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

Good rational post Elegran ,that being said PA is a complete odious fool.

Elegran: I suspect that he is about to learn the hard way that no-one is above the law.

I would like to think you were right. But I doubt it. He will be protected. Nothing will come of it .

Apparently the FBI have a department in the U.K. so surely he could be interviewed here. I hope he is squirming with all this negative attention but he is such a slime ball that I expect even now he thinks he can do just as he likes with no consequence. And perhaps he can but it makes me think that maybe he knows more than he admitted to in the interview. The fact that he has daughters makes this all the more difficult to understand prince Andrews behaviour. Those poor abused girls, will they ever get justice ?

Yes, I realise it, but I have said nowhere that the victim was wicked or "asking for it" or that Andrew has a shining halo and isn't a randy and unprincipled git. I have never argued about the immorality or the inhumanity of what Epstein did, nor do I think that even though he was involved with Epstein, Andrew is definitely innocent of any involvement in it - I believe there is a definite possibility that he was involved, and he certainly behaves like someone with something to hide, but it is up to the authorities to find the evidence and prove it. However, the girl who has been most vocal was not underage, so in UK law was capable of choosing. My comment was mostly against using the word "paedophile" as though the man had been convicted in a court of law of abusing pre-teens or young teens and possessing indecent images.

The girl in William Stead's articles "The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon:" was 13 and (at that time) legally old enough to choose (thoughin reality she had no idea of what could have awaited her) Do you think the age of consent should be raised from 16 to some higher age? 18? 21? That would criminalise almost all of our young people. Should sex be illegal between ALL people with more that ten years between their ages?

Good posts Elegran.

Must proof read - hearsay?. But you probably guessed that eazybee?

Yes, very shoddy. He is a spoilt brat with younger-son syndrome - as the brother of the Prince of Wales he has the money and the profile of a member of the royal family, but without any sense of the responsibilities that go with that position. He is very conscious of the kowtowing that he feels is due to him, but not of the duties and the good behaviour that should go with high rank. He thinks he can do what ever he wants without explaining and that no-one should ask him to give an account of himself. I suspect that he is about to learn the hard way that no-one is above the law.

Chewbacca you have to pay for the newspaper!!???

Elegran 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
And do you not realise that Epstein was doing much the same thing for rich men? With the advantage that he could fly them on a private jet to a private island where there was no escape. And PA had a friendship with this man.

Please could someone explain the difference between "heard in the pub = public outrage " but relaying information gleaned from a newspaper about H & M = gossip that should be ignored?

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.

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.

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

I also agree with Chestnut regarding remarks by ananimous.

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.

hearsay or heresy?

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

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.

Anniebach - Simpering sarcasm

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

If it was heard in the pub it must be true

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.

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.

I agree, elegran.

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

I agree Elogran it is wrong to use ‘paedophile ‘

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 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 ?