other unheard of rich person doing the same thing, so that's what they keep talking to her about and reporting.

No ReadyMeals I mean odd. I agree the British press are concentrating on Andrew but both girls and the lawyer gave press interviews in America and didn’t mention one American.

And the second girl known as Jane Doe came forward the day
after Andrews interview.