Seems quite reasonable to me and his false accuser has already admitted in interviews to having recruited girls for Epstein.

Have no idea how this will play out in a US court but she may find Karma catches up with her especially if the reputed settlements she received were as large as claimed and another Epstein victim decides to include her in their own lawsuit.

But what strikes me are the comments in the Mail after these articles..Andrew for some reason is hated..most simply accept he is guilty and their comments bear no relation to the story they have just read.

Real witch hunt mobs..

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1014646...irginia-Giuffre.html

It's a salacious story and clearly a lot of people just love that, dressing up their prurience as outrage.

I'm curious about whether Prince Andrew is accusing Ghislaine Maxwell of sex trafficking or whether the reference to her is just the Mail's interpretation. The Mail has this three times, in the title, subheading and a photo caption.

Prince Andrew says his sex assault accuser Virginia Giuffre is out for 'another payday' and claims she helped Ghislaine Maxwell sex traffic Epstein victims in shock motion to dismiss lawsuit

The prince also accused Giuffre of helping Ghislaine Maxwell in her sex trafficking ring with Jeffrey Epstein

The prince has also accused Giuffre of helping Ghislaine Maxwell in her sex trafficking ring with Jeffrey Epstein (left). The motion to dismiss Giuffre's claims cited a damning story published in the New York Daily News in 2015 that revealed 'Giuffre also was trained to and did, in fact, recruit other young women into Epstein’s sex trafficking ring'.
But it looks as if it could be just the Mail's interpretation if Prince Andrew's side is citing Ghislaine Maxwell's defence.

According to Andrew's motion in September 2015, when Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation, 'Maxwell denied Giuffre’s allegations against her and publicly stated that Giuffre was not a credible source or an honest person'.

On that Mail article there is a three-word comment, "I believe Virginia". At the time of writing it had 5,853 upvotes and 1,767 downvotes.

But why do they believe her? I don't. And I don't believe that she was trafficked, either.

Where were her parents in all of this? She apparently wanted THAT photo taken to send to her mum, which suggests that mum at least knew where she was and that they had a cordial relationship. And she does look very happy in the photo.

Much of this seems to me to be being driven by anti-monarchists.

Yes these days there are numerous reasons for taking against a person and no reason at all why one should not like them. I can't stand Victoria Derbyshire and so justify any criticism. Life's too short. I never liked Sir Jimmy Savile although I didn't dislike him either but the anti SJS has been so obvious I tend to see everything as backing up my agenda. Like SJS I don't think I'd enjoy a dinner with Andrew but hate the war against him. I think I'd like Boris - lousy politician but amusing dinner guest. We are such shallow creatures this century.

Sheba wrote:


Much of this seems to me to be being driven by anti-monarchists.

I'm not so sure it is republicans Sheba. I think there has never been much love for Andrew because he is so transparently an arrogant, pompous so and so and his interviews on this subject just confirmed how awful he is. I don't like all the vitriol towards him either, though, and who knows whether the charges are trumped up, false or true? (I don't buy the she was smiling in the photo so couldn't have been trafficked line though; far too simple). No, I think what is biting Andrew on terms of the hostility is called karma.

Instant Karma ..now the accuser is being sued by another accuser..for defamation for claiming she provided girls for Epstein.

What victim hires a publicist?

cannot predict a US court case but I think it will go Andrew's way.

I cannot understand how a self confessed prostitute gained Australian citizenship even though it's not illegal in this country.

hedda wrote:
Seems quite reasonable to me and his false accuser has already admitted in interviews to having recruited girls for Epstein.

Have no idea how this will play out in a US court but she may find Karma catches up with her especially if the reputed settlements she received were as large as claimed and another Epstein victim decides to include her in their own lawsuit.

But what strikes me are the comments in the Mail after these articles..Andrew for some reason is hated..most simply accept he is guilty and their comments bear no relation to the story they have just read.

Real witch hunt mobs..

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1014646...irginia-Giuffre.html

You use the emotive term false accuser when I assume you have no idea that the accusation is false or not. People on this site seem to conclude immediately that any and all accusations of sexual abuse are false. Some of them may well be false, we can't assume either way. The media assume they are true because that is the story that they are pushing.

robbiex wrote:
hedda wrote:
Seems quite reasonable to me and his false accuser has already admitted in interviews to having recruited girls for Epstein.

Have no idea how this will play out in a US court but she may find Karma catches up with her especially if the reputed settlements she received were as large as claimed and another Epstein victim decides to include her in their own lawsuit.

But what strikes me are the comments in the Mail after these articles..Andrew for some reason is hated..most simply accept he is guilty and their comments bear no relation to the story they have just read.

Real witch hunt mobs..

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1014646...irginia-Giuffre.html

You use the emotive term false accuser when I assume you have no idea that the accusation is false or not. People on this site seem to conclude immediately that any and all accusations of sexual abuse are false. Some of them may well be false, we can't assume either way. The media assume they are true because that is the story that they are pushing.

I don't assume that all accusers are false accusers Robbie (far from it) - but agree that the forum gets a little near looking like this at times. I do think JK's posts are more nuanced if you look at them closely; while also liking to stoke the fire at times! (and perhaps understandably...)

Anyone else noticed the change in the use of language now we are nearer a Court hearing by Andrew's lawyers?

They are now saying that he did not "sexually assault or abuse Giuffre..." Well who said he did? He has moved from denying having sex with her; these are lawyers and the words are carefully chosen.

Also very silly to start pushing the phrase "slutty girls" being procured by Giuffre (Roberts) herself. If he is no longer denying he had sex with her this just brings him closer to the whole sorry goings on. And questions about what he knew. Also labelling children "slutty" is not normal behaviour or likely to broaden his fan base.

I think his hubris and aggression may prove his downfall; even if he also succeeds in bringing Giuffre down with him.

Wyot wrote:
Sheba wrote:
Much of this seems to me to be being driven by anti-monarchists.
I'm not so sure it is republicans Sheba. I think there has never been much love for Andrew because he is so transparently an arrogant, pompous so and so and his interviews on this subject just confirmed how awful he is. I don't like all the vitriol towards him either, though, and who knows whether the charges are trumped up, false or true? (I don't buy the she was smiling in the photo so couldn't have been trafficked line though; far too simple). No, I think what is biting Andrew on terms of the hostility is called karma.
The photo doesn't match her story in several ways and that suggests to me that she's lying. She says the photo was taken after the supposed visit to Tramp and just before Prince Andrew supposedly abused her. She told 60 Minutes Australia (documentary on YouTube "Exposing Jeffrey Epstein's international sex trafficking ring" @19:15) that she felt "absolutely disgusted" when supposedly told by Ghislaine Maxwell on the supposed car trip home from the supposed visit to Tramp - where she told BBC Panorama "I mean it was horrible and this guy was sweating all over me, like his sweat was like it was raining basically everywhere" and NBC "'He was a hideous dancer and he was sweating profusely all over me. I just remember like ugh, I need a shower. This is disgusting." - that she'd have to do for Prince Andrew what she did for Epstein. Yet she has her arm around Prince Andrew, is leaning into him and is smiling broadly. She doesn't look disgusted at all either by his supposed sweatiness or by the supposedly imminent prospect of abuse. The Mirror quotes her as saying "All of us went upstairs and I asked Jeffrey to snap a picture of me with the Prince. I wanted something to show my mom." Yet she claims she was a sex slave trafficked to Prince Andrew. Why would she be getting a souvenir photo of an object of disgust (disgust because of sweat, disgust at the prospect of sex with him) let alone a sex abuser for her mum? Her story doesn't add up and doesn't fit the photo. But snuggling into Prince Andrew for a smiling photo for her mum does fit with him not being drenched in sweat and with the photo being the extent of their interaction.

You may of course be correct in all your speculations Jo. But a photo - we see what we want.

Here's another possible narrative: she wanted to stop the Prince touching her up constantly so tried to divert him by talking about her family and her mum. She hoped, also, that by talking about her "mum" the Prince would think twice about her age and stop pressuring her for sex. Moments before the photo was taken the Prince kept putting his arm around her and touching her bum. To try and stop this she put her arm around him to make it more difficult for him to get his arm free and grope her. She smiled for the camera to not irritate the increasingly impatient Prince and in the - ultimately - vain hope that a photographic record of her with The Prince may deter him from the sexual aggression she feared was coming...

Andrew is innocent.

Innocent unless otherwise prove guilty in a court of law,

The British police have declined to investigate him. He has not been charged with any crime in the USA or UK.

The FBI have declined to investigate Andrew and have only ever considered him a possible witness.

Andrew is innocent as nothing has been proved in a court of law. Hence the claims made by this accuser are false...at this stage and it looks like they will never result in a criminal case. That's how it works.You can't have it both ways.

He's really the victim of a dangerous meme that has almost turned Justice on it's head..a person is guilty until they prove their innocence ("believe the victim")

There is literally no case. It's bullshit. The photo is fraudulent.

Andrew was in the navy, obviously he'd been in submarines for years with a bunch of blokes, which would be heaven to someone like his gay great-uncle Mountbatten, but hell for the devoutly hetero Andrew.

So he came out of the Navy after years being trapped in submarines with gay blokes with nothing to do with his raging testorone except have a wank into his handkerchief or maybe out into the sea. He had blue balls, first willing female that presents herself? Maybe he would have. I don't care if he had sex with a willing 17 year old. Do you? She wasn't 7. It's not paedophilia. It's not sex trafficking either. Otherwise, words have literally lost their meaning.

His current legal strategy is correct - he has finally re-grown a set of balls.

I don't care if he had sex with the Roberts/Giuffre woman. It wasn't illegal, it isn't immoral, and I'm sick and tired of the morally prurient. Fuck them, and the horse they rode in on.

Jo wrote:
Yet she claims she was a sex slave trafficked to Prince Andrew. Why would she be getting a souvenir photo of an object of disgust (disgust because of sweat, disgust at the prospect of sex with him) let alone a sex abuser for her mum? Her story doesn't add up and doesn't fit the photo. But snuggling into Prince Andrew for a smiling photo for her mum does fit with him not being drenched in sweat and with the photo being the extent of their interaction.[/quote]

Because she's a liar and a fraud. That's why.

We've seen this movie before.

I agree with the person who said it's nothing got to do with republicanism vs monarchy. I'm a proud Irish republican who has very little time for the British establishment, but the case is bollox.

hedda wrote:
Andrew is innocent.

Innocent unless otherwise prove guilty in a court of law,

The British police have declined to investigate him. He has not been charged with any crime in the USA or UK.

The FBI have declined to investigate Andrew and have only ever considered him a possible witness.

Andrew is innocent as nothing has been proved in a court of law. Hence the claims made by this accuser are false...at this stage and it looks like they will never result in a criminal case. That's how it works.You can't have it both ways.

He's really the victim of a dangerous meme that has almost turned Justice on it's head..a person is guilty until they prove their innocence ("believe the victim")

Yes he is innocent until proven guilty and should be treated as such.

However the claims made by the accuser are not false at this stage Hedda they are unproven.

You too can't have it both ways.

This is a constant discussion on here Wyot; my position is, just as someone accused of something is innocent until (and sometimes even after) being found GUILY in a Court of Law, so an allegation must be regarded as false until or unless proven true in a court of law. Neither should have any impact of a balanced investigation but equally neither side should be called TRUE before scrutiny.

JK2006 wrote:
This is a constant discussion on here Wyot; my position is, just as someone accused of something is innocent until (and sometimes even after) being found GUILY in a Court of Law, so an allegation must be regarded as false until or unless proven true in a court of law. Neither should have any impact of a balanced investigation but equally neither side should be called TRUE before scrutiny.

I agree that the allegations should not be called true before an investigation but disagree that they should be called false. Unproven is less loaded and my preference. Just as no one should be treated as guilty until proven so to ensure a fair trial, labelling accusations as false also prejudices the process against the accuser. The judicial system should aim for neutrality in language and process so far as possible. Sadly - and in full agreement with this site - we are far from this currently.

Yes if police and media stopped calling complainants "victims", I'd stop calling them "false accusers".

Just to clarify - as I did understand tht point - I also don't think calling the accused innocent until proven guilty is helpful. They certainly should not be called guilty, or as too often and incresingly happens, treated as such. They should be treated as "innocent" of any crime. But more neutral language on both sides pre outcome would in my view be better.