Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
I think the Palace would have been wiser to have kept silent. It's short statement, filled with all with all the strong emotional words describing what any decent person feels concerning child abuse, only begs the question;
Why now?
Why so strong, now? Everyone knew this a decade ago. Andrew knew his friend had made a deal to avoid these kinds of charges in 2008. Why become so appalled now when he, Andrew, stood by Epstein even after some of his offending came to light?
Epstein died in a New York prison cell on 10 August as he awaited, without the chance of bail, his trial on sex trafficking charges.
In the announcement made on Sunday 18th August, Prince Andrew has said how appalled he is about the sexual behaviour with young girls his former friend Jefferey Epstein is accused of.
Yet he kept in contact with the billionaire sex offender after his 2008 conviction. He knew then that Epstein was on the Sex Offenders Register (USA). The photo of the two men walking in Central Park in 2010 led to serious criticism of the prince concerning his judgement about spending time with a sex offender and staying at his house. He was himself photographed with his arm around 17 year old scantily clad Virginia Roberts at Epstien's house, where he is also filmed smiling and waving through the door at young girls leaving.
To quote Jonny Dymond, BBC Royal Reporter:
"But to see him inside Epstein's house, as young women come and go, looking for all the world as if he was a happy house-guest, is a disturbing sight. And strong though the palace statement may be it, it fails to answer the central question.
Just what was Prince Andrew doing visiting the house of a convicted paedophile?"
It seems far too late, for me, that the Palace issue this statement after the death of Epstein. Why did not the Prince dissociate himself from this man's vile behaviour in 2008?
This was when he received an 18-month prison sentence, after a controversial secret plea deal, when he avoided up to 45 years in prison if convicted of sex trafficking and conspiracy charges, to which he pleaded not guilty, by instead pleading guilty to a lesser charge of soliciting a minor for prostitution.
It is too striking that this public protest of revulsion about the depravity of his erstwhile friend's activities has been made suddenly after that man's death.
Could it be that while Jefferey Epstein was still alive, there was a reason why he could not say, "the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent." ? Would his erstwhile friend, perhaps, have testified with evidence to suggest otherwise?
Even if Andrew was not involved with any of the young girls himself, the fact remains that he continued to socialise with Epstein after the first conviction. He must have known and chose to disregard the advice I assume he was given by the palace officials. Well, on his head be it. I I
True Gill but it was not a criminal offence
Anniebach Epstein kept a home in Paris:
www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/french-prosecutors-could-summon-prince-andrew-to-paris-to-help-with-probe-into-jeffrey-epstein-rape-claims/ar-AAGisU0
Sorry, link doesn't seem to work but it was msn news
Thank you Callistemon. Sorry but it’s getting silly now, why
question Andrew ? It has been said Epstein had a wide circle of friends.
They need to question Andrew - he saw young girls coming and going whilst he was staying with Epstein. As I said before, even he must have had an inkling that something was wrong when he saw young girls visiting the home of a known paedophile.
Did he see young girls coming and going ? In no way am I defending him but I do like facts.
Who can forget the ‘Prince Phillip ordered the murder of Diana and Robert Fellows, her brother in law and private secretary to the Queen flew to Paris that night, took over the
British Embassy, took over the Paris police force, closed down
four hospitals so she had to be to taken to a hospital where the staff were waiting. Robert Fellows was questioned at the inquest, that night he was in the village hall with people from
the village attending a talk by Sir John Mortimer
Of course he would have seen the girls - I hardly think he would have stayed in his room throughout his stay. The girls were openly arriving during the day - not being smuggled in during the middle of the night
You should get a job with the rf's PR team anniebach. In the face of all that has been revealed in the last few years and, in particular, the last few weeks, you still defend the indefensible.
Even if no criminal offence was committed (and I doubt this will ever be investigated properly), the company this man kept says a lot about his character and judgment. Seedy stuff - and we finance these people's lifestyle.
Hell bells, I am not defending him, I have said he should no longer perform royal duties.
I am questioning what is and isn’t fact.
Probably he did see comings and going’s but there is no proof.
Why does France want to question Andrew when allegations have been made against Jean luc Brunel ?
Let him face a trial.
Face trial for what ? Spending time with Epstein. There has been no charges only one woman’s allegations
Some of you may remember the Profumo case in the 60s when an MP was in court.
Mandy Rice Davies was a witness and the judge said to her, Are you aware that Mr Profumo denies these allegations?
Mandy replied, Well, he would, wouldn’t he?
Substitute PA for Profumo.
Nothing changes does it?
Mandy was very confident for a 19 year old wasn’t she
You just have to look at the photo pa standing close to that young girl to see the evidence, guilty as sin.
Need no more proof after seeing photo
I got no time for the royal family, all a waste of money.
Two people standing together is proof they had sex ?
As said before there will be no evidence one way or the other - unless Epsteins alleged secret diary is found and it's contents contradict Andrew's version. However, I think what a lot of people can't understand is how he, as the father of girls, didn't wonder at the fact very young girls were seemingly available to Epsteins friends.
My brother joined Facebook and immediately all his grand daughters friends sent friend requests. He took down his page as he felt it could be misconstrued that so many 14/15/16 year old girls were "friends" with a man in his 60s. If he felt uncomfortable at online friendships with such young girls - why didn't Andrew feel the same way about young girls being "friends" with a much older man.
I so agree Becket .
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
