Former Prince Andrew has just been arrested in Norfolk

Maremia

A female abuse victim's witness statement is being dismissed as 'hearsay'?
I thought we had evolved from that.

And the poster who employed the term hasn’t the slightest idea what it means.

Would you give a little toddler a ball shaped like a human breast plus nipple to play with as in the photo of Andrew recently released ? It just gets worse, what a sad sicko.

A female abuse victim's witness statement is being dismissed as 'hearsay'?
I thought we had evolved from that.

BlueBelle

Fancyflowers the daughters were adults when ‘dragged’ into this ‘crxp’ from what I ve read. If they have gained at all from the riches then they are involved.
It must be VERY hard when your parents are part of illegal pursuits but they must know right from wrong

And they were older than many of the victims. But that I’m sure has never crossed their minds. They are not the first children to have parents involved in alleged criminal activity. But most adult chldren don’t have the resources to disappear into some despotic hole (UAE?) away from the limelight .I just wish they’d stay there permanently with their paedophile supporting mother.

That photo will haunt him for ever.

The police have that evidence that AMW may have passed confidential information to Epstein, intense public pressure means it has to be investigated openly.

When he was sacked from Trade Envoy it was quite likely suspected that was happening, in addition his aides would have been reporting back that his "lifestyle" was incompatible with his position.

Not wanting a scandal he was sacked with no further action

Whitewavemark2

The police must be pretty sure of the evidence. There is no way I assume that they would arrest the King’s brother if they were not convinced of his guilt?

Guilt is determined by a Judge and jury and evidence. The police are there to gather evidence, and will arrest on probable cause, not definite guilt.

"Virginia Guiffre explicitly claimed she was trafficked and she was terrified of Epstein and Maxwell, she claimed she was tortured and was at times in fear of her life. Her whole case rested on her being trafficked."

Yes she does claim that but unless there is evidence it means little, it's just her hearsay.
Or has anyone actually got evidence that AMW had sex with her underaged??

Daddima

OldFrill

M0nica

There are two separate lines of enuiry in the Epstein/AMW case.

One is that Epstein was a sexually debauched man and had a preference for nubile young girls, and had the money to indulge such tastes and share it with his friends. AMW is accused with joining him at his sex parties and having sex with underage girls.

The second thread is that Epstein was also a very wealthy man and as immoral financially as he was sexually. AMW passed sensitive business information on to him that he had only received because he was trade representative for this country, wheeled out when the Foreign Office knew having a member of the RF somewhere could clinch a business deal.

The case for sharing commercially sensitive information is quite separate from the sexual case and I do get fed up with the way people keep conflating them. The police force dealing with the commercial side are not involved in the sex exploitation, nor are the police forces in the sexploitation case dealing with the commercial side.

Of the two threads I think the sexual one is the weakest, Virginia Giuffre was 17 when we are told she had sex with AMW in the UK. That was not illegal as 16 is the age of consent here. In the USA the age of consent varies from state to state and I do not think that any man taking part in some sexual event could be expected to check which state, what age of consent and was the girl he fancied above that figure. The evidence may be there, but the uestion is will stand up in court.and I doubt it.

At the commercial level then I do think the evidence is there to convict AMW. We know what government department sent commercially sensitive information to AMW and when it was passed on to Epstein. The paper trail is there.

I do not think it beyond the bounds of probability that AMW could well be convicted for commercial offences and spend time in prison on the commercial case.

Virginia Guiffre claim was that she was trafficked, there is no age of consent consideration if a person is trafficked.

But surely to be trafficked there must be force or coercion involved? And I don’t think Virginia Giuffré ever claimed she was forced, in fact, didn’t she go back on a number of occasions?
Not that it makes these people’s actions any less disgusting, but I’m not sure taking advantage of vulnerable teenagers by offering them large sums of money would count as trafficking.
Another reason why charges relating to commercial activities would have a greater chance of success.

Virginia Guiffre explicitly claimed she was trafficked and she was terrified of Epstein and Maxwell, she claimed she was tortured and was at times in fear of her life. Her whole case rested on her being trafficked.

Fancyflowers the daughters were adults when ‘dragged’ into this ‘crxp’ from what I ve read. If they have gained at all from the riches then they are involved.
It must be VERY hard when your parents are part of illegal pursuits but they must know right from wrong

Sarah introduced Andrew to Epstein, the whole family had a fabulous lifestyle on his money.. The girls were young women not little children. It will all come to light. The Royal family let him get away with too much all of his life. Most women participating knew enough and were old enough to know what they were getting into, not so the young victims. Andrew should name those top people involved but obviously there's a reason he won't . Perhaps the arrest will alter his stance on that.
Andrew has been arrested and released and the law will unearth any dodgy deals.

When I saw the photograph of Andrew leaving the police station, after a day of presumably intensive questioning, my impression was that for the first time the enormity of what he has done and the trouble confronting him has finally penetrated the carapace of wilful ignorance and privilege in which he encased himself.
Brought down by this own hubris.

Maybe.
But maybe they are involved too.
Dr Andrew Lownie has reason to think so.
That they all benefitted from and chose to be implicated in dodgy dealing.

I feel so sorry for Beatrice and Eugénie in all this. No matter what Andrew has done, they have to deal with the fallout from it.

When I saw the photo I instantly thought of the comment upthread about Andrew’s head on a spike!

In the photograph just printed of him leaving the Police station he looks totally shell shocked.
Of course it could just be be flashes going off in his face but he didn’t look very good.

Somehow the name Reddit always reminds me of croaking frogs. About right.

StoneofDestiny

Andrew hasn’t dropped far from the tree. His father Philip was a rude, entitled and obnoxious man.

I remember the disgraceful insensitive comment he made after Dublane, criticising the crusade by the bereaved parents to improve gun control. He was a truly obnoxious person and the perfect role model for Andrew.

keepingquiet

I understand that he wasn't working for the government in his trade envoy post, but for the Crown.

The police work for the crown and there have been prosecutions for misconduct in public office of police officers.

Monica

Of the two threads I think the sexual one is the weakest, Virginia Giuffre was 17 when we are told she had sex with AMW in the UK. That was not illegal as 16 is the age of consent here. In the USA the age of consent varies from state to state and I do not think that any man taking part in some sexual event could be expected to check which state, what age of consent and was the girl he fancied above that figure. The evidence may be there, but the uestion is will stand up in court.and I doubt it.’

If she( or anyone else) was trafficked here, then their age and our age of consent is totally irrelevant. That’s why the private jet flights into Stansted are being investigated.

Yes there are two separate lines of enquiry in the Epstein/AMC case.

However it’s the duty of our police to follow the evidence wherever it goes.

I trust that they will do their duty.

Daddima

OldFrill

M0nica

There are two separate lines of enuiry in the Epstein/AMW case.

One is that Epstein was a sexually debauched man and had a preference for nubile young girls, and had the money to indulge such tastes and share it with his friends. AMW is accused with joining him at his sex parties and having sex with underage girls.

The second thread is that Epstein was also a very wealthy man and as immoral financially as he was sexually. AMW passed sensitive business information on to him that he had only received because he was trade representative for this country, wheeled out when the Foreign Office knew having a member of the RF somewhere could clinch a business deal.

The case for sharing commercially sensitive information is quite separate from the sexual case and I do get fed up with the way people keep conflating them. The police force dealing with the commercial side are not involved in the sex exploitation, nor are the police forces in the sexploitation case dealing with the commercial side.

Of the two threads I think the sexual one is the weakest, Virginia Giuffre was 17 when we are told she had sex with AMW in the UK. That was not illegal as 16 is the age of consent here. In the USA the age of consent varies from state to state and I do not think that any man taking part in some sexual event could be expected to check which state, what age of consent and was the girl he fancied above that figure. The evidence may be there, but the uestion is will stand up in court.and I doubt it.

At the commercial level then I do think the evidence is there to convict AMW. We know what government department sent commercially sensitive information to AMW and when it was passed on to Epstein. The paper trail is there.

I do not think it beyond the bounds of probability that AMW could well be convicted for commercial offences and spend time in prison on the commercial case.

Virginia Guiffre claim was that she was trafficked, there is no age of consent consideration if a person is trafficked.

But surely to be trafficked there must be force or coercion involved? And I don’t think Virginia Giuffré ever claimed she was forced, in fact, didn’t she go back on a number of occasions?
Not that it makes these people’s actions any less disgusting, but I’m not sure taking advantage of vulnerable teenagers by offering them large sums of money would count as trafficking.
Another reason why charges relating to commercial activities would have a greater chance of success.

Virginia Guiffre claimed she was trafficked from Mar a Lago by Epstein. She was 16 when he ‘recruited’ her.

Andrew hasn’t dropped far from the tree. His father Philip was a rude, entitled and obnoxious man. He went from place to place insulting people of other cultures, from other countries and different backgrounds to his own privileged bubble. Never was he sanctioned or made to apologise. The excuse was always ‘that’s just Philip’. His own family made that excuse too. In any normal ‘firm’, if a representative went out doing as Philip did, the person would be sacked.
Meanwhile Andrews mother Elizabeth used the money her privileged position brought to her to give £12 million to buy off the law suit he would have faced over sex with a minor. If there ever was a more public sign of distain for the law and the use of money and privilege to fend off accountability it’s hard to imagine.

Pretty galling to now hear; ‘the law must take its course’ from Charles and how William is afraid for his future position and wants something done about Andrew! Amazing they all parrot out ‘think of the victims’. Really - why the sudden concern for the victims? It’s so clearly driven by self preservation.

Too little too late. These ‘senior’ royals knew what was going on. They put all their efforts in to criticising Harry and Meghan - what a useful distraction they were, rather than informing the proper authorities what they clearly knew about Andrew. They are co conspirators.

I understand that he wasn't working for the government in his trade envoy post, but for the Crown.
This seems a complicated factor, as the Crown ie Charles, may be the only person who can prosecute him?
That said the police must have something, otherwise they wouldn't have acted in this way.
Charles says he didn't know of the arrest until afterwards, so it will be interesting to see how the whole thing pans out.
It is not unknown for Royalty to be disgraced in this way, or for brothers to go their separate ways. The current RF seem very good at it!
Funny how we aeem to be leading the way in bringing powerful people to account, whilst over in the US they are still just more worried about the money than about their reputations.
When will Trump finally serve his time I wonder?

OldFrill

M0nica

There are two separate lines of enuiry in the Epstein/AMW case.

One is that Epstein was a sexually debauched man and had a preference for nubile young girls, and had the money to indulge such tastes and share it with his friends. AMW is accused with joining him at his sex parties and having sex with underage girls.

The second thread is that Epstein was also a very wealthy man and as immoral financially as he was sexually. AMW passed sensitive business information on to him that he had only received because he was trade representative for this country, wheeled out when the Foreign Office knew having a member of the RF somewhere could clinch a business deal.

The case for sharing commercially sensitive information is quite separate from the sexual case and I do get fed up with the way people keep conflating them. The police force dealing with the commercial side are not involved in the sex exploitation, nor are the police forces in the sexploitation case dealing with the commercial side.

Of the two threads I think the sexual one is the weakest, Virginia Giuffre was 17 when we are told she had sex with AMW in the UK. That was not illegal as 16 is the age of consent here. In the USA the age of consent varies from state to state and I do not think that any man taking part in some sexual event could be expected to check which state, what age of consent and was the girl he fancied above that figure. The evidence may be there, but the uestion is will stand up in court.and I doubt it.

At the commercial level then I do think the evidence is there to convict AMW. We know what government department sent commercially sensitive information to AMW and when it was passed on to Epstein. The paper trail is there.

I do not think it beyond the bounds of probability that AMW could well be convicted for commercial offences and spend time in prison on the commercial case.

Virginia Guiffre claim was that she was trafficked, there is no age of consent consideration if a person is trafficked.

But surely to be trafficked there must be force or coercion involved? And I don’t think Virginia Giuffré ever claimed she was forced, in fact, didn’t she go back on a number of occasions?
Not that it makes these people’s actions any less disgusting, but I’m not sure taking advantage of vulnerable teenagers by offering them large sums of money would count as trafficking.
Another reason why charges relating to commercial activities would have a greater chance of success.