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

Oldwoman you read ? we read over and over on this forum
we can’t trust the press .

Who said what you claim ?

suzie you have posted lies.

I recall reading late last year that US investigators would travel to UK and that the meeting could take place in either the US embassy in London or his lawyers offices. He could also ask for a list of the questions in advance.

Well we went over there to interview AS so there’s precedent. You just don’t want him to be interviewed at all do you annie.? You don’t think those women need or deserve any justice do you? You don’t think that powerful famous men should have to face the consequences of their behaviour? But basically you don’t want any more information out there that might damn him even more. Why do blinkered? Why so misogynistic?

We don’t know if they have said they will come here

I am sure they would be willing to travel to UK if he made himself available to make a statement.

Is he refusing to give a statement or refusing to go to America
to give a statement?

I think what most people don't understand is why he apparently won't give a statement to the FBI.

Anyone who may have information regarding a crime is asked to give a statement of what they heard or saw (if anything). That is what he is being asked to do but for some reason is refusing to do so - hence the speculation as to his motives.

Alexa, play me some relaxing music whilst I absorb that.

A prince of the Realm wasn't properly educated? He's the son of the Queen of England for goodness sake! He was brought up with every privilege known to mankind! The Queen's son didn't know that there are some bad people out there? Well hello! It was general knowledge that Epstein had served 18 months in prison after pleading guilty to procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18 (US) yet PA continues to visit him, because in his own words, 'it was convenient to stay with him when in NY.'

He was a father with two young daughters at home and should have ceased to spend time in the company of such a man. Of course he knew Epstein was a 'bad adult'. It seems he simply must have liked the company of such people.

Just what I have been thinking eezybee.

I did not say Prince Andrew is a good man. I said he was not a bad man, and possibly is a naive man. I feel the latter is unlikely but I can't rule it out as I don't know the man nor how he was reared and educated.

What matters is that children of all social classes are taught to make sound moral judgements . Soundness in moral judgement in this day and age depends upon rights of individuals no matter how rich or how humble.

If Prince Andrew did take advantage of a young girl from a poorer background than his own then he made an immoral choice. There may be an extenuating circumstance such as he was naive, or not properly educated in contemporary morality. It is important to discover these facts so that in future the weak may be protected in law and in popular practice.

This applies especially to schools and education. I understand that nowadays school children are taught how to live morally, and made aware there are bad people around. Perhaps Prince Andrew was not taught this If he was not taught this then he could have been unaware of the ethical principle about not taking advantage of weaker individuals, or he could have been unaware that there are bad adults who do so.

Not if you had a shred of decency or common sense, no, so he must be able to help the FBI with what he does know.

For goodness sake IF you knew your friend was a convicted paedophile as PA did would you continue to stay at his various homes ? Whether or not he is guilty and only time will tell ,he was a witness who lived under the roof where these things occured,and as such surely saying IF he saw anything isn't too difficult? As for "adult men are naive" well I've heard it all now ..talk about a ridiculous statement .Adult MEN are what they are ADULTS and as such surely they should face their responsibilities .All he is being asked to do is answer questions not face a firing squad .

This thread isn't about Jimmy Saville but, as Elegran mentioned him, it prompted me to recall just how many people either knew or strongly suspected just what Saville was up to for years. Certainly, young women in Manchester in the mid 1960's were warned to keep away from him in the clubs where he worked. I was told at 17 I'd probably be ok because I was tall and looked older than my age. "he really likes the 13year olds" I was told.
JEpstein, like Saville was hiding in plain sight. I don't know about young women coming and going at all hours as someone suggested earlier, I suspect those young women were living there, staying there when JE was entertaining the rich and powerful.
Morality?

Let’s just say that the collective ‘We’ Expect better behaviour & better judgement from those whom we assume have been set a good example of what is & is not acceptable behaviour .
Does the same situation occur the other way around ie older woman, young man? Yes it does but , it is always assumed that a young man would be very happy about such a situation.
Imagine an unmarried female Royal consorting with a very young man ! Would we consider that young man to have been exploited. I am not condoning PA behaviour, just look at it from a different perspective.

Someone else making the automatic assumption that because his friend was into this, he would do it while he had a visitor, and that the visitor would be aware of all the implications and join in the activity. It MAY be so, and if it is not so, why has PA been acting like a p***k over it, but it is still possible that it is NOT so.

Jimmy Saville was engaged in nefarious activities for years, with people who believed they were close to him being unaware of his goings-on.

And no, I am not defending the man from his just deserts, but I want it made clear by seeking the truth by every means that he DOES deserve the hatred that is expressed about him.

Alexa what makes prince Andrew a good man in your opinion? Keeping quiet about something bad concerning young vulnerable people imo makes someone as bad as the perpetrator

Oldwoman70, adult men can be very naive, and adult men can get their moral priorities wrong. Prince Andrew is not a bad man but has made a bad judgement in continuing his friendship with Epstein. It matters quite a lot if people could understand how Prince Andrew got to have such bad judgement, as education of children must in future include how they can keep themselves safe from making poor moral judgements.

Is there evidence young women were arriving and leaving at
all hours whilst he was staying at the house ?

Surely, Andrew could put an end to all this speculation by making himself available for interview by the investigating authorities - in UK if he prefers. Not giving a statement has merely given ammunition to those who think he is hiding something.

He stayed in the house whilst young women were arriving and leaving at all hours - it is fair to assume he must have seen or suspected something.

I posted my point, a jury would be a mix of republicans and
royalists

And your point is what anniebach?

Any jury would be a mix of republicans and royalists

Eloethan Suspicion is not enough to label someone online, publicly, as a paedophile. That is libel.

You write as though I, personally, see no reason for suspicion. You must have come into this thread recently and not read all my posts (or perhaps the most relevant ones are on a different thread, which I am now avoiding as a manic poster has made it into a toxic rantfest)

My position is that thorough investigation and due process of law should take place, preferably in British courts, but not on social media and "in the pub". I would bet my boots that British investigators have been working on this behind the scenes and will continue to do so.

If it came to a trial, I wonder whether he could insist on being tried by a jury of his equals - and who would be picked for that jury?

Who do I believe -

The U.S attorney or a British QC