Giuffre went through a series of bad situations- she was a child yes- but even a child of 17 should know that bad decisions lead to bad results- I suspect that she will misuse the 20 million from Prince Andrew and it will lead to bad results- hopefully this doesn't happen and she gains some wisdom of cause and effect. Perhaps she let a rebellious "animus" get the better of herself- and thought she could find a shortcut to riches.

In previous times under age children dressed in a way that signaled to the community that they held a certain untouchable status- this is perhaps still represented in school uniforms at least. Children are now sexualized at a very young age- wearing midriff tops at five years of age.

It's interesting how different subcultures have long used clothes to signal in various ways- now it's considered a faux pas of the community to correct inappropriate signalling in the name of freedom. Perhaps the community is broken- and needs to refocus on virtue. No freedom without virtue.

Hi rache,

Are you suggesting Epstein may have met with "foul play", and did not "suicide" as claimed. What on earth could motivate someone to have Epstein murdered? I can't think,surly not to protect the rich and powerful.

Watch "60 Minutes," tonight. It may shed some
more light on this situation.

Dear Foxy,
You have handled this discussion very well, and I agree with everything you have posted.

I have to wonder however, if prostitution was legal at that time?
Could Ms Giuffre alternatively have been charged with prostitution - end of case? Even if time had actually 'expired' for an actual conviction - just to press-home her actual 'role' and 'involvement' in the affair, as at least a refutation of any 'innocent victim' assertions on her part.

Could Andrew perhaps have been subject to a criminal charge - as against these 'civil' proceedings - if Ms Giuffre chose to take that path?
I wonder then, if she could possibly have saved some telling 'evidence' of the events - the incontrovertible kind which DNA would accurately ascribe to a given individual?
Else, in absence of such, I wonder if Andrew could simply have denied any actual physical 'travesty' on his part? How could she prove otherwise?
Loved playing dominoes with those lovely 'playmates'. All good fun.

My, didn't she look so afraid and desperate of course, in that oh-so-telling photograph - of two innocent 'visitors' standing in Epstein's doorway? She seemed to actually be smiling - pleased at the attention, perhaps? A neat 'selfie'?

Poor Andrew - lousy marriage - poor life choices.
Even so, he's only human, and deserves a break.

Why not giving evidence in Maxwell's trial? To avoid an almost certain charge of 'Perjury' of course - unless she could simply 'plead the 5th' - or if 'honest' in her evidence, saying goodbye to any chance of any further 'windfall bounties'.

How about Brittany though - so innocent - gets sloshed and goes into Parliament House, and a Minister's Office - with a 'friend' - having satisfied a female security officer that all was well - gets 'naked' by some innocent means - and later has misgivings, about a 'tryst gone wrong'?
So innocent. Was she also 17?

Not to worry. Women rule, and can do no wrong.
No offence meant, Foxy, the world has changed - but not sufficiently, according to many, and I cannot logically disagree.

Of course everyone is going to hate me now, for having the audacity to even hint at questioning Brittany's bona fides.
Me, obviously an incorrigible misogynistic retrograde louse.

But, perhaps I too am human, and perhaps I noticed, or thought I noticed a certain hesitation on Brittany's part to initially declare 'rape' in blaring tones.
Perhaps, when the cat was thrust out of the bag - by others it would seem - and questions began whirling, there became only one obvious solution; couldn't have been 'my fault'.
No, not in the least. Must have been .... - but then...?

How many times I wonder have misgivings given rise firstly to embarrassment, then shame, and then finally to finding fault with others - security failed, memory fuzzy, paradise lost.

Initially, it seemed to me that Brittany wanted better security installed - maybe male security officers only? Better training? More stringent rules about admittance after hours and/or in a possibly unbecoming mental/physical condition?

But then, someone had to be blamed. 'Good girls' simply do not behave badly. But someone has behaved badly. Who? How? When?

Nonetheless, we are all fully aware that no means no, and an absence of response is not approval, is not consent.
Great. Agree wholeheartedly with that, and no, boys cannot be boys - no excuses.

But, may a lapse of memory or a lapse in judgement be justification for leveling blame and demanding retribution?

Solution: everyone exercising restraint, maintaining decorum, and not placing themselves in hazardous positions or circumstances.
And then of course, all males must be knights in shining armour at all times, regardless, no excuses.
We all have to be wary and aware. But, on either side?

Well, that's me done and dusted.
For the alternative respectable adjudication see Grace Tame - and may the Devil take the hindmost.

Still, I am genuinely sorry for Brittany, on several levels.

Anyway, this thread is on Ms Giuffre, so mea culpa for the deviation.

And, may Parliament be a haven, a temple of wisdom and understanding, and a source of inspiration for all seeking clarity and certainty.

With Randy Andy being a darling of the right in Australia, maybe they could put him up as Australua's next GG. Come on Flinty where's your royal loyality.