The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
sndral said:
Yes, as well as Anne, I believe, I’m not seriously questioning that particular statement. My comment in that regard was a bit flippant given Andrew’s denial of other matters. Although the fact that he doesn’t drink in no way negates the possibility that he would visit a bar, order non alcoholic drinks for himself and order and pay for someone else’s alcohol while there.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is the way I read the statement that Andrew made, it was as if he's setting the record straight that he couldn't possibly be a "playboy prince" because he doesn't drink alcohol. There are a lot of morally bankrupt and ethically challenged people out there that never touch alcohol at all so that didn't excuse Andrew in my eyes.
 
Osipi said:
One of those organizations has come out and stated that their logo was removed from the Pitch@Palace website because it shouldn't have been up there in the first place so that is an anomaly. Its really only been three days since the disastrous interview and perhaps there are many more to drop out of association with Andrew and his incentives. Some decisions just aren't made overnight.

I think website editor of Royal Central, Chris Proctor, was right when he stated "I expected a train wreck. That was a plane crashing into an oil tanker, causing a tsunami, triggering a nuclear explosion level bad."
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to Pitch@Palace removing them but the patronages removing Andrew from their official websites. Cambridge Science Center and Teen Tech both had him on their website a few days ago as their "Royal Patron. Today? Removed. It is just telling how people are clearly distancing themselves.
 
I think we all figured that the interview would have some serious repercussions solely by the way Andrew presented himself and seemingly had no regrets, no remorse and some pretty inane excuses that, I think, he actually believed were true of himself and his character. Especially the "honorable" part.

What amazes me is that Andrew had to know what the reasons were for his being "retired" from his role as the UK's trade envoy but obviously he didn't think that anything further would happen to him doing this insane interview.

Its a serious case of giving a man enough rope and he'll eventually hang himself with it. I do expect many, many more repercussions to follow. Will Andrew actually realize the implications of his actions? I have no clue but perhaps he has a magic mirror that shows him what he wants to see.

I do feel bad for the Pitch@Palace incentive as I believe it was a worthwhile endeavor and geared to help so many people and was growing beautifully before all this hit the fan.
 
Muhler said:
He may actually not recall this particular woman. - Bad memory. He meet so many different people, can't possibly remember them all. He was somewhat intoxicated, so can't remember people he may have met at some party and so on...
He finds it much easier to remember things he did with his daughters. Hardly surprising, eh?
He may actually suffer from a condition where he has problems perspiring. Whether that condition is physical or psychosomatic.
Click to expand...

I could fully understand it if he does not remember meeting Virginia Roberts, I'm sure in those days he slept with plenty of women. But remembering a pizza party that happened 23 years ago? Nope… I'm betting the only reason he remember it is because someone on his staff decided to check his old diaries and discovered Andrew was at a pizza party 23 years ago.

Also, whether he remembers it or not is irrelevent. She was 17 at the time. Sleeping with an underaged prostitute is a crime in the UK. Especially is said prostitute is forced and trafficked.
 
Some of that is real nonsense. Andrew has a lot of money...the Queen Mother left her grandchildren money and who knows what the Queen herself may of helped him with/given to him. To suggest or infer he has no income outside a Navy pension is ridiculous.

LaRae
 
You're surprised that Andrew's acitns are subject to criticism?

Osipi said:
The funny thing is the way I read the statement that Andrew made, it was as if he's setting the record straight that he couldn't possibly be a "playboy prince" because he doesn't drink alcohol. There are a lot of morally bankrupt and ethically challenged people out there that never touch alcohol at all so that didn't excuse Andrew in my eyes.
Click to expand...

Yes I think that Andrew thinks that his not drinking is a "plus" and that it shows him to be a highly moral person...and that as you say "he cant be a playboy because he doesnt' touch alcohol..."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
She was 17 at the time. Sleeping with an underaged prostitute is a crime in the UK
Click to expand...

How many times is it necessary to state the legal position in the UK ?

In Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is legal, and the age of consent is 16...
but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes...none of which [as far as I know] has the Duke been accused of..

Whatever our opinions of this matter maybe, clarity on the Law is important.

^ One 'offence' is alleged to have occurred in London [Age of Consent -16] another in NYC [AoC - 17] and on Epstein's Carribbean island [AoC -16, in most countries there].

I cannot find details of which nations jurisdiction Epsteins private Island was governed by.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew may not have committed a crime but his behaviour in continuing to associate with Epstein, his indifference to what was happening to the girls Epstein had around, his arrogance and greed for money, is bringing the monarchy into disrepute.. as he should know...
 
I've already stated [up-thread] my belief that he should retire..

I was merely re-stating the legal position so as to correct an inaccurate assertion...
 
wyevale said:
How many times is it necessary to state the legal position in the UK ?

In Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is legal, and the age of consent is 16...
but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes...none of which [as far as I know] has the Duke been accused of..

Whatever our opinions of this matter maybe, clarity on the Law is important.
Click to expand...

Apparently those 2 times were not enough or you need to read better. Age of consent is for "non-commercial sex" and for cliënts. Age of consent for the prostitutes themselves is 18. However, what is not clear to me is whether a cliënt has a duty to "research" the prostitutes age. If the prostitute was forced into prostitution it is (logically) also illegal and it doesn't matter if the cliënt didn't know.

Sexual Exploitation of Children
Children under 18, exploited in prostitution, should be treated as victims of abuse. See Guidance on Prosecuting Child Abuse Cases, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.
Those who sexually abuse children should be prosecuted under Sections 47 – 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. See Abuse of Children through Prostitution or Pornography in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 – Guidance, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance. This covers the prosecution of those who coerce, exploit and abuse children through prostitution. These offences carry a higher penalty.
Consent is irrelevant. A reasonable belief that the child is over 18 affords a defence if the child is 13 or over. There is no defence of reasonable belief if the child is aged under 13.
Click to expand...

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/prostitution-and-exploitation-prostitution

And this is not my opinion, this is the law.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-new-prostitution-laws-explained-1026318.html
 
Rumours circling that Sarah pushed Andrew to do the interview to get ahead of the papers. That I can definitely believe.
 
I'm seeing much speculation about funding for Andrew's lavish lifestyle. As the DM keeps stating, the numbers don't add up.

Andrew should surrender his patronages and bow out with what grace he can muster, before he is forced to.
 
I have not visited this thread since before the interview. So it opened for me on page 16, with discussion of how the Palace would have vetted questions before the interview were agreed to.

Some of the posts are funny/sad in their faith in the BRF and PR interviews. I admit to being cynical on Palace PR effectiveness.

Andrew met ALL my expectations with his answers. Completely out of touch with how he sounds to average people. Why he thinks he is convincing/endearing/credible when he comments on himself is beyond me.

To be fair, I also was an adult during Andy's relationship with Jeff. I agree that the social context of the time was different. Which excuses nothing. And to expect anyone today to give a pass because context has changed is just stupid.

What a mess!
 
AdmirerUS said:
I have not visited this thread since before the interview. So it opened for me on page 16, with discussion of how the Palace would have vetted questions before the interview were agreed to.

Some of the posts are funny/sad in their faith in the BRF and PR interviews. I admit to being cynical on Palace PR effectiveness.

Andrew met ALL my expectations with his answers. Completely out of touch with how he sounds to average people. Why he thinks he is convincing/endearing/credible when he comments on himself is beyond me.

To be fair, I also was an adult during Andy's relationship with Jeff. I agree that the social context of the time was different. Which excuses nothing. And to expect anyone today to give a pass because context has changed is just stupid.

What a mess!
Click to expand...

What was surprising to me was how ill prepared he seemed doing the interview, stumbling over questions, seeming to have no good answers to a couple of questions anyone should have known were coming, his overall demeanour, his seeming lack of consideration for the victims.. I could go on.

[...]

They need to hire an experienced Pitt bull and give him/her the authority to clean house. Everyone’s PR team ultimately reports to the Pitt bull, the Pitt bull reports directly to the Queen or The PoW. If anyone even looks sideways at the media without it being cleared by the the Pitt Bull, that person’s PR team is fired and the disobedient royal in question is now the direct responsibility of, you guessed it, the Pitt bull and their team. If the royal doesn’t like being put on a short leash? There’s the door.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ACO said:
Rebecca English writes palace sources are calling the media coverage of Andrew a “witch-hunt”

Now that’s interesting.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...od-hit-communities-AXED-Palace-officials.html
Click to expand...

I agree . It is clearly a witch hunt.

So far I have not seen any evidence that Andrew has lied about being at a pizza express party at the time when Virginia alleges they were together. Yet, everybody here assumes he is guilty of having sex with a trafficked minor.

And, again, most of the criticism with respect to Andrew’s interview relates to his choice of words or his demeanor, which actually is mostly an issue of cultural perception. For example , when Andrew referred to Epstein as conducting himself in an unbecoming way ( or something like that) and was frowned upon by the BBC interviewer for not using stronger language, I genuinely believe his explanation that he was just “ being polite”, which is the culture he grew up in (where people refrain from using harsh words to describe even the most despicable villains).
 
Last edited:
Mbruno said:
I agree . It is clearly a witch hunt.

So far I have not seen any evidence that Andrew has lied about being at a pizza express party at the time when Virginia alleges they were together. Yet, everybody here assumes he is guilty of having sex with a trafficked minor.

And, again, most of the criticism with respect to Andrew’s interview relates to his choice of words or his demeanor, which actually is mostly an issue of cultural perception. For example , when Andrew referred to Epstein as conducting himself in an unbecoming way ( or something like that) and was frowned upon by the BBC interviewer for not using stronger language, I genuinely believe his explanation that he was just “ being polite”, which is the culture he grew up in (where people refrain from using harsh words to describe even the most despicable villains).
Click to expand...


I don't think that's an accurate representation of 'everybody's' view. Most ppl haven't even expressed their opinion as to guilt or innocence.

What most ppl here are up in arms about is his actions before/after the interview and what he said during the interview.

I'm going to find it really hard to buy the idea that he is so bound by his culture he can't use harsh words....please the man was in the military for years and I've yet to meet one (regardless of Nationality) that can't curse like a sailor not to mention bluntly stating their opinion.



LaRae
 
wyevale said:
How many times is it necessary to state the legal position in the UK ?

In Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is legal, and the age of consent is 16...
but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes...none of which [as far as I know] has the Duke been accused of..

Whatever our opinions of this matter maybe, clarity on the Law is important.
Click to expand...


The Thing is that they were "Together" in the US where is it a crime.
 
so Andrew now realises he should have expressed some sympathy with the victims now after numerous commentators have remarked that he showed no sympaty/??
 
I don't see how this is a witch-hunt. They just throwing what Andrew said out his own mouth... ON VIDEO... back at him. He created this circus by agreeing to go on camera with a seasoned reporter and spew nonsense.

And now he wants to do it again? Oy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The York Minster Fund is reviewing Andrew’s patronage at their next Trustee meeting-
https://twitter.com/x/status/1197145835806564352

The bank firm Barclays are reviewing their sponsorship of Pitch@Palace-
https://twitter.com/x/status/1197152210364370945

Madame Verseau said:
Wow. Andrew wants a do over interview.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-interview-Duke-York-wants-second-chance.html

If true I wonder if Fergie put him up to this one like the last time? Someone REALLY needs to get in front of Andrew's face.
Click to expand...

The only people Prince Andrew should be talking to next is the FBI and other law enforcements.
 
Last edited:
Please note that posts referring to other members of the royal family in the context of interviews they have done and things going on in their lives have been edited or removed.

Let's stick to discussing the Duke of York in regard to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and subsequent events.
 
Jolly good thing too...

As has been said before the BRF hasn't survived for a thousand years without making speedy, pragmatic changes when urgently required...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2: Sep 2022 -
6 7 8
Replies
223
Views
14K
Curryong
C
L
  • Locked
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 1: October 2002-October 2003
3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
28K
Alexandria
A
J
  • Locked
Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik, Current Events 1: May 2003 - November 2006
17 18 19
Replies
564
Views
100K
norwegianne
norwegianne

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom