Prince Andrew warned not to go to the US because he could be arrested. (Yahoo article)

They should come here to question him, then he has no excuses. Although as he clearly has severe memory loss I'm not sure what good it will do.

Surely anyone who has been in contact with Epstein and was not involved in trafficking and paedophilia would want to be questioned and would want to tell the FBI everything they had seen or heard. In fact if we apply higher standards of behaviour to the RF shouldn't he be even more anxious to help? Shouldn't he be on the next plane to the US and present himself?
If this was someone from a council estate his silence would be considered indicative of his involvement or guilt.

As there must have been many other men involved why don’t
they questioned them and they would say where, when , how
often they met Andrew.

Epstein obviously had more than one friend

trisher many have decided he is guilty

Annie it is only possible to ascertain what really happened by taking statements from everyone and then studying them carefully to discover exactly what happened and who was involved. If one person keeps silent they are effectively permitting paedophiles to go free. Is that acceptable?

Seventeen is a bit old to interest a paedophile, surely?

This isn't just about one case. This is about a man who named his private plane the Lolita Express and the men involved with him in abusing and traficking many young women.

These are not necessarily all paedophiles Elegran. Young women (older teenagers) have always been of interest to wealthy older men. Look at the Christine Keeler case which has just been on TV. She and Mandy Rice-Davies were older teenagers being used as playthings by powerful older men. It's nothing new.

Anniebach No he isn't the only man involved, for all we know other men are being questioned. It is his refusing to answer questions which is the problem. I am not saying he is guilty of anything other than refusing to give a statement to the authorities investigating Epstein.

@Elegran - Seventeen is a bit old to interest a paedophile, surely?

Oh, another who splits hairs. - I wonder if it was your kin who were sexually exploited would you be so supportive of the crims.

I suppose you do need a modicum of integrity to understand the filthy stain this has left on the monarchy.
I am now angry with the queen.

If you are ok with sexual trafficking, and our RF hanging out with paedos good for you - do not try damage control to sanitize it.
People are furious about this, and the lack of integrity the RF continue to display.

I seem to be the only one who questions why one British man
has been named , not one American.

Andrew was the only man named by two women who want to
sue.

Epstein must have had many influential friends possibly
politicians ?

I only arsked!

Paedophilia is about children, and the immediate image when someone is called a paedophile is of abusing a tiny mite. Young women of seventeen COULD be married with a child, COULD be managing a home and a job, COULD consider themselves to be grown-up and responsible for themselves. Was the main accuser forced into being a call-girl, or did it seem like easy money for a glamorous life-style? "Pretty Woman" isn't a true picture of the lifestyle, but is seductive to some girls.

Exploiting a young woman who is new to the world of sex is ugly and uncaring, but it is not paedophilia.

Calling his private plane after Lolita shows at the very least a reprehensible sense of "humour" and if he was into under-age sex, a complete lack of common-sense in advertising the fact, but it proves nothing!

He should be questioned unmercifully about his connections with Epstein, and his contacts investigated, to search out the truth, but for someone on here to label him as a paedophile BEFORE all of that research is done is to lay themselves open to charges of libel. Call him a privileged self-centred, libidinous waste of space, and don't hold back, but using a term which needs to be legally proved should wait until that proof is forthcoming.

If it is, I am sure there are people who will spill the beans, whatever his "rank". Then say "O, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven"

I agree Elogran it is wrong to use ‘paedophile ‘

I agree, elegran.

They'd need to have pretty strong grounds to arrest him.

There were young women aged 14 involved with Epstein. If someone is offered for sex at 17 don't you imagine that they were recruited earlier? I think calling his plane the Lolita Express indicates that he thought he was proofed against prosecution by his connections.

Elegran
Stop blustering and giving silly points, will you.

Epstein was having sex with underage (in American Law) girls.

Your point is invalid as this is a point of law and not for you to hold up to UK law standards - The same as if you were caught taking drugs through Thailand - you follow their law not ours.

I ask you again: What if she was your AC, GC, GGC????

Don't just give me that fluff about 17yrs being old! - Having a 40yr old heaving sweatily over you, after being groomed, come on!

I've never heard such wilful misrepresentation of victims anywhere.

I won't repeat what I heard said about A in the pub the other night. More hated than Harry and Megs. (Yes, hard to believe, I know)

Just know that nobody is fooled.

If it was heard in the pub it must be true

Anniebach - Simpering sarcasm

Everyone. - Everyone in the pub.
It's called public outrage.

It’s called heresay!
Gossip!
Non factual!

Siting ones family to prove a point is out of order and personal.

I fully agree to Andrew being asked to give his account of his connection with Epstein. Of. Ourse he should.

If Andrew was involved with the other men , possibly political
figures from America and other countries ?

hearsay or heresy?

ananimous You are getting aggressive and rude to other posters. Elegran is entitled to make her points without you calling her silly and saying her points are 'invalid'. She has her opinion and you have yours, so show some respect. Others might think the same about your points but are not quite so rude about replying to you.

I agree with easybee, a swap - PA for Anne Socoolas.

I also agree with Chestnut regarding remarks by ananimous.

You asked about my re-action if it were someone in MY family, ananimous If I knew anyone of ANY age who was being sexually exploited, I would be incandescent. If they were under the age of consent I would report the abuser to the authorities. If they were above the age of consent, I would go by their motives and willingness to engage in sexual behaviour.

This is the UK. The age of consent is 16. A century and a half ago, it was 13. A journalist staged and wrote up an event where he bought (yes, bought) a girl of just turned 13 from her parents, with no questions asked about what he planned to do with her, so as to highlight that 13 was too young to decide for herself. With the resultant publicity he was instrumental in raising the AOC to 16.

In the States, the age varies from one state to another, as does the age at which people can marry. That is the choice and legality in America. If Andrew saw fit to break the law in the States, then that is where he should be tried for it, and that is what I said.

I don't know how they can prevent a healthy young person in the prime of life but not yet 21 (or whatever is the AOC in their state) from having sex if they choose to .

In this country, the law says that a person of 17 is old enough to decide for themselves whether to have voluntary sex with someone. If it was forced sex, that is another matter and should be pursued by the law.

Epstein was convicted of sexual involvement with girls of 14. The newspapers have reported he had 12 year old triplets flown over to enjoy on his birthday (this seems to be factual not rumour).
I agree 17 is a bit old for the exploiter to be called a peadophile but it shoddy for mature, powerful men to want to have sex with trafficked girls.