Charles may pay for Andrew's security

No, I wouldn't be happy with my 16/17 year old D being at a party with older men, so I wouldn't have been dropping her off which unless I'm mistaken, is what her father did on various occasions.

Of course I don't know, but I doubt PA ever had to pay for the attentions of women in his life and I don't believe if he did have sex with her that he knew she'd been trafficked. Why would he?

I don't see any 'victim blaming' here.

I wish it had gone to trial too Doodledog but it didn't. A financial settlement was offered and accepted and as I posted earlier on this thread for me, that doesn't make either of them look very good.

In the UK the chances of prosecution for rape are 1%, no idea what the stats are in the states but I would take a monetary settlement with those odds.

As Doodledog states, informed consent is the issue. VG was 14 or 15 when Maxwell identified her as vulnerable, a perfect target for grooming and sexual exploitation. It’s said she was 17 when she allegedly had sex with PA. I haven’t read the comments Annie quotes where she’s said to have been excited at the prospect of PA but if it’s true, I’m not in the least surprised.
The Rochdale and other exploited girls were dismissed as ‘sex workers’ making poor lifestyle choices. Very similar to the criticisms of VG though she’s viewed by many as having ‘enjoyed’ the lifestyle in `Epstein’s stable

Trafficked people aren’t seen legally AB’s able to give informed consent. Anyone who doesn’t understand the law should really read on it.

Smilesless, I understand but disagree with the point about going to trial v accepting a cash settlement. Having sat through a number of trials involving children or adult victims and watched the rate of prosecution decline, seem many discussions like this one, I feel I’d be reluctant to push victims to trial

There would be very few circumstances in which I would advise someone to go to trial for these kind of offences.

oh fgs hasn't this been done to death already!

I understand what you're saying Iam, but this was the second time she accepted an out of court financial settlement. Unless the accused is 'famous' an out of court settlement is highly unlikely isn't it, and you don't get much more high profile than a prince.

lemsip, yes it’s certainly had endless discussions but, it’s important stuff.
Smiles, it doesn’t bother me if VG accepted a 2nd out of court settlement. Adult survivors tend to have a less easy time than those of us who weren’t trafficked and used.

VioletSky you are getting your emotions and the facts of the case confused. Whether you would want a child, grandchild, or yourself to be alone with PA is irrelevant. The circumstances in which this could happen would be so limited. Either this person would be someone who makes their living by selling themselves to have sex with clients, in which case they would know why they were there or they would be someone in his social circle.

No one has suggested that PA life is one we would want to know our sons or grandsons were living but all this is irrelevant.

We are talking about the facts of the case. The facts of the case are that you are the only person accusing him of rape or enjoying coersive sex because he enjoys the coersion. Just because you wish he had done these things to justify your own corrosive anger does not justify these totally unproven accusations

VioletSky we have a law in this country that every one is innocent until proved guilty. This is a protection against lynch mobs, extra judicial killings and people being the victims of mob justice. It is fine to ride your high horse, when thebperson you are attacking is a royal prince with a seedy background, but what if in a state as you seem to envisage. It was one of your family who was charged with a dreadful crime they did not commit and had a lynch mob out to get him and subject him to the punishment they think he deserves, without any eveidence that he did what he was accused of.

As for daughters and grand daughters being alone with PA, I would have no qualms at all about DD being alone with him, even when she was young and nubile. She would make mincemeat of him. he would have ended up the one trying to escape.

Anniebach Prince Andrew was born in 1960, not 1950.

Oh go away with that

What you are saying is true Monica, what it means in reality is that most women will never receive justice and most guilty men, in terms of sexual assault, will never be prosecuted for their crimes.
As for people making mincemeat of men, that I am afraid is just magical thinking.

Exactly Galaxy. The suggestion that ‘nubile’ young women can make mincemeat of predatory men is indeed magical thinking.

Men like him are the reason girls are being exploited for sex from a young age.

And women think that's OK

It's gross

And yes that makes me emotional, if it doesn't you, then what's wrong with you?

Which women think that's ok, VS. Nobody on this thread, as far as I can see.

Men like Andrew and the many celebrity men don’t have to look for girls exploited for sex, why can it not be said , there are
girls eager for flings with these men , probably in the hope of long term .

The attraction of power?
About time it ended.

Galaxy, the monetary settlement was in the context of proposed civil proceedings.
not a criminal trial, either in uk or usa.
so talk of prosecution, offences, guilt etc are out of place.
confusing these categories is not helpful.

VioletSky

Men like him are the reason girls are being exploited for sex from a young age.

And women think that's OK

It's gross

And yes that makes me emotional, if it doesn't you, then what's wrong with you?

Which women think girls being exploited isn’t wrong VS?

But the chances of women getting justice in these type of cases are low, there was never any chance of it getting to court. I absolutely would have taken a settlement in her shoes.
Hugh Grant used prostitutes, I assume he had many offers from women, that's not what the use of prostitutes is about. I dont think these girls were prostitutes but that is the word being used on here.

Anniebach

Men like Andrew and the many celebrity men don’t have to look for girls exploited for sex, why can it not be said , there are
girls eager for flings with these men , probably in the hope of long term .

It can be and is said.
The point being laboured is that children aged 12-14, targeted, groomed, trafficked and drawn into sexual exploitation, are not capable of informed consent . They’re damaged by the exploitation.

Give it a rest on Christmas day

No

Oh dear. Without my glasses I misread the first post as 'pray for' rather than 'pay for'. I suppose Charles might do that.

VS Why do you need to get all emotional to think something is wrong? Can one not know with absolute assurance that smething is wrong and should be stopped. I have aways found that a cold hard unemotional determination is far more effective in getting change than getting all emotional.