The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3161  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:11 PM
Empress Merel's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 2,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Which is not the same as sex trafficking.
Epstein was described to hold these underage girls as sex slaves, forcing them and exploiting them. That is the very definition of sex trafficking.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3162  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:18 PM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
I've tried to find out the legal difference between procuring and trafficking I still don't get it. If anyone knows an easy explanation that they are willing to share I'd be very grateful.
Neither do I but there s one thing,how did the girls get to Epstein in the first place?And how is it they forgot the use of the word NO?Oh don t get me wrong,but girls at 15,16 17 onwards know more these days and where to get it then previous generations..But still,it leaves standing that Andrew is a waste of space, a disgrace to his mother and the entire family with that spoiled rotten arrogant attitude and lies,bah.If he had the balls he lacks he would do the honourable thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Empress Merel View Post
Epstein was described to hold these underage girls as sex slaves, forcing them and exploiting them. That is the very definition of sex trafficking.
Yes but then explain HOW did the girls get there?..
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3163  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:23 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
so what is sex trafficking? the girl was under age.. and he procured her... he went to jail for it... how could ANdrew not know about this?? When he says he went all the way to America to tell Epstein that after this behaviour he had to stop seeing him?

Yes, you are right and I am wrong. I apologize.

In the U.S. the legal definition of sex trafficking is the "recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act."

Epstein was convicted of procuring an underage prostitute therefore he was guilty of sex trafficking.

But that doesn't mean Andrew knew Epstein's conviction meant he met the legal definition of a sex trafficker and it doesn't mean he knew Epstein was trafficking the women in his house. He only knew Epstein had been convicted of procuring an underage prostitute (although this in itself would have sent me running). I can easily picture Andrew assuming this meant Epstein wasn't having sex with these women otherwise why would he need to pay someone else? If Andrew had bothered to read all the reports in connection with the case he would have learned there was much more going on but of course he didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Tthere is a difference between meetng people of dubious morality for political reasons, which the queen and other royals and politicans have had to do at times.. and meeting someone of dubious morality and making friends with him and spending time hanging out with him, meeting his friends, inviting him to shooting weekends and parties.. and using him to provide your ex wife with money....
Andre did not pal around with Epstein because he had been asked to do so by the Govt.. he did so because Epstein was rich and could help him connect with other rich people
Yes, but that's not the point I was making. The point is the BRF are used to meeting dodgy people in high places, whether asked to by the government or not. I suspect in some cases it can cloud their judgment, for examples Charles's friendship with Jimmy Savile. It's possible Andrew may have met other high powered men surrounded by young women which meant his radar didn't go off when he met Epstein.

Quote:
..and because there were attractive girls hanging around his house..
No, we don't know that. It might be a reason but we can't state it as a fact.

I'm not defending Andrew's relationship with Epstein. As I've stated many times, the fact that he continued his friendship after Epstein's conviction calls his own character into question. Who on earth would do that?



What I'm questioning is the assumption Andrew knew about Epstein's sex trafficking. We don't know that. IMO Andrew comes across as clueless and oblivious. I suspect he doesn't have what I call a highly tuned "CREEP-O-METER," or the same ability to connect the dots we have. I can easily see that he might see a high powered man surrounded by young man, shrug it off, and just think of him as another Hugh Hefner without looking more closely.
Reply With Quote
  #3164  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:37 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,720
Now I just feel people are twisting themselves into pretzels to excuse Andrew. He didn't know the legal term? Give me a break. He knew 1000000% that his buddy was a convicted sex offender. The end. He knew exactly what he did to be thrown in jail and still stayed at his home and continued that friendship. Do we have 100% proof Andrew was aware of all the details? No, but I have serious doubts he was clueless.

Andrew was lying all over that interview. As I said before. He lied about very small things. Whhy in the world would I believe him over the big one?
Reply With Quote
  #3165  
Old 11-26-2019, 03:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
Epstein was convicted and served time for Sex Trafficking in 2008. In 2010 Prince Andrew stayed at Epstein's home for several days in New York.

Of course he knew.
No he wasn't and no he didn't. "Sex Trafficking" was not charged or convicted back then.
That charge wasn't until 2019.

As we now know, Epstein was woefully undercharged years ago--but I can definitely believe that he had excuses for even that conviction. After all, there have been cases of people being labeled as a sex offender for urinating in public or having sex with their girlfriend who was 16, when they were 18. I am not saying this is the case for Epstein--only that I can see how some could convince themselves he wasn't that bad a fellow. Perceptions changed a lot in the past 4 months.
Reply With Quote
  #3166  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:00 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
No he wasn't and no he didn't. Sex Trafficking was not charged or convicted back the.
That charge wasn't until 2019.
He was a convicted sex offender though in 2008.
Reply With Quote
  #3167  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:00 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
No he wasn't and no he didn't. Sex Trafficking was not charged or convicted back the.
That charge wasn't until 2019.

Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute.

He procured an UNDERAGE girl who legally cannot consent, for prostitution, well to be raped, in fact. That is sex trafficking.
Reply With Quote
  #3168  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:02 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 20,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
Epstein was convicted and served time for Sex Trafficking in 2008. In 2010 Prince Andrew stayed at Epstein's home for several days in New York.

Of course he knew.
Epstein was charged with procuring for prostitution a girl under the age of 18. He was not specifically charged with Sex Trafficking until 2019.

I ask again, how you know that Andrew knew? Because you can't. It is simply your opinion that he knew, which you are not stating clearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze View Post
Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute.

He procured an UNDERAGE girl who legally cannot consent, for prostitution, well to be raped, in fact. That is sex trafficking.
By legal definition in the US yes it is, however he was not charged specifically with sex trafficking therefore you can't say he was when he wasn't. It's not like we're trying to to defend the guy by stating what actually happened.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3169  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:18 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,545
An awful lot of people seem to be applying what is now widely known in 2019 to events that happened 9-11 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #3170  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Now I just feel people are twisting themselves into pretzels to excuse Andrew. He didn't know the legal term? Give me a break. He knew 1000000% that his buddy was a convicted sex offender. The end. He knew exactly what he did to be thrown in jail and still stayed at his home and continued that friendship.

Yes, Andrew definitely knew about Epstein's conviction and the fact that he didn't end the relationship then and there is reprehensible.

But that doesn't necessarily mean he knew Epstein was trafficking the women in his house. Andrew's not an American or a lawyer, how would he know the legal definition of sex trafficking in the U.S. under federal law?

The phrase "sex trafficking" wasn't even used in Epstein's sentence. He was found guilty under Florida law of "one felony count of prostitution and procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution." And the relatively light sentence Epstein received certainly didn't point to a "serious" crime.

IMO this doesn't justify Andrew's continued friendship with Epstein but I can understand why Andrew wouldn't equate convicted sex offender with sex trafficker.

Of course if Andrew had bothered to read the news reports & other documents associated with the case he would have known there was a lot more going on but I suspect he was too clueless to pay any attention to the American media.

IMO if Andrew had believed Epstein was a sex trafficker he wouldn't have let him attend Beatrice's 18th birthday party, whether Epstein was there as Ghislaine Maxwell's guest or not.
Reply With Quote
  #3171  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:28 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Wherever I wish, United States
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucien View Post
Neither do I but there s one thing,how did the girls get to Epstein in the first place?And how is it they forgot the use of the word NO?Oh don t get me wrong,but girls at 15,16 17 onwards know more these days and where to get it then previous generations..But still,it leaves standing that Andrew is a waste of space, a disgrace to his mother and the entire family with that spoiled rotten arrogant attitude and lies,bah.If he had the balls he lacks he would do the honourable thing.
On this front, it appears these girls were manipulated. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's "girlfriend" apparently scouted out schools and other areas for girls, before offering them the chance to get paid for giving Epstein a "massage". Looking at Andrew's accuser, Virginia Roberts was working at a spa when Maxwell recruited her for Epstein and promised the opportunity to learn to be a masseuse.

You also need to realize they choose girls who already had some damaging history. Again, looking at Roberts, she was a former runaway living on the streets. She said Epstein and Maxwell would make her feel like they actually cared about her. Without knowing the ins and outs of Roberts' home life, this might have been a need she thought these two were fulfilling: she had some money and someone cared. This can make it hard to say no. To put it in a different context, when people have an abusive parent it can be hard to remove yourself because you want to believe that deep inside they care and want what's best for you. Epstein and Maxwell groomed victims to say yes because (likely) they picked vulnerable girls who were desperate to feel they mattered to someone.

When girls like Roberts realized they didn't, they were faced with the institutional challenges a lot of women face when making these kinds of allegations. Jeffrey Epstein's friends were a who's who list of society, so why would Roberts think anyone would believe a teenage runaway, let alone take her claims seriously?
Reply With Quote
  #3172  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Epstein was charged with procuring for prostitution a girl under the age of 18. He was not specifically charged with Sex Trafficking until 2019.

I ask again, how you know that Andrew knew? Because you can't. It is simply your opinion that he knew, which you are not stating clearly.



By legal definition in the US yes it is, however he was not charged specifically with sex trafficking therefore you can't say he was when he wasn't. It's not like we're trying to to defend the guy by stating what actually happened.
Ok, he procured underage girl to be raped. There's no "underage prostitution", it's rape, because legally underage people cannot consent to having sex or prostitution. This was well known, as he was convicted for it. Andrew and everyone else knew it.
Reply With Quote
  #3173  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:34 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Epstein was charged with procuring for prostitution a girl under the age of 18. He was not specifically charged with Sex Trafficking until 2019.

I ask again, how you know that Andrew knew? Because you can't. It is simply your opinion that he knew, which you are not stating clearly.



By legal definition in the US yes it is, however he was not charged specifically with sex trafficking therefore you can't say he was when he wasn't. It's not like we're trying to to defend the guy by stating what actually happened.
You can't prove he didn't know either, now can you? Of course not. We are splitting hairs here. Agree to disagree one what he did or didn't know.
Reply With Quote
  #3174  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:37 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Yes, Andrew definitely knew about Epstein's conviction and the fact that he didn't end the relationship then and there is reprehensible.

But that doesn't necessarily mean he knew Epstein was trafficking the women in his house. Andrew's not an American or a lawyer, how would he know the legal definition of sex trafficking in the U.S. under federal law?

The phrase "sex trafficking" wasn't even used in Epstein's sentence. He was found guilty under Florida law of "one felony count of prostitution and procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution." And the relatively light sentence Epstein received certainly didn't point to a "serious" crime.

IMO this doesn't justify Andrew's continued friendship with Epstein but I can understand why Andrew wouldn't equate convicted sex offender with sex trafficker.

Of course if Andrew had bothered to read the news reports & other documents associated with the case he would have known there was a lot more going on but I suspect he was too clueless to pay any attention to the American media.

IMO if Andrew had believed Epstein was a sex trafficker he wouldn't have let him attend Beatrice's 18th birthday party, whether Epstein was there as Ghislaine Maxwell's guest or not.
I'm sorry but what? Sex offender. Sex trafficker. He was arrested for soliciting sex with a child. All these excuses mean very little to me. Andrew knew why that man was arrested. He just didn't care and he made that pretty damn clear in his interview when he said he had no regrets over the friendship.

And letting a man around his daughter knowing even that is disgusting.
Reply With Quote
  #3175  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:52 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,846
Aside from the sex trafficking v sex offender argument, I was thinking that as necessary as making Andrew step aside was required, will it not possibly create problems in the long run, especially if Charles and William really do want him to step aside for good.

My point is, while a "working member of the RF" Andrew is being kept busy and there is some level of scrutiny over his work and who he meets and what he does. But cut off, no public money to call account of, no public role to justify media knowing about his work for, what will Andrew do? He is only 59 and anyone who expects him to do a Philip and retire to a discreet country house and stay out of the public eye is naive IMO. I wonder if, put out at being made to stand aside, put put by his brother and nephew apparently happy to make that permanent Andrew doesn't just go and do what ever the hell he wants, if he is not a working royal with a public role then surely, he may think, he can do just as he pleases.

Personally, as much as I think a public role isn't right for Andrew nor sends the right message, I do think he needs something to do to keep him out of trouble (yes rather like a naughty child). I read years ago that when Andrew left his role in the navy in 2001 Charles offered him a role as his aide, I assume as some sort of equerry type thing, but Andrew rejected it and instead the Duke of Kent left the role of Ambassador for Trade and Investment to make room for Andrew to take it on. (This is being reported in Royal Central which I never trust but I had read it a few years back as well and think it has resurfaced in all the recent fuss)
While such a role is unlikely now, I mean can you think of the justifiable outrage if The Queen or Charles asked Andrew to become their most prominent aide. That said, I do think he needs something to do before he makes use of all his new found free time to jet around the world with his taxpayer funded bodyguards meeting more corrupt, dodgy people. I have to say I don't think Andrew met questionable people through his official role (though plenty of roles do have to) but because they are the type of people he is drawn to.
Reply With Quote
  #3176  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:01 PM
Zaira's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: A, United States
Posts: 1,190
Some people in this thread are doing a better job of defending Andrew's despicable actions than Andrew himself or the Palace.

That isn't a compliment.
Reply With Quote
  #3177  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
I'm sorry but what? Sex offender. Sex trafficker. He was arrested for soliciting sex with a child. All these excuses mean very little to me. Andrew knew why that man was arrested. He just didn't care and he made that pretty damn clear in his interview when he said he had no regrets over the friendship.

And letting a man around his daughter knowing even that is disgusting.

I'm sorry, I was focused on the definition of "sex offender" vs. "sex trafficker." IMO there is a difference as Epstein learned when he received a light sentence as a "sex offender" vs. the sentence he would have gotten as a "sex trafficker."

But you're absolutely right, soliciting sex from a minor is disgusting and that alone should have made Andrew retch and run.
Reply With Quote
  #3178  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:05 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 20,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze View Post
Ok, he procured underage girl to be raped. There's no "underage prostitution", it's rape, because legally underage people cannot consent to having sex or prostitution. This was well known, as he was convicted for it. Andrew and everyone else knew it.

I’m literally quoting what he was charged for. Don’t have a go at me, for the technical term he was charged for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
You can't prove he didn't know either, now can you? Of course not. We are splitting hairs here. Agree to disagree one what he did or didn't know.
Difference between your comments and mine, is that I’m not claiming anything as fact. You are. This a forum for discussion and I’m discussing your comment which you are asserting as fact, to find the proof you have to say that.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3179  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:09 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,720
Andrew is a grown man. He doesn't have to have a public role and if not having one makes him act like a "naughty child" and run amok then he will just have to deal with that consequence as well.

Not seeing why anyone needs to cater to him. I think doing that all these years is exactly why he is in this current situation. Eventually this man needs to grow up and get a clue. He getting a reality check right now. Privilege is grand but it will only get you so far.

Anyways we all know as long as his mother is still on this earth that he will be fine. I can't say the same when his brother takes over.
Reply With Quote
  #3180  
Old 11-26-2019, 05:50 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Aside from the sex trafficking v sex offender argument, I was thinking that as necessary as making Andrew step aside was required, will it not possibly create problems in the long run, especially if Charles and William really do want him to step aside for good.

My point is, while a "working member of the RF" Andrew is being kept busy and there is some level of scrutiny over his work and who he meets and what he does. But cut off, no public money to call account of, no public role to justify media knowing about his work for, what will Andrew do? He is only 59 and anyone who expects him to do a Philip and retire to a discreet country house and stay out of the public eye is naive IMO. I wonder if, put out at being made to stand aside, put put by his brother and nephew apparently happy to make that permanent Andrew doesn't just go and do what ever the hell he wants, if he is not a working royal with a public role then surely, he may think, he can do just as he pleases.

Personally, as much as I think a public role isn't right for Andrew nor sends the right message, I do think he needs something to do to keep him out of trouble (yes rather like a naughty child). I read years ago that when Andrew left his role in the navy in 2001 Charles offered him a role as his aide, I assume as some sort of equerry type thing, but Andrew rejected it and instead the Duke of Kent left the role of Ambassador for Trade and Investment to make room for Andrew to take it on. (This is being reported in Royal Central which I never trust but I had read it a few years back as well and think it has resurfaced in all the recent fuss)
While such a role is unlikely now, I mean can you think of the justifiable outrage if The Queen or Charles asked Andrew to become their most prominent aide. That said, I do think he needs something to do before he makes use of all his new found free time to jet around the world with his taxpayer funded bodyguards meeting more corrupt, dodgy people. I have to say I don't think Andrew met questionable people through his official role (though plenty of roles do have to) but because they are the type of people he is drawn to.

I can't remember the exact wording but a royal reporter stated that if Andrew isn't performing royal duties what is he for?

That's it in a nutshell.

I suppose it depends on how the Epstein investigation plays out. If new evidence emerges refuting or supporting Virginia Giuffre's accusations that will make a difference.

But if we're left with the current "she said/he said" impasse then Andrew's finished for good. He's just too toxic. Even if he wasn't aware of Epstein's criminal activity his continued friendship with him after the 2010 conviction was inexcusable and his moral character will always be questioned.

I don't have an answer to your question. I suspect the BRF will call in experts and advisors. Whatever is decided, Andrew will have to agree to it, or (as you say) he'll think he can do as he pleases. Does the BRF have any financial hold over him?

Whatever happens with Andrew, I think the BRF also needs to take steps to ensure this never happens again. Not just the disastrous interview, but relationships with people like Jeffrey Epstein. IMO there needs to be more centralization within the Firm. I keep reading that the royals are a family not a corporation but in reality it's a family business and - as Andrew learned - you can be fired. But I have no idea how to put this centralization into practice or how realistic it would be.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
alqasimi althorp aristocracy armenia bangladesh belgian royal family birthday celebration castles charles of wales chittagong clarence house crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria current events cyprus danish history denmark diana princess of wales duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch dutch royal family felipe vi foundation french revolution future genealogy general news germany hamdan bin mohammed hill historical drama house of bourbon house of saxe-coburg and gotha jumma king salman languages lithuanian castles mail meghan markle memoir mohammed vi monaco christening monaco history monarchism nobel 2019 official visit palaces prince charles prince harry prince of wales princess margaret royal children royal tour russian imperial family saudi arabia settings spain spanish history spencer family state visit sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty thai royal family tracts united kingdom


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:07 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×