Poor baby - run home to mummy!

Casdon

Mandy Rice Davies never considered herself a victim which is the material point. She was one very clever lady actually.

So if you survive abuse and prosper was it not abuse?
I have no doubt she was clever, clever girls can still be abused. I like her description of her life after the trial "a slow descent into respectability".
But back to Andrew. So why haven't his security team supported his assertions that he wasn't at the party with VG?

Was she abused ? And her father a police officer

I suggest you listen to this trisher, a perspective on MRD’s life. You have projected your views on her experiences, but she didn’t consider herself a victim. She was a very interesting woman though, and led a very colourful life.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-30545458

Casdon I know about MRD and her life. Does the fact that she didn't consider herself abused mean that we should change the legal age of consent and make it 14 for some girls? Is it only abuse if the girl thinks it is?

That’s not relevant is it, she was not 14? When people make sweeping statements that imply exploitation of an individual I always think have they done their homework on that person, and to be honest you hadn’t in this case or you wouldn’t have used her as an example. The fact that she didn’t consider herself abused means just that in this particular case, not as a generalisation about all.

casdon I think she is relevant, her relationships with rich powerful men happened at parties which Stephen Ward arranged. The same sort of parties Epstein arranged. Both men finished up dead in prison having apparently committed suicide. There are rumours of the RF being involved in both things. Yet they are still considered honourable.

It’s like any situation though isn’t it trisher, some are victims and some aren’t. I’m not condoning the way men exploit young women at all, but some young women are nobody’s fool, know exactly what’s happening and use it to their advantage whilst maintaining their own integrity and sense of self worth. MRD was one of those.

Two minor corrections:

Petera for the purposes of sexual offences committed against children, a child is a person under 16.

trisher Stephen Ward did commit suicide, but not in jail.

Absolutely agree with your posts Casdon.

So are we to say that it is OK for powerful men to have relationships with girls under the age of 18 because some of them will be OK and survive? It seems to me that if we consider teachers shouldn't have relationships with pupils even after 16 we should also look at relationships between powerful men and 16-18 year olds. Undue influence applies in both cases.

I apologise about Stephen Ward he did die at home in Chelsea. The question of his suicide remains though. And the fact that an appeal could not be registered because some of the trial notes were missing and that the file on the case is locked until 2046. Which makes you wonder about the RF involvement.
Any idea that this is just Andrew is doubtful, the family isn't the shining light it pretends to be.

Some Men do have relationships with girls under the age of 18 .

Some Girls under 18 choose to have relationships, I did.

Anniebach of course they do but if that relationship is with a teacher it is illegal. I think some men will use their power and money to exert the same influence a teacher would. I think girls need protection from those men.

Oooops, I had a relationship with a teacher, I wanted to,

trisher. Mandy Rice Davies chose to work in a nightclub, you
refuse to believe some girls choose who they have a relationship with , for you any girl who has a relationship with
a man with wealth is a victim,

Annie such a relationship is now illegal. thesexualoffenceshandbook.com/2013/10/08/teachers-and-sexual-relationships-with-students-aged-16/
And arguably as an employer is in a position of trust so, so might be an employer's relationship with an employee aged 16-18

The law is clear. A sexual relationship between someone who is in a position of trust and a person to whom that trust extends, is criminal.

The 2003 Act amended the law in relation to position of trust offences. It enacted the following offences:

s 16 (abuse of trust: sexual activity with a child)
s 17 (abuse of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity)
s 18 (abuse of trust: sexual activity in the presence of a child)
s 19 (abuse of trust: causing a child to watch a sex act)
It is worth noting that the offences cover children and young persons up to the age of 18 and so extend beyond the 16 and 17 year olds with which this post is concerned.

Annie I believe girls aged 16 to 18 are not a suitable age to decide to sell their sexual services to men who offer them money, no matter how much money may be involved. At 18 they are adults and may decide for themselves until then they are minors. I believe the age thing was one reason the Rochdale offences went on for so long because some considered them prostitutes selling their sexual services.

MRD was 18 when she was a dancer at Murray’s trisher.

You know trisher. The men Mandy Rice Davies had relationships with offered her money for sex ?

MRD was only 16 when she went to London Casdon she worked as a dancer sometime between 1960 and 1962. She moved in with Rachman (who she met in the nightclub) just before her 18th birthday.
The men she had relationships with offered her financial rewards Annie like a home. And Rachman wasn't a man many people said "No" to.
I'll ask you again Casdon just because some people survive abusive relationships between 16-18 does that mean they are acceptable?

trisher, not all girls of 16-18 who have relationships with powerful men (not entirely sure what you would define as ‘powerful’) are acting under undue influence. They might feel flattered and make unwise choices (wasn’t it ever thus?) but unless violence is involved or they have been drugged it’s not illegal unless it’s a teacher-pupil or healthcare professional-patient relationship.

You referred in an earlier post to ‘rich, powerful white men’. I believe far more harm has been done, and probably still is being done, to very young girls in care by predominantly Asian gangs who have groomed and abused them. These are very young and vulnerable girls with broken lives who think they are being shown love when they are bought gifts. I don’t think what Epstein, and certainly Ward, did compares.

I agree that the missing police documents in Ward’s case is suspicious and I believe he committed suicide just before he was due to be arrested, perhaps tipped off. It does smack of corruption but of course at least one top politician was amongst those involved in the parties and doubtless many other powerful men, also there was far more police corruption in those days.

trisher are you in the real world ? You are now accusing all men who live with a girl of giving them financial reward .

I find this offensive. And what has the Ward case to do with the
royals ?

Agree with Casdon and germanshepardsnum

I will add my relationship with a teacher who I met at the golf
club was a loving relationship which lasted several years.

Any idea that this is just Andrew is doubtful, the family isn't the shining light it pretends to be

Only too true Charles had two very close friends and confidants paedophiles Peter Ball a Bishop and Jimmy Savile.

Not a good judge of people or character and supposedly to become our Head of State, despite being involved with politics and has queen too, which is not in the job description. Wasn't it always said that RF is above politics

Isit it time the monarchy is abolished and we can choose our Head of State

And when are RF going to rewild the vast amounts of land instead of carrying on with burning the land for grouse shooting that Victoria had introduced.

I will repeat yet again MRD was not an innocent trisher.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/19/mandy-rice-davies
She was not in abusive relationships, she was in a number of relationships where despite her age she was in charge. All the evidence points to this, yet you persistently deny it because it doesn’t fit with the ‘norm’ you believe in.
I’m not at all saying that the vast majority of 16-18 year olds in a similar situation wouldn’t be in an abused/exploited position, I believe they would be. You just picked possibly the worst example you could have and refuse to admit it, which I don’t understand.

16-18 yo having relationships with older men is surely a different subject to them being bought to perform sex at parties?

JaneJudge

16-18 yo having relationships with older men is surely a different subject to them being bought to perform sex at parties?

I would think it would depend on the older man JaneJudge any idea that Rachman was the sort of man you would want any young woman to be associated with is ridiculous. He had links with London criminal gangs, and was prosecuted twice for brothel keeping. But MRD was in charge!
I think she was a survivor but I don't think because one woman survives and manages to make a success of her life it means it was OK for her to be associating with men like Rachman at such a young age. I asked before just because one survives does that make it OK?
Annie thinks it is Ok for teachers to have relationships with under 18s something illegal now.

She was a thriver, not just a survivor, you are using pejorative language where it doesn’t apply. Surely what’s most important is the way she defined herself and her own life experiences, not your opinion?
There’s a difference when young people (boys as well as girls) are in education because teachers are in a position of trust, I’d certainly agree that is a criminal offence.

But it's OK for under 18s to shack up with brothel keepers with criminal records? She was lucky Rachman died soon after they got together. Things could have been very different.

^And what has the Ward case to do with the
royals ?^
A member of the RFwas said to be involved in Ward's parties Annie and the files are sealed until 2046 most of those involved are already dead so what could need protecting for so long?