IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
Prince Andrew is now being castigated for not showing sympathy to 'victims'. Is it now a requirement that when one makes one's stance clear in matters such as this one must also show sympathy to the 'victims'?
What if you don't believe that women who find themselves in particular situations are victims? What if you suspect or believe that they rather enjoyed being taken on overseas trips and having posh dinners and a lot of money given to and spent on them? And that the sex was all part and parcel of it and they either enjoyed it or were ambivalent because the benefits outweighed any disadvantages? That if they didn't like it or felt they were being trafficked(!) they could scream loudly in a shop or something for someone to call the police?
How is that worse than a single parent living in a mouldy flat with no money and children she can't afford to feed? Or a woman walking home from the station after work being grabbed and raped by a complete stranger?
I know which camp I'd rather be in. And then, twenty-odd years down the track I could claim victimhood, with all its associated benefits. And forced sympathy.
Notwithstanding all of this, some people, more often men, don't have a mindset that lends itself to gushing sympathy anyway, whatever the situation. And I would suspect that older royals like Prince Andrew have been raised not to let their heart pull on their sleeve every time something tragic occurs, let alone when someone claims victimhood.
But showing sympathy is now compulsory, it seems, even if you don't feel it.
Guess who thinks Andrew is guilty. No surprise here.
"It's a clear yes or no - anyone who answers 'no recollection' knows a lot more and is playing the waiting game. In this case not playing his hand and denying it , became something else might come out. So they take middled ground."
Barney wrote: Sky poll says only 6% believed Andrew.
Who has, well and truly, painted himself into a corner.
Even if things blow over, what's next for him?
A quiet life with Fergie - at Royal Lodge and their place in Switzerland maybe.
The chap isn't 60 yet though...
He can carry on being an arrogant twerp at the yacht clubs, not even the staff were pleased to serve him. (Another one with -'Do you know who I am ?' Syndrome).
I'm surprised he hasn't got James Corden in his clique, he is equally arrogant.
You make excellent points, Sheba Bear. I suppose they're not saying they were women, though, but underage girls. What I'd like to know and haven't come across an explanation of is what "sex slave", "forced" and "trafficked" are supposed to mean here. If these are exaggerations of what really happened, what else is exaggerated? Could Epstein actually have been innocent of criminality and just pleaded guilty in the plea deal to avoid a lengthy sentence?
hedda, Roberts claims the photo was taken before she slept with Andrew. And I was wrong in thinking he'd said in the interview that it was taken on an upper floor of Epstein's home; it was apparently taken on an upper floor of Ghislaine Maxwell's home.
I've been wondering whether Andrew, in staying at Epstein's home, had possibly invited himself there, in the style of Princess Margaret (and possibly other royals?).
"Over the years Princess Margaret came to rely on the largesse of rich friends like the Aga Khan and Imelda Marcos to provide villas and yachts for her pleasure. She especially enjoyed visiting Italy and regularly invited herself to stay with Harold Acton at La Pietra in Florence and Gore Vidal in Ravello". (The Royals by Kitty Kelly)
But his victim was a child! A child! A 17 year old child!
She was not employed..she was a prisoner!
She did not travel...she was TRAFFICED!!!
Held captive in chains and a cage!
Im still not sure how she escaped..hopefully how she escaped this paedophile island and prison (which had THOUSANDS of other 17 year old CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN...at only 17 years young!) will be revealed in her book and reality tv show appearences etc etc etc etc etc.....etc
The oddest thing about the photo for me is the length of the index finger that's shown wrapped around the young woman's body. It's slightly longer than the middle finger. Prince Andrew's index fingers shown in other photos of him appear much shorter than his middle fingers.
That's a very interesting observation, md. I'd have thought it would be pretty unusual to have an index finger longer than the middle finger. If the photo is faked it is extremely well done. You can even see a glimpse of Andrew's left arm between them. I was wondering if Andrew's head had been superimposed on someone else's body, but he said himself in his interview that it was definitely a photo of him dressed in clothes he wears.
Confused that the person on the right of the photo at the top of that article is referred to as Mr Smith, while not looking like a Mr to me, I did some Googling and all is explained.
"Two years ago, I would never have thought that activism was something I could do. Last week, I was awarded the NUS Trans Campaign’s Trans Activist of the Year Award. I’m Tristan, a second-year English Literature and Creative Writing student and the President of the LGBTQ+ Society, and this is how I got involved with activism on campus."
One would think that someone from a section of society which suffers persecution wouldn't indulge in it themselves, but apparently not.
An interesting observation Jo; when everything happened to me 20 years ago, the worst section of society was the Gay world, rapidly trying to distance themselves from me.
Barney wrote: In PA's case, isn't the crux of the matter - whether he's credible or naive.
Epstein's abodes, where PA often stayed, had women on tap - as well as erotic decor.
Did he not notice and wonder - or take the opportunities presented?
Like most hot blooded/heterosexual single-men men would.
We dont know if he is heterosexual or hot blooded though.
And I think most men wouldn't be interested in sex with very young girls, ("if" that is what they were)
He was talking utter bullshit though.
First Epstein was not really his friend, and then he was such a good friend that he had to "break up" with him in person.
It seems to me that whatever was said in the park was something that Andrew had to be sure was not overheard or recorded.
I wonder why?
I also wonder if all this fuss that didnt even need to happen,could be to distract from an even bigger royal scandal?
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: He was talking utter bullshit though.
First Epstein was not really his friend, and then he was such a good friend that he had to "break up" with him in person.
Perhaps because he had been staying at his home, maybe even invited himself there if he does the same as Princess Margaret.
"Over the years Princess Margaret came to rely on the largesse of rich friends like the Aga Khan and Imelda Marcos to provide villas and yachts for her pleasure. She especially enjoyed visiting Italy and regularly invited herself to stay with Harold Acton at La Pietra in Florence and Gore Vidal in Ravello". (The Royals by Kitty Kelley)
According to Lady Colin Campbell it's not the done thing to dump someone by phone or letter. Maybe that's what Andrew meant about being "honourable", though he really needed to explain that.
For me, these cases are an important factor for proving why prostitution should be fully legal.
Feminism might not like it, but feminism needs to remember that men can be prostitutes too.
And under equality act, it must therefore conclude that women should too.
It looks as if Prince Andrew may have forgotten that he had met Jeffrey Epstein several years before he said so in his interview. I wonder if he even bothered checking with his staff when he did meet Epstein and was given the wrong information, or if he just steamed ahead.
By the standards of modern logic, men of a certain age with apparent memory lapses must be guilty of sex offences.
Jo wrote: honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote: He was talking utter bullshit though.
First Epstein was not really his friend, and then he was such a good friend that he had to "break up" with him in person.
Perhaps because he had been staying at his home, maybe even invited himself there if he does the same as Princess Margaret.
"Over the years Princess Margaret came to rely on the largesse of rich friends like the Aga Khan and Imelda Marcos to provide villas and yachts for her pleasure. She especially enjoyed visiting Italy and regularly invited herself to stay with Harold Acton at La Pietra in Florence and Gore Vidal in Ravello". (The Royals by Kitty Kelley)
According to Lady Colin Campbell it's not the done thing to dump someone by phone or letter. Maybe that's what Andrew meant about being "honourable", though he really needed to explain that.
Lady Colin Campbell is correct, but Epstein was only an acquaintance, so no explanation was needed, and you absolutely do not take advantage of someone's hospitality and then tell them to get lost.
Forums 
