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

Many people have discovered that someone they knew well, stayed in their homes, trusted their children to them, suddenly turn out to be paedophiles. I don't think ANYONE is "defending him" but several are saying that he should co-operate with the investigation and subsequently have a chance to defend HIMSELF. Having a guilty friend is not a criminal charge in itself - but a thorough investigation would find out whether he is guilty himself.

Annie, who has 'cleared' Trump, Clinton, Gore? So far as I know, they haven't been accused of anything other than being stupid enough to chose to hang out with JE.

Same goes for PA, except the accusation that he had sex with a 17 year old. She's now in her late 30's and recognises she was groomed and sexually exploited by Epstein and GMaxwell. So PA hasn't been 'found guilty' of anything. During that awful interview, he said he'd cooperate with the investigation if his legal team advised him so to do. It looks as though they have advised him against cooperation.
Shoddy.

On this forum, he has been found guilty of paedophilia. No trial, no oath, no lie detector, no witnesses, no evidence, no lawyers, no defence. Dirt sticks - no smoke without fire - he is rich, arrogant and has always been known as randy Andy, so he must be guilty. Off with his head!

A proper investigation and trial would clear the air - he would be judged either guilty or innocent. Better than guilty by media, with no alternative verdict and no appeal. Better for him, his family and the whole country.

I don’t find him guilty of paedophilia. So far as I know, he is alleged to have had what he thought was consensual sex with a girl who was 17. I find it a struggle not to conclude the other famous names indulged in similar behaviour at Mr Es homes. Let’s face it, Mr T and Mr C are accepted to be opportunists.

I find it shoddy to say the least. Anyone who has worked with people sexually exploited as children , been a child, brought up children, in fact been human, is likely to share similar feelings.

Because no allegations were made against Trump, Clinton,
Gore , does it mean they were not involved with any girls or
no girl wants to make allegations.

Seems I don’t share the trust with the rest of posters in the American justice system

No one has said PA is a paedophile. However he has not cooperated with the authorities but gave a public interview. Now why would you do that? Perhaps because he thinks it is easier to pull the wool over the public's eyes.

Someone HAS called him a paedophile.

but he is certainly a twerp for that interview. If he was trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, it didn't work. Better to keep silent and be thought to be a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.

Elegran He chose to conduct an interview with Emily Maitlis at a place of his choosing - and, despite this relatively informal setting, he was considered by most people to have given a very unconvincing account of his continuing involvement with Epstein.

In that interview he stressed that he would be quite willing to co-operate with US investigators and yet they claim he has not responded to several of their requests.

Is it not reasonable, given his close association with Epstein and the continuance of that relationship after Epstein was tried and found guilty, and the allegation against him of sexual abuse, that he at least be willing to be interviewed by someone other than a TV presenter? It is inevitable that people will find his reluctance to respond as suspicious.

If it were anybody else - a film star or the like - would you not by now find it difficult not to be suspicious?

so saying he wont get a fair trial so he shouldn't go isn't defending him? He's not ON trial he's been asked to give a witness statement,if he has nothing to hide why hasn't he complied with the police request?

Who do I believe -

The U.S attorney or a British QC

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?

Any jury would be a mix of republicans and royalists

And your point is what anniebach?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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 .

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.

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.