Prince Harry

[fourteen85]

There has been talk in the press lately about him having lied on his visa form to gain entry to the USA, could he be stopped from re entering after the coronation?

[andy-hughes]

// His stupidity was in denying he knew her. He should have said ‘yes, I knew her and yes, we had sex on three separate occasions.’ //

Having sex with a young woman procurred for him for that purpose, and that purpose alone, hardly counts as 'knowing' someone.

I doubt he even knew her name at the times he had sex with her - why would he? She was there to be used and then ignored - which by all accounts is exactly what he did.

[Zacs-Master]

MissTerious2 ‘The fact is Zac we don't usually hear about other current Royals inappropriate behaviour in their single days’

I don’t see how that is in any way relevant. Are you saying you believe it’s ok for a prince of the realm to procure 17 year old prostitutes via underage people traffickers?

[MissTerious2]

Basically he used a prostitute. No more to be said really.

[Zacs-Master]

He used a 17 year old prostitute procured through traffickers (and users) of underage girls. How on Earth can a person, let alone a woman, defend that?

[naomi24]

AH, you can have no idea what their relationship was like. You’re seeking the worst scenario and making assumptions.

[MissTerious2]

I have never said that. But to me it's no different to anybody else, royal or not using a prostitute who is of legal age. Its just that we know all about Andrew.

[douglas9401]

Okay then, we're ignoring Harry to let the world know that it's okay for a 17 year old to hump a prince of the realm, as long as it's not YOUR daughter.

Gotcha.

[MissTerious2]

All supposition Andy.

[Zacs-Master]

They didn’t have a relationship, Naomi. They had sex.

There’s usually a point in any given discussion on here when you write something really daft. You’ve just reached it.

[MissTerious2]

If I had a daughter Douglas, I very much doubt she would be in that situation!

[MissTerious2]

There is such a thing as a sexual relationship! Many of us have had them,

[Zacs-Master]

What parents ever imagine their daughter will be trafficked and put to work as a prostitute. What a stupid statement, MissT.

[naomi24]

And once again the insults start. You don’t know what their relationship was, zacs. They weren’t having sex when that picture was taken.

[Zacs-Master]

There was no relationship. She was a chattel in the ploy of the epstines. She had no say in who she met.

[MissTerious2]

Zac. Your getting nasty. I'm off.

[Zacs-Master]

Give it a rest,Naomi, if you truly believe they had a relationship, you’re even dafter than your defence of Andrew makes you appear.

[Zacs-Master]

I’m getting to the truth you mean. Sheesh.

[MissTerious2]

I repeat I'm off because you are getting nasty.

[Zacs-Master]

I thought you’d gone to be fair.

[andy-hughes]

MissT - // All supposition Andy. //

Absolutly.

But I am happy to base my view on what the media have said over a long period of time.

As are you and other posters.

We are all making assumptions that fit with out personal viewpoint - whether it be that Andrew is an immoral moron, or that Virginia Giuffre is whatever you want her to be, from a victim of traficking to an all-knowing harlot, or any shade in between.

But that does not entitle any of us to take the moral high ground, and look down on those with views different from our own, since we all have the same source material to inform our opinions.

You can disagree, no problem, but you can't criticise me for doing what you, and everyone else on the thread, is doing - putting forward a viewpoint.

None of us know the facts, or the people involved, so all our views are as valid, or not, as each other's.

I'm fine with that, but i won't sit still and be criticised for doing the same as my critic(s) - that' not how debate works.