Notice how everyone ignored this particular post and doesn't want to address this legitimate question.
I noticed. In this time of #metoo it seems that the rule of law and the right of redress count for nothing. Libellous accusations have been made about other individual members of the BRF as well and these posters seem to think that their personal feelings give them a free pass. They do not.
Andrew was lambasted and his reputation suffered greatly after the original Florida criminal case against Epstein in 2008. His unwise choice of friend cost him a lot of friends, the goodwill of a great many people and his position as Trade Ambassador. To be honest, he took a beating over the whole thing and sort of vanished for a while.
Now that the original case is under scrutiny I am interested as to what they will find but, until such time as Prince Andrew is charged with a crime, I refuse to be part of a lynch mob trying to destroy the man and his career.
I think the MeToo movement has influenced the discussion and I believe this has already been pointed out by other forum members. There's a heightened sensitivity to the sexual abuse of women and an increased effort to hold the guilty accountable.
I don't think Andrew is guilty of any crimes and he's stated he didn't "see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to [Epstein's] arrest and conviction."
But he still hasn't explained why the conviction itself didn't raise any red flags.
While the #MeToo movement created a groundswell of women coming forward and naming their abusers, such as Harvey Weinstein, almost 99% of these men were still at large and free to continue to abuse their power. They were the previous UNKNOWN abusers, stalwarts of the community, the recipient of many international and national awards, etc. They were not men on trial for sex crimes such as Epstein was.
I will say this now as I have said before, to be charged with such horrifying and almost unbelievable sex crimes such as he was, he pleaded guilty and, as we now know, his sentence was a farce. To me here in little old NZ and to the people and media of the UK, having pleaded guilty or been found guilty by a jury, we would have expected that to be the end of it. He would be jailed for at least 20 years to life. That did not happen.
To me and I think most decent honest people, the fact that he pleaded guilty to two state counts of prostitution, etc. was a nothing. It seemed that the media had gotten hold of the story and more than overstated the case, I mean, the man was out of jail within 13 months. The notion that the facts were real and the DA's Office would protect one of the great and powerful to the extent it did is beyond belief.
That conviction gave the illusion of "stupid mistake" not "lethal predator" and many of his friends joined him to dine after the event and shook their heads. Basically, NBD.