Andrew court case

Following in the tradition of naughty royals, a far off posting could be in the offing perhaps the Governor of the Falkland Islands.
 
Last edited:
He won't be given any official position and the Falklands wouldn't want him.
He needs to be sent into exile, preferably up to Balmoral up in Scotland. That would wind up Jimmy Krankie Sturgeon
 
At the time of the alleged incident, Prince Andrew would have been 40 years old, single wealthy, and famous, a year older than Prince William is now. There would have been lots of very attractive women in their 20's wanting to date and sleep with him, and he had the time plus the money, and opportunity for this to happen, and I am sure he probably did. He definitely would not have needed paid company to be arranged for him
for sex. If you do a quick google search he has had a lot of attractive companions.

However, he is not the brightest and has made two big mistakes. Firstly the interview, he should have kept quiet and not done it. Secondly, by associating with Epstein after he became aware of the rumors about him.

I find it quite ironic that he is being reported of taking advantage of a 17-year-old girl by the Sun, who had a 16-year-old Sam Fox
taking her clothes off on page 3, and numerous other teenage girls as well exposing their bodies for money. In their articles, they always
show an unflattering recent picture of him, showing his chins, always mentioning his age of 61, and her age at 17.

If the case does progress then I expect his police security to produce evidence, I cannot see him making a financial settlement as this will be an admission of guilt.
 
Last edited:
Danny Ocean said:
At the time of the alleged incident, Prince Andrew would have been 40 years old, single wealthy, and famous, a year older than Prince William is now. There would have been lots of very attractive women in their 20's wanting to date and sleep with him, and he had the time plus the money, and opportunity for this to happen, and I am sure he probably did. He definitely would not have needed paid company to be arranged for him
for sex. If you do a quick google search he has had a lot of attractive companions.

However, he is not the brightest and has made three big mistakes. Firstly the interview, he should have kept quiet and not done it. Secondly, by associating with Epstein after he became aware of the rumors about him. Thirdly by not getting another wife after Fergie, and still having her hanging around.

I find it quite ironic that he is being accused of taking advantage of a 17-year-old girl by the Sun, who had a 16-year-old Sam Fox
taking her clothes off on page 3, and numerous other teenage girls as well exposing their bodies for money. In their articles, they always
show an unflattering recent picture of him, showing his chins, always mentioning his age of 61, and her age at 17.

If the case does progress then I expect his police security to produce evidence, I cannot see him making a financial settlement as this will be an admission of guilt.
Click to expand...
He's not being accused of anything by the Sun, they are just reporting the fact that he has been accused of it (and subject to legal action) from the girl who was 17 at the time that he was photographed with her, together with his friend Ghislaine, a convicted sex-trafficker.

He'll almost certainly settle as if he had any genuine evidence to prove himself, we'd have long since heard about it.
 
Telegraph reporting that VR might settle for more than $5,000,000, although keen to stress that she's unlikely to accept that because she wants to see PA on trial (although strictly it's not a "trial").

Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like an attempt to open a negotiation, as in Forest might be interested in Bowler at £100,000, and we might be interested in selling him at £5,000,000.

If so I think it's misjudged.

Answers on a postcard please.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
He's not being accused of anything by the Sun, they are just reporting the fact that he has been accused of it (and subject to legal action) from the girl who was 17 at the time that he was photographed with her, together with his friend Ghislaine, a convicted sex-trafficker.

He'll almost certainly settle as if he had any genuine evidence to prove himself, we'd have long since heard about it.
Click to expand...
We have heard. He was in Pizza Hut in Woking, a completely believable story. I'm really surprised the staff can't remember it.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Telegraph reporting that VR might settle for more than $5,000,000, although keen to stress that she's unlikely to accept that because she wants to see PA on trial (although strictly it's not a "trial").

Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like an attempt to open a negotiation, as in Forest might be interested in Bowler at £100,000, and we might be interested in selling him at £5,000,000.

If so I think it's misjudged.

Answers on a postcard please.
Click to expand...
These types of cases are pretty much always settled. It’s naive to think otherwise..

If there is no option for criminal proceedings, then a damages claim is the way to achieve justice.

Clearly VR will be prepared to go through with the full legal process if necessary and that may even be desirable, but it rarely happens….
 
I think once his options to get off with a technicality run out he will absolutely settle. There is no way the Queen et al will have the kind of dirty washing that will come out, coming out so publicly.

Not a chance.
 
1950`spoolfan said:
As I might even have been tempted to do at the ill mannered inanity of such a post if it was worth more than a moments consideration, but as it`s not I won`t.

I am sure you can find something better to do, like push a trolley maybe, in the very hard pressed NHS rather than waste so much of your working life posting ill mannered garbage on here.
Click to expand...
Jesus wept
 
English Law states innocent till proven guilty but most of our press have made up their minds and lots of readers will believe he is guilty.
 
Threepeaksphil said:
English Law states innocent till proven guilty but most of our press have made up their minds and lots of readers will believe he is guilty.
Click to expand...
He’s not been charged with a criminal offence in any case. She’s brought a civil claim (presumably under US law).
 
Interesting little article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...Andrews-oaf-accuser-questions-answer-too.html

She claims that not only did Giuffre text her excitedly from London in March 2001 to say she was having dinner with the Prince, she also claims that when she got back to Florida she showed Andriano that snap of her with him and gushed: 'I got to sleep with him.'

According to Andriano, Giuffre didn't seem remotely upset about the experience. On the contrary, 'she thought it was pretty cool' and 'couldn't believe that she got to sleep with Prince Andrew'.
 
Prince Andrew is a pillock, hasn't got 2 brain cells to rub together.
However, look at that photograph. If he was screwing her wouldn't he have at least put his arm round her?
I thunk she's just rushed in and asked if she could be photographed with him.
As I said, I don't like the way he's behaved, but why immediately say 'He did the crime;'?
 
I have no idea whether he is guilty or not of what he is currently charged.

What he is guilty of is mixing with a known convicted child sex offender - for a Prince of the realm that is simply not good enough.

Regardless of the current case there is a very strong argument that he should be stripped of all government subsidy (or whatever you call it) and stripped of all tittles and military gifted rank.
 
The trouble here is that it completely misses the point.

A significant factor in coming to terms with child sexual abuse is the issue that the child is often a willing and cooperative participant and are pleasured by the experience.

I’ll revert back again to grooming gangs as for some, it’s easier to decipher victim and abuser when the abuser is a different colour…. In those instances many young girls were willing to engage, bring other friends and even referenced the abusers as their ‘boyfriends’… That’s the who’s point of grooming and coercion - To establish a willing victim….

This is why it often takes many years for the victims to understand and process the abuse. Why it’s often not recognised until they reach a certain level of maturity themselves to appreciate the basis of the relationship they had and why it was abusive.

Of course, what may or may not have been said in the process of essentially grooming Carolyn Andriano is likely to of questionable merit in any case…. Arguably telling her how great that life was and reinforcing that would have been an established and rehearsed part of the process….

The key question there is whether Giuffre appears to have played a more prominent role in the grooming process than any other girls and whether her behaviour was independent of the abuse / control by Epstein and Maxwell…. That is probably a matter that needs to be settled by the criminal system, but from available evidence it seems she was one of a long line and recruitment of other girls was very much and established part of the abuse cycle.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The trouble here is that it completely misses the point.

A significant factor in coming to terms with child sexual abuse is the issue that the child is often a willing and cooperative participant and are pleasured by the experience.
Click to expand...

Here's someone else who completely misses the point (earlier link)

She also says that her friendship with Giuffre was what led to her being recruited – aged 14 – into Epstein and Maxwell's 'pyramid scheme' of abuse, and that Giuffre was fully aware of what was going on. 'I don't think she deserves any compensation,' she says.

'I don't think she was coerced into doing anything.'

She even goes so far as to say that Giuffre, whom she met when she was 13 and dating a 17-year-old boy who was friends with Giuffre's boyfriend, deserves to get the same treatment as Maxwell, since she 'trafficked' her into a 'world of spiralling downward slopes'.


Again you're conflating a 17/18 year old with a child of perhaps 13 or younger.

So what we appear to have is a 17/18 year old, who enjoys flying around the world, leading a jet set lifestyle, sleeping with rich and powerful men, getting paid for it but at the same time she's a victim of sex abuse, she just doesn't know it yet.

Whatever the morality of this, I can't see how this can ever be a matter for the courts.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Here's someone else who completely misses the point (earlier link)

She also says that her friendship with Giuffre was what led to her being recruited – aged 14 – into Epstein and Maxwell's 'pyramid scheme' of abuse, and that Giuffre was fully aware of what was going on. 'I don't think she deserves any compensation,' she says.

'I don't think she was coerced into doing anything.'

She even goes so far as to say that Giuffre, whom she met when she was 13 and dating a 17-year-old boy who was friends with Giuffre's boyfriend, deserves to get the same treatment as Maxwell, since she 'trafficked' her into a 'world of spiralling downward slopes'.


Again you're conflating a 17/18 year old with a child of perhaps 13 or younger.

So what we appear to have is a 17/18 year old, who enjoys flying around the world, leading a jet set lifestyle, sleeping with rich and powerful men, getting paid for it but at the same time she's a victim of sex abuse, she just doesn't know it yet.

Whatever the morality of this, I can't see how this can ever be a matter for the courts.
Click to expand...
I’m not conflating anything at all… There are examples of much older individuals who have been the subject of abuse and coercion, though in the case of sex trafficking, the use of moderately older girls is commonplace… Again exactly the same thing will have occurred with Asian grooming gangs and it was also a feature in the R Kelly case and even in the case of male football victims.

Listen to the interview I linked above with Sarah Ransome, who was first exposed to the Epstein world aged 22 and the extent to which Epstein and Maxwell exercised psychological control over her.

Of course, as I’ve already said, the allegations by Carolyn should be investigated and VG prosecuted if appropriate, but I’m not sure….From what I can see here VG was simply performing her role as recruiter and doing it well… Again see the video link of Hayley Robson above, another girl who admits to being involved in recruitment….. These girls had gone beyond their useful life (not young enough) for Epstein and were therefore used to encourage younger girls into the abuse cycle…. In the case of Robson, she can forgive the girl who recruited her, because she understands the cycle of abuse…. With Carolyn that is different…, but nonetheless that cycle does exist…

So the question remains… what was unique about VG that would make her perpetrator, when others were victims?

And with regard to this ….

“So what we appear to have is a 17/18 year old, who enjoys flying around the world, leading a jet set lifestyle, sleeping with rich and powerful men, getting paid for it but at the same time she's a victim of sex abuse, she just doesn't know it yet.”

Absolutely… Yes…. (Except at the time she was just 17, not 18 or 17/18).

And this is why these abusers will tend to focus on girls with limited prospects, poor abusive family circumstances… So yes, they are being abused, manipulated etc.. and enjoying it….

Yet… due to their naivety and young years they do not understand that they are being abused..
 
Lost Seasider said:
Here's someone else who completely misses the point (earlier link)

She also says that her friendship with Giuffre was what led to her being recruited – aged 14 – into Epstein and Maxwell's 'pyramid scheme' of abuse, and that Giuffre was fully aware of what was going on. 'I don't think she deserves any compensation,' she says.

'I don't think she was coerced into doing anything.'

She even goes so far as to say that Giuffre, whom she met when she was 13 and dating a 17-year-old boy who was friends with Giuffre's boyfriend, deserves to get the same treatment as Maxwell, since she 'trafficked' her into a 'world of spiralling downward slopes'.


Again you're conflating a 17/18 year old with a child of perhaps 13 or younger.

So what we appear to have is a 17/18 year old, who enjoys flying around the world, leading a jet set lifestyle, sleeping with rich and powerful men, getting paid for it but at the same time she's a victim of sex abuse, she just doesn't know it yet.

Whatever the morality of this, I can't see how this can ever be a matter for the courts.
Click to expand...
Yes I read the articles in the Mail earlier today. Carolyn certainly has a different view of Giuffre to that painted by some on here, and clearly blames her for pulling her into the Epstein orbit.

For me the key points are:

Carolyn actually met and knew Giuffre well, unlike any of us on here. She would therefore have had the opportunity to assess Giuffre’s character and integrity.

Carolyn is now 35. Not some naive child any longer.

On her own admission she has led a life which I’m sure will have given her a pretty good handle on people (men and women) and how they work.

I don’t think therefore that it’s reasonable for others (not you obviously) to dismiss her experiences on the grounds she doesn’t understand “the cycle of abuse”. I suspect she understands it very well from her own personal experiences.

That said I don’t agree with everything you say, and certainly not that this isn’t a matter for the courts. It’s precisely the sort of dispute that should be decided by the courts so that all sides and viewpoints can be aired.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Yes I read the articles in the Mail earlier today. Carolyn certainly has a different view of Giuffre to that painted by some on here, and clearly blames her for pulling her into the Epstein orbit.

For me the key points are:

Carolyn actually met and knew Giuffre well, unlike any of us on here. She would therefore have had the opportunity to assess Giuffre’s character and integrity.

Carolyn is now 35. Not some naive child any longer.

On her own admission she has led a life which I’m sure will have given her a pretty good handle on people (men and women) and how they work.

I don’t think therefore that it’s reasonable for others (not you obviously) to dismiss her experiences on the grounds she doesn’t understand “the cycle of abuse”. I suspect she understands it very well from her own personal experiences.

That said I don’t agree with everything you say, and certainly not that this isn’t a matter for the courts. It’s precisely the sort of dispute that should be decided by the courts so that all sides and viewpoints can be aired.
Click to expand...
Carolyn was 14 years old when she knew Giuffre… Of course she would view her as more mature and of course she would blame her for recruiting her….’She was older, perceived to be wiser etc..,’ However at 17 Giuffre was, when all said and done just a child herself.. By 19 years old Giuffre had moved on… So their ‘relationship’ existed as co-abused kids and with Giuffre seeming (despite her own young years) to be much older and more experienced.

So the perception of who / what Giuffre was is perceived through the eyes of a 14 year old girl towards a much older 17 year old girl…. That’s a totally different dynamic to how Giuffre might have perceived the situation, but it is quite simply how the pyramid of abuse was designed to be. Those slightly older girls and how they were perceived by slightly younger girls were the key to keeping the bandwagon of abuse rolling…

Of course, Carolyn herself continued to be a regular at Epstein’s house until (as is stated) he had no more use for her… That being when she was over 18 herself…(whether she herself was involved in recruitment is not mentioned, but nonetheless she was certainly a willing participant, just the same as she accuses VG of being)…(willing insomuch as they needed the money and had been sucked / coerced into the abuse cycle).

When I referenced not ‘understanding the cycle of abuse’ I perhaps should have said not having personally experienced or been involved in the cycle of abuse…. The point being that Hayley Robson finds it extremely easy to understand and relate to the girl who recruited her, because she (like Giuffre) also recruited girls… So to that extent, she can acknowledge and relate to how those recruiters are still victims….(So not a matter of dismissing her experience or the validity of her opinion, but rather just understanding that the individual experiences can affect their judgment of others)

And I’ll repeat again..

What was special or unique about VG within the context of the overall Epstein ring… How was she different to any other girls who were abused, coerced and went on to recruit girls???

Clearly she was different to Carolyn because she was the one who specifically recruited her, but that appears to be it.

There’s no suggestion of anything else, anything more that might single her out as playing a broader role or whatever..

As I’ve said though…. These matters and especially from a criminal perspective should be subject to proper investigation and trial if necessary…
 
Last edited:
Danny Ocean said:
At the time of the alleged incident, Prince Andrew would have been 40 years old, single wealthy, and famous, a year older than Prince William is now. There would have been lots of very attractive women in their 20's wanting to date and sleep with him, and he had the time plus the money, and opportunity for this to happen, and I am sure he probably did. He definitely would not have needed paid company to be arranged for him
for sex. If you do a quick google search he has had a lot of attractive companions.

However, he is not the brightest and has made two big mistakes. Firstly the interview, he should have kept quiet and not done it. Secondly, by associating with Epstein after he became aware of the rumors about him.

I find it quite ironic that he is being reported of taking advantage of a 17-year-old girl by the Sun, who had a 16-year-old Sam Fox
taking her clothes off on page 3, and numerous other teenage girls as well exposing their bodies for money. In their articles, they always
show an unflattering recent picture of him, showing his chins, always mentioning his age of 61, and her age at 17.

If the case does progress then I expect his police security to produce evidence, I cannot see him making a financial settlement as this will be an admission of guilt.
Click to expand...
Makes you wonder if there was more to his divorce to Sarah Furguson in 1996 - mind you he has called continued to see his two daughters when he does his Saturday’s Kids session down the Woking Pizza Express, oh, and Woking sounds like “Woke” or “We King” as my spellchecker tried to tell me!

Wheels within wheels eh.
 
Danny Ocean said:
At the time of the alleged incident, Prince Andrew would have been 40 years old, single wealthy, and famous, a year older than Prince William is now. There would have been lots of very attractive women in their 20's wanting to date and sleep with him, and he had the time plus the money, and opportunity for this to happen, and I am sure he probably did. He definitely would not have needed paid company to be arranged for him
for sex. If you do a quick google search he has had a lot of attractive companions.

However, he is not the brightest and has made two big mistakes. Firstly the interview, he should have kept quiet and not done it. Secondly, by associating with Epstein after he became aware of the rumors about him.

I find it quite ironic that he is being reported of taking advantage of a 17-year-old girl by the Sun, who had a 16-year-old Sam Fox
taking her clothes off on page 3, and numerous other teenage girls as well exposing their bodies for money. In their articles, they always
show an unflattering recent picture of him, showing his chins, always mentioning his age of 61, and her age at 17.

If the case does progress then I expect his police security to produce evidence, I cannot see him making a financial settlement as this will be an admission of guilt.
Click to expand...
His sheer arrogance has shown through in all this.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
However at 17 Giuffre was, when all said and done just a child herself..
Click to expand...

I think you're stretching the facts more than a bit by describing her as a child, I'm sure there's plenty of 17 years olds out there who'd take more than a bit of offence at being called a child and who are more than capable of making the point to you one punch at a time.

By all accounts she knew exactly what she was doing, enjoyed doing it, wasn't coerced into doing it and when she'd had enough she simply walked away and would never have looked back were it not for her role in recruiting other victims.
 
Lost Seasider said:
I think you're stretching the facts more than a bit by describing her as a child, I'm sure there's plenty of 17 years olds out there who'd take more than a bit of offence at being called a child and who are more than capable of making the point to you one punch at a time.

By all accounts she knew exactly what she was doing, enjoyed doing it, wasn't coerced into doing it and when she'd had enough she simply walked away and would never have looked back were it not for her role in recruiting other victims.
Click to expand...
I’m stretching nothing, as anyone who has brought up kids will testify. As I said, listen to the victim who was 22 (never mind 17). This is all about the relationship between abuser and abused rich and powerful older man and immature, deprived girl.

“By all accounts”?

By which accounts?

Though I’m not sure that anyone is claiming she didn’t know what she was doing, nor that it was wrong or that she wouldn’t have understood the negative implications for the girls involved.

That’s not what this is about…

What matters is the extent to which the abusive, power, coercive relationship with Epstein and Maxwell influenced VG’s behaviour.

At 17 years old there is no question in my mind who was pulling the strings. Girls are seriously immature and particularly prone to this kind of dangerous influence and abuse at that age…..

Incidentally what the fuck does the ability to punch someone have to do with psychological and emotional maturity?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’m stretching nothing, as anyone who has brought up kids will testify. As I said, listen to the victim who was 22 (never mind 17). This is all about the relationship between abuser and abused rich and powerful older man and immature, deprived girl.

“By all accounts”?

By which accounts?

Though I’m not sure that anyone is claiming she didn’t know what she was doing, nor that it was wrong or that she wouldn’t have understood the negative implications for the girls involved.

That’s not what this is about…

What matters is the extent to which the abusive, power, coercive relationship with Epstein and Maxwell influenced VG’s behaviour.

At 17 years old there is no question in my mind who was pulling the strings. Girls are seriously immature and particularly prone to this kind of dangerous influence and abuse at that age…..
Click to expand...

The accounts that say she recruited actual children into the ring.

The accounts that say she thought it was "pretty cool" to sleep with PA.

The accounts that say she wasn't coerced.

The accounts that say she should've been prosecuted alongside Maxwell.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’m stretching nothing, as anyone who has brought up kids will testify. As I said, listen to the victim who was 22 (never mind 17). This is all about the relationship between abuser and abused rich and powerful older man and immature, deprived girl.

“By all accounts”?

By which accounts?

Though I’m not sure that anyone is claiming she didn’t know what she was doing, nor that it was wrong or that she wouldn’t have understood the negative implications for the girls involved.

That’s not what this is about…

What matters is the extent to which the abusive, power, coercive relationship with Epstein and Maxwell influenced VG’s behaviour.

At 17 years old there is no question in my mind who was pulling the strings. Girls are seriously immature and particularly prone to this kind of dangerous influence and abuse at that age…..

Incidentally what the fuck does the ability to punch someone have to do with psychological and emotional maturity?
Click to expand...
Punching someone in the face to make a point regardless of age demonstrates complete psychological and emotional immaturity surely?
 
Lost Seasider said:
The accounts that say she recruited actual children into the ring.

The accounts that say she thought it was "pretty cool" to sleep with PA.

The accounts that say she wasn't coerced.

The accounts that say she should've been prosecuted alongside Maxwell.
Click to expand...
So you are talking about an account as opposed to accounts?

Bear in mind that the same girl who considers VR totally accountable for VR’s behaviour also believes that her own behaviour (ie engaging in hundreds of visits to Epstein for paid sex, up to age 18) was coerced.

So what was different?

Why was the same abuse, coercive and power relationship with Epstein and Maxwell responsible for taking one girl from Day 1 to regular and Compliant sexually abused young woman… any different that the abusive snd coercive relationship that saw the other from Day 1 to compliant recruiter?


Some girls left after Day 1 and never came back…

Perhaps the ones who did fit a well considered profile…..? Perhaps it’s all about a web that finds girls who are troubled and likely to be more ‘compliant’ with the process…

There must be more surely? Why specifically VG / VR and not one of the numerous other girls?
 
Lost Seasider said:
The accounts that say she recruited actual children into the ring.

The accounts that say she thought it was "pretty cool" to sleep with PA.

The accounts that say she wasn't coerced.

The accounts that say she should've been prosecuted alongside Maxwell.
Click to expand...
The problem for the Giuffre supporters is that they’ve painted themselves into a corner on this one.

They’ve started with the argument “Victims of sexual abuse must always be believed and never questioned or criticised”.

When the questions are asked by middle aged and older men it’s easy to dismiss them as prejudiced or because the men don’t understand the dynamics of grooming and sexual abuse.

It’s less easy when criticisms are made by other victims of the same sex ring. It’s obviously far harder to dismiss the views of people who’ve faced the same abusers and who actually know what happened. Especially when you’ve signed up to the “victims must always be believed” mantra.

Then you’ve got to engage in some pretty tortuous logic to prove that the 35 year old woman, who knew the people concerned and who is making the allegations, doesn’t actually know what she’s talking about. But without actually saying “she doesn’t know what she’s talking about”.

At the end of the day it’s quite easy really. The question to ask is “Do we believe Carolyn?”
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
So you are talking about an account as opposed to accounts?

Bear in mind that the same girl who considers VR totally accountable for VR’s behaviour also believes that her own behaviour (ie engaging in hundreds of visits to Epstein for paid sex, up to age 18) was coerced.

So what was different?

Why was the same abuse, coercive and power relationship with Epstein and Maxwell responsible for taking one girl from Day 1 to regular and Compliant sexually abused young woman… any different that the abusive snd coercive relationship that saw the other from Day 1 to compliant recruiter?


Some girls left after Day 1 and never came back…

Perhaps the ones who did fit a well considered profile…..? Perhaps it’s all about a web that finds girls who are troubled and likely to be more ‘compliant’ with the process…

There must be more surely? Why specifically VG / VR and not one of the numerous other girls?
Click to expand...

It's acknowledged that she recruited other girls into the ring, I'm sure if the case goes ahead they'll be deposed and will give much the same story.

The difference of course is that one was over the age of consent, and the other was much younger and told to lie about her age.

You realise of course that you're relying upon one account too, and in that case there are good reasons to doubt it.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
The problem for the Giuffre supporters is that they’ve painted themselves into a corner on this one.

They’ve started with the argument “Victims of sexual abuse must always be believed and never questioned or criticised”.

When the questions are asked by middle aged and older men it’s easy to dismiss them as prejudiced or because the men don’t understand the dynamics of grooming and sexual abuse.

It’s less easy when criticisms are made by other victims of the same sex ring. It’s obviously far harder to dismiss the views of people who’ve faced the same abusers and who actually know what happened. Especially when you’ve signed up to the “victims must always be believed” mantra.

Then you’ve got to engage in some pretty tortuous logic to prove that the 35 year old woman, who knew the people concerned and who is making the allegations, doesn’t actually know what she’s talking about. But without actually saying “she doesn’t know what she’s talking about”.

At the end of the day it’s quite easy really. The question to ask is “Do we believe Carolyn?”
Click to expand...
Slow down a minute ....

Nobody and certainly not me has started with the argument that "Victims of sexual abuse must always be believed and never questioned or criticised"

That is 100% your attempt to strawman... If you wish to qualify what someone actually thinks, then do that by asking the relevant questions to clarify your understanding as opposed to simply making things up...

The point that I have made consistently on here about VG is that there is nothing within the context of any of the accusations that have been levelled at her, that are inconsistent with an abuse victim and nothing that in the way she is alleged to have behaved (recruiting girls, enjoying the male encounters, willingly participating etc...) that are Abnormal or unusual in the context of a case where this type of abuse and coercion is involved.

By contrast others have sought to pose a whole range of arguments including, but not limited to:-

1. The length of time it took her to come forward
2. Her financial motivation
3. Her age
4. The fact that she recruited girls
5. The fact that she was excited by meeting a Prince etc..

As I've outlined already, none of those things are inconsistent with her having been abused and / or not being criminally responsible for her actions.

It's hardly remarkable that a girl from her background would be excited to travel round the world on Jets or to meet a 'Handsome Prince' or even to have sex with said Prince. However nor is it remarkable at a later date that she might gain a clearer understanding that whet she perceived at the time was something quite different and sinister.

As for Carolyn... It's not a matter of believing her... There is no doubt in my mind that the texts about Prince Andrew would have taken place, nor do I doubt that Carolyn was introduced and initially groomed by VG...

Nor do I think she "Doesn't know what she's talking about" and frankly that is a very cowardly and inaccurate attempt to try and besmirch me again, by straw manning.. What I have alluded to instead is the fact that individual experience will colour the opinion of different girls in that regard... That girls who have been involved the recruiting are more likely (as we see with Hayley Robson) to forgive their own recruiters (rightly or wrongly)...

To Carolyn, VR / VG was the girl who manipulated her and introduced her to this world of abuse and therefore it is understandable that she views her as a part of the process...

Of course it is possible that VR/VG might be criminally culpable in some way, for the recruitment of Carolyn and others and that would be a matter for the criminal justice system to determine. However on the face of it, there appears to be nothing that Carolyn has said that points to anything particularly unique or remarkable about VR/VG (apart from her being a focal point for Carolyn as the person who brought her in)...

1. VG was herself brought in and seemingly groomed by Maxwell at a young age
It's not like she tipped up at the door with a CV of recruiting sex slaves and offered her services

2. VG was also subject to the same process, abuse and grooming with Epstein (Other girls have testified to this)

3. VG fit the typical profile of girls that they preyed on (Poor upbringing, history of abuse etc..)

4. VG Exited the lifestyle at the first decent opportunity and still at a very young age

5. VG was involved in recruiting other girls (as were multiple other victims of the process)


Of course none of that means that VG isn't criminally culpable, she may well be so, but what it does mean is that there is nothing (on the face of it) in the way she has behaved, which cannot be explained as a very typical example of the cycle of abuse and resulting from the coercive power relationship with Epstein and Maxwell.....
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Slow down a minute ....

Nobody and certainly not me has started with the argument that "Victims of sexual abuse must always be believed and never questioned or criticised"

That is 100% your attempt to strawman... If you wish to qualify what someone actually thinks, then do that by asking the relevant questions to clarify your understanding as opposed to simply making things up...

The point that I have made consistently on here about VG is that there is nothing within the context of any of the accusations that have been levelled at her, that are inconsistent with an abuse victim and nothing that in the way she is alleged to have behaved (recruiting girls, enjoying the male encounters, willingly participating etc...) that are Abnormal or unusual in the context of a case where this type of abuse and coercion is involved.

By contrast others have sought to pose a whole range of arguments including, but not limited to:-

1. The length of time it took her to come forward
2. Her financial motivation
3. Her age
4. The fact that she recruited girls
5. The fact that she was excited by meeting a Prince etc..

As I've outlined already, none of those things are inconsistent with her having been abused and / or not being criminally responsible for her actions.

It's hardly remarkable that a girl from her background would be excited to travel round the world on Jets or to meet a 'Handsome Prince' or even to have sex with said Prince. However nor is it remarkable at a later date that she might gain a clearer understanding that whet she perceived at the time was something quite different and sinister.

As for Carolyn... It's not a matter of believing her... There is no doubt in my mind that the texts about Prince Andrew would have taken place, nor do I doubt that Carolyn was introduced and initially groomed by VG...

Nor do I think she "Doesn't know what she's talking about" and frankly that is a very cowardly and inaccurate attempt to try and besmirch me again, by straw manning.. What I have alluded to instead is the fact that individual experience will colour the opinion of different girls in that regard... That girls who have been involved the recruiting are more likely (as we see with Hayley Robson) to forgive their own recruiters (rightly or wrongly)...

To Carolyn, VR / VG was the girl who manipulated her and introduced her to this world of abuse and therefore it is understandable that she views her as a part of the process...

Of course it is possible that VR/VG might be criminally culpable in some way, for the recruitment of Carolyn and others and that would be a matter for the criminal justice system to determine. However on the face of it, there appears to be nothing that Carolyn has said that points to anything particularly unique or remarkable about VR/VG (apart from her being a focal point for Carolyn as the person who brought her in)...

1. VG was herself brought in and seemingly groomed by Maxwell at a young age
It's not like she tipped up at the door with a CV of recruiting sex slaves and offered her services

2. VG was also subject to the same process, abuse and grooming with Epstein (Other girls have testified to this)

3. VG fit the typical profile of girls that they preyed on (Poor upbringing, history of abuse etc..)

4. VG Exited the lifestyle at the first decent opportunity and still at a very young age

5. VG was involved in recruiting other girls (as were multiple other victims of the process)


Of course none of that means that VG isn't criminally culpable, she may well be so, but what it does mean is that there is nothing (on the face of it) in the way she has behaved, which cannot be explained as a very typical example of the cycle of abuse and resulting from the coercive power relationship with Epstein and Maxwell.....
Click to expand...
So what you’re saying, at great length, is that Carolyn’s assessment of VG is wrong?
 
Lost Seasider said:
It's acknowledged that she recruited other girls into the ring, I'm sure if the case goes ahead they'll be deposed and will give much the same story.

The difference of course is that one was over the age of consent, and the other was much younger and told to lie about her age.

You realise of course that you're relying upon one account too, and in that case there are good reasons to doubt it.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is in any doubt that VR/VG recruited other girls into the ring....So did many other girls.

When I talk about the difference, I am talking about the difference in terms of the coercing nature of the power relationship that led both girls to start out one way and end up (both aged 18) being compliant to the process.

It seems on the one hand we can accept that it is possible for Carolyn to have been a victim of that grooming process, whereas we are saying that VR could not have been a victim of that process, but was instead wholly responsible for her own actions.
 
I think if VG‘s involvement in recruitment and grooming was considered as anything other than a consequence of the abuse she too had suffered then would Epstein and Maxwell have made huge out of court settlements ?

They could have implicated her too ? Surely they would have used that as leverage to silence her.
 
Lala said:
I think if VG‘s involvement in recruitment and grooming was considered as anything other than a consequence of the abuse she too had suffered then would Epstein and Maxwell have made huge out of court settlements ?

They could have implicated her too ? Surely they would have used that as leverage to silence her.
Click to expand...
I suppose their problem would be that the witnesses they’d need to undermine VG (so Carolyn for instance) would first of all condemn them.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Ah righto.

So you’re not saying that Carolyn’s assessment of VG is wrong.

But you’re also not saying that Carolyn’s assessment of VG is right.

And you definitely haven’t painted yourself into a corner.

Well I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.
Click to expand...

I thought I'd made myself clear.... Carolyn's assessment of VG is her view and based upon her own unique perspective. She may be right, she may be wrong, that would be a matter for the court to decide.

What I have said is that there is nothing that Carolyn has said that would suggest that VG's actions were inconsistent with VG having been coerced by Epstein and Maxwell..
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Well other than the fact that Carolyn said VG had not been coerced.
Click to expand...
It's a fact that she said that yes, but that doesn't make it so.... That is Carolyn's opinion....

It's unclear as to the extent of the relationship the pair had really... And that would be coloured by individual perspective in any case...

So for example Carolyn may have viewed VG as a friend who betrayed her... VG may have viewed Carolyn as another target to recruit for Epstein

The girl that Carolyn new VG to be would have been the VG that Epstein and Maxwell had groomed and coerced in any case...

To Carolyn VG will always be the manipulative girl who brought her into the ring of abuse.... And that in itself, is probably not the most objective perspective really.

And in many ways, it's arguably true that VG was almost certainly manipulative, wrong and likely well aware of the damage she was doing.... So the question is to what extent she was groomed into that lifestyle...


As I've already said, Carolyn would say of herself no doubt, that she was groomed and that it was that same grooming that led her to continue to willingly engage in the abuse many hundreds of times until she was no longer needed aged 18. Her perspective on whether VG was groomed is somewhat different though, yet she hasn't (to my knowledge) provided anything to substantiate that ... It just appears to be how she 'feels'..

Well obviously VG will feel differently and there is also a wealth of evidence from other girls, some who may have experienced VG at different stages in the grooming process etc...


So the evidence would need to be tested in court......I'm not sure if Carolyn has sought to bring criminal charges against VG has she?
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
It's a fact that she said that yes, but that doesn't make it so.... That is Carolyn's opinion....

It's unclear as to the extent of the relationship the pair had really... And that would be coloured by individual perspective in any case...

So for example Carolyn may have viewed VG as a friend who betrayed her... VG may have viewed Carolyn as another target to recruit for Epstein

The girl that Carolyn new VG to be would have been the VG that Epstein and Maxwell had groomed and coerced in any case...

To Carolyn VG will always be the manipulative girl who brought her into the ring of abuse.... And that in itself, is probably not the most objective perspective really.

And in many ways, it's arguably true that VG was almost certainly manipulative, wrong and likely well aware of the damage she was doing.... So the question is to what extent she was groomed into that lifestyle...


As I've already said, Carolyn would say of herself no doubt, that she was groomed and that it was that same grooming that led her to continue to willingly engage in the abuse many hundreds of times until she was no longer needed aged 18. Her perspective on whether VG was groomed is somewhat different though, yet she has (to my knowledge) provided anything to substantiate that ... It just appears to be how she feels...

Well obviously VG will feel differently and there is also a wealth of evidence from other girls, some who may have experienced VG at different stages in the grooming process etc...


So the evidence would need to be tested in court......I'm not sure if Carolyn has sought to bring criminal charges against VG has she?
Click to expand...
Re your last paragraph it wouldn’t be Carolyn who’d bring criminal charges: it would be the prosecuting authorities although obviously Carolyn could make a formal complaint to the police to start the process. She has said she thinks VG should be prosecuted in the same way that Maxwell was, but that doesn’t mean she’s actually done anything to start that process. VG wasn’t named in the non prosecution agreement I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Which takes me back to one of my earlier points - when we’re talking about the individuals below the prime movers in the sex ring, who decides which people are regarded as victims and which as predators? It seems to me it’s down to the prosecution, which in turn may depend on how cooperative the individual is. All a bit arbitrary in truth, especially when the abused can also be seen as abusers.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Re your last paragraph it wouldn’t be Carolyn who’d bring criminal charges: it would be the prosecuting authorities although obviously Carolyn could make a formal complaint to the police to start the process. She has said she thinks VG should be prosecuted in the same way that Maxwell was, but that doesn’t mean she’s actually done anything to start that process. VG wasn’t named in the non prosecution agreement I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Which takes me back to one of my earlier points - when we’re talking about the individuals below the prime movers in the sex ring, who decides which people are regarded as victims and which as predators? It seems to me it’s down to the prosecution, which in turn may depend on how cooperative the individual is. All a bit arbitrary in truth, especially when the abused can also be seen as abusers.
Click to expand...
It’s not too dissimilar to cult behaviour is it.

There does need to be a full-scale criminal investigation before any of us is really going to get beyond the blurred lines.

To get the answers we are trying to debate it all needs joining up into one huge case, not smaller cases with separate and different perpetrators and victims like we are seeing.

As we know, that can‘t / won’t ever happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top