@girlonthenet Aye.

From watching various In Plain Sight type documentaries, a common theme from survivors seems to be "well, who would believe my word against his anyway?"

And that is, of course, aside from the ones who have been coerced or threatened into silence, and the ones who did manage to get that far and were still ignored.

High profile serial bastards aside, the stats for offences actually reported; those which made it to court; and those which landed successful convictions makes from some very depressing, heartbreaking reading. It's a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage.

It's no wonder people like Epstein believed himself untouchable. For all practical purposes, they were. If we're not taking allegations against creepy Uncle Brian seriously then who's going to believe those against royalty? The last time a Royal was arrested was in like the 1700s.

I get "her word against his" and concerns about convicting an innocent man, but 100% that should be a courtroom decision rather than dismissed with a handwave by the local constabulary. "Good enough for arrest" as you say; at what point does joined-up thinking come into consideration with accusations from multiple sources, I wonder?

@girlonthenet I would assume that either it's an offence they believe they can get to stick, or it's an excuse to raid his properties with a high degree of confidence that they'll find something far more damning.

No-one is going to arrest the artist formerly known as a Prince unless they're sure, because there's no graceful climb-down to be had here if they can't secure a conviction. Plus that would send a really terrible message to all the others who think they're untouchable.

IMHO, etc etc.