Even if she (or anyone else in that age group) was a willing participant, he is still 100% guilty of exploiting his position in order to have sex with her.
Because honestly, how many gorgeous 17 year olds do you see who are desperate to have sex with an unattractive middle aged guy who lives on a council estate….
Or maybe it was his teddy bear collection and the laminated instruction sheet for the maids that got her going…
FFS.
Equally if she was quite happy to be paid a lot of money to provide the services 
. It does not make it right on his part but we have no way of knowing how this went and if she was willing or not.
I still think he met with her and had sex with her, it’s whether she did so willingly, was coerced or forced and accepted payment for said services.
As I’ve made clear in earlier posts, totally disagree with the relationship he had with Epstein et al and the way he’s behaved etc etc, but must say that I would comment on your post, as I equally deplore the person that will do almost anything for money, and I think we see this is the case. Instead of using ‘council estate’, you might have used ‘unattractive POOR middle aged guy’, as think you’re use of ‘council estate’ could offend some folks. And beauty is in the eyes of the beholder isn’t it??? Thank the lord we all have different tastes 
Tell that to Peter Stringfellow, Cat.
No FFS, uncalled for, those of us that have worked for very high net worth clients have always been given instructions laminated or otherwise.
It wasnt a middle age bloke from a council estate though it, it was a Prince and an English Prince at that.
Dare I say it, Diana got taken in by it?
In fact, there are so many examples of far older wealthy guys with far younger woman, and in many cases younger than the guy’s daughters, that it frankly amazes me. Maybe having lots of money automatically gives you a rivetting personality and that’s what attracts them can’t possibly think it’s the bank full of cash…or do you think it might be who’s right and who’s wrong, or maybe there is no right or wrong???
Through his own stupidity, arrogance, pig-headedness he cannot win now, because of all the stupid excuses, evasion and clumsy attempts to discredit her even though he settles out of court he will be guilty in the public eyes.
While it might salve his arrogant conscience, he is tarred with the brush no matter what the outcome is and it is his own stupid fault.
Ah…Mrs Merton 
“So what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul D.?” to Debbie M.
If she was willing or not isn’t necessarily the issue though. There is far more going on here than people are understanding seemingly. None of this may actually be the case, I can’t say either way, but 1) there is potential people trafficking; that someone has been coerced (be it physically or emotionally) to cross international borders for the purposes of being pimped (Whatever way you look at it there are clearly accusations that Maxwell and/or Epstein were acting as pimps), and 2) there is the rather murky situation that there is an accusation that something occurred in NYC which has a situation where although the age of consent is 17, there is also the Child Victims Act that stands at 18, so as Giuffre says the NY incident happened when she was 17 the CVA could come into play meaning that even if she was over the age of consent, the circumstances dictate that she wasn’t.
All of which as I say may not actually be relevant at all, that’s for judges and state attorneys to decide, but it goes to show that it’s much more than just a case of if she was willing as even if she was willing laws on coercive control and protecting the vulnerable may actually make it not possible for her to be willing, just as if a teacher has sex with a willing pupil who is above the age of consent the power dynamics and position of trust can mean the pupil is effectively unable to consent.
Add in the fact that, which people forget, Epstein’s plea bargain made it very difficult to have any kind of criminal trial for unindicted co-conspirators (Maxwell’s charges of course were classic ‘Al Capone’ stuff, she was found guilty basically of trafficking rather than the more obvious sex based crimes that Epstein was charged with), and the fact that being very difficult to charge Andrew with anything criminally in the US due to the whole Epstein situation as already mentioned, bringing a trial in the U.K. for example would be near impossible for the very obvious reasons, you start to realise that none of this is cut and dry.
It’s also worth stating the bleeding’ obvious and reminding people that the state brings criminal prosecutions to trial, complainants don’t, so Giuffre couldn’t decide whether to go a civil or criminal route. The only route she has available to her is civil. The state could decide to charge him with a crime and put him on trial, give him his day in court, she can’t, the only option open to her is the one she seems to be taking.
But certainly when I was that age there were those in my year at school who were already sexually active and a couple “got into trouble” . Others, were more streetwise. It was the time the Rolling Stones were starting out and nobody was implying that my school friends were hitching up with them in any way other than willingly.
I think it is entirely possible that (at the time) she was willing - after all, how many of her friends were being flown half way round the world to meet a real prince?
Thanks John, but I am perfectly capable of deciding what is and isn’t called for on my own website.
And the FFS was an expression of my exasperation at the middle aged white men attempting to defend the indefensible.
Exactly my point. He was a prince not just some middle aged ugly bloke!
Was going to coin that, but Debbie M’s a friend of a close friend, and thought twice
People do all kinds of things for money. When they are forced to.
My bad. I should have added « unless they have to »
Do you honestly think most lap dancers wouldn’t rather be media moguls ?
And some unforced, in many many instances - money seems to talk doesn’t it for so many people, unfortunately.
Yes, sure they would, or at least enjoy the rewards. But in that instance they have a choice, and they chose that versus perhaps a far lower paid job, that many would term as ‘normal’.
Often people don’t have choices. Upbringing / education or lack of /childhood trauma …the list is endless.
Money or rather a lack of, forces people to do things.
We all somehow take responsibility for our actions don’t we. And I guess society has rules to help to control many of those actions, as there are many out there who may make the ‘wrong’ choices, knowing the consequences, but very willing to take the risks for a reward. You take the rough with the smooth, as they say. You take route A, you have to accept the end point. You take route B, likewise…