JonnyF

The reason I focus on the UK is because that is where there is a tiny shred of evidence (a likely doctored photo). In the US there is literally nothing other than the words of a self confessed prostitute on the make.

I agree with most of that. Except the part where you somehow try to link the crimes of Saville to the Royal Family. It was primarily the BBC that covered up Savilles crimes but they have long had links to Paedophiles so it comes of no surprise that they would do such a thing.

Purely circumstantial. There is no credible evidence against him. You better hope some self confessed prostitute (and acquirer of girls for sex) doesn't accuse you of something one day, and everyone simply believes her with no credible evidence to back it up. I'm sure your tune would change if that happened.

Obfuscation? It's the law. If the age of consent is 16 and she is 17 then it's legal. No matter how much you hate the royals.

Yes, and of course white, hetero, British, priviliged men would be at the very top of that list.

Yes it was a mistake. He should have gone to court seeing as there is absolutely no credible evidence against him he would have won (assuming a fair trial of course - many examples of miscarriages of justice). Although it was a mistake probably made for the right reasons (sparing his mother the ordeal in the final chapter of her life).

Plenty of people on this forum have. Just as Kevin Spacey did. There are so many examples of these false accusations that I'm amazed people still believe every single one of them before they are even proven. Or should I say, pretend to believe them so they have a stick with which to beat the British Royal Family.

Proves nothing other than he preferred not to sit through weeks of a trial in the kangaroo court of a banana republic. Settling out of court is not an admission of guilt. I would have thought you would have known that.

I don't think it matters if the photo was real. As far as I am aware it is not illegal to have photos taken with 17 year olds but correct me if you are aware of such a law.

Comparing the Muslim rape gangs to Andrew is totally disingenuous and frankly, disgusting. They are not even nearly the same thing. Your moral code must be pretty warped if you think gang raping a 12 year old girl is the same as having consensual sex with a 17 year old.

And just as credible as the other accusations. With the same amount of evidence to back it up. None.

She also recruited other girls for sex. A real gem, that Virginia.

Well if she was 17 and he paid her for sex then it's illegal so it matters in a legal sense. From a moral standpoint, she was clearly acting of her own free will, nobody was forcing her to do anything. She simply revised history at a later date to portray herself as a victim and get a big payout. A decent hustle which paid off nicely. Only a fool would believe she was forced into anything. Even the people arguing her case on this thread don't really believe that - it's just a stick to beat the Royals with.

Yes I'm pretty sure he would have been aware of his Mother's deteriorating health. Also aware that a long stressful court case could add to her health problems. If he didn't know, he would have been advised of such. I meant if I was Andrew I might have been tempted. I thought that was obvious. I don't need to take anyone's money. That's sweet.

If I was falsely accused of something in the final year of my mother's life, and faced weeks of questioning by hostile lawyers in a foreign country and tons of negative publicity I might be tempted to pay to make it all go away as well. Especially if I had Andrew's limited intellect and was paying with someone else's money. That would not mean I was guilty.

Let me be clear. Andrew is an idiot. He is arrogant, stupid and rude. However, if all it took for someone to be convicted was for a prostitute to tell a story about us then the jails would be full. It requires more than just an accusation. There needs to be evidence. There is none other that her words. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Or do you suspend that for Royals?

I have seen no credible evidence that Andrew either slept with her or paid her for sex. It's her word against his.

My idol Trump? Bit early for strawman arguments, is it not? If any real crimes have been committed then they should feel the full force of the law. I abhor people who abuse children. However, there is a big difference between that and some sex worker who sees a very profitable hustle on the horizon 20 years after sleeping with a client. I would suggest the FBI start with Bill Gates and Bill Clinton. But that's highly unlikely given their links with the Democrat party. If they go after those two then Epstein would have died for nothing. No, much better they focus on a British Prince. "Hey, look over there everyone!!".

I haven't seen any credible allegations from NY. Just more mud slinging from a few sex workers looking for a payout.

Given the politicization of the FBI/courts that we've seen by the Democrats in the last couple of years, plus the fact that the American left are notoriously anti-British royal family I don't blame him. I'd be staying well clear of that Banana Republic and their justice legal system until the Republicans are back in power and some sanity is restored. I'd also be asking why they aren't investigating their own domestic high profile individuals like Bill Clinton and Bill Gates before they start trying to flex their imagined muscles by summoning members of the British Royal Family across the pond. If I was Andrew I'd tell them to go swivel.

Allegedly. At least you got that bit correct. She was a prostitute. Correct. That does not mean that Andrew paid her. Plenty of prostitutes have sexual relationships outside of their work. Perhaps Epstein paid her. But what for? Perhaps she was there in an escort/assistant role and chose to sleep with him because he was a wealthy Prince and thought she could "do a Markle". Perhaps he didn't even sleep with her. You have no credible evidence that he slept with her and no evidence that money changed hands. All you have is an allegation by a self confessed prostitute and procurer of girls for sex who stood to (and did) make millions from said allegation. Hardly credible. More of an opportunist cash grab by a hustler. By the way in the UK it is only illegal to use a 17 year old prostitute if you do not believe her to be 18. Guiffre looked about 21 so even if Andrew did sleep with her (unproved allegation) he could argue he believed her to be 18. That's IF he slept with her and IF he paid her. Two things completely unproven. So basically, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

The Ginger fool is no longer HRH. He is no longer funded by the royals. He is disloyal to his family and to the country. He is a liar and a hypocrite. He makes racist remarks and dresses like a Nazi for fun yet lectures the 'plebs' on unconcious bias. He lectures on climate change then takes private jets and Range Rovers. He deserves disparaging remarks. Prince Andrew on the other hand 'allegedly' (but unproven) slept with a 17 year old in London where the age of consent is 16. Do I find that a bit weird for a 41 year old man? Yes, but I find a lot of sexual practices (particularly those between same sex people) a bit weird but as long as it is legal it is none of my business. I live and let live. I am an open minded individual and as long as he has not broken any laws (and I see no credible evidence that he has) then I see no need to vilify him. I am not a bigot, unlike many people on here who are attacking him. Unlike Ginge and Cringe, he is not lecturing me on how to live so I will offer him the same courtesy as long as he remains within the law and as I stated I see no credible evidence that he has broken any laws. I will state it again, consensual sex with a 17 year old in London is not rape. It is not illegal. It is not Paedophilia. You are gaslighting again.

Raped? Trafficked? It's ridiculous. Her own father drove her to the airport. Here she is, clearly kicking and screaming. Clearly distressed at having been paid lots of money to sleep with a handsome Prince (assuming it happened of course). And by her own admission 17 years old when the legal age in London is 16. It's all just another excuse to attack British royalty by Republicans and American leftists. What a disgusting thing to accuse someone of.

Yes they did. London.

Ah, blame the previous administration for everything. How predictable.