Chomper Higgot

I’ve never made such an accusation.

Where as you don’t look up points of law. We all make mistakes, use of language has its problems but unlike misunderstanding law it’s not likely to land anyone in the slammer.

Allegations against him are of criminal sexual activity with a minor.

It is not necessary to be the person who trafficked the victim to be accused of a crime relating to the trafficking.

Conversely, it not evidence that the respondent did not commit a crime. The allegations made that Prince Andrew sexually abused a trafficked 17 year old relate to a criminal act, regardless of whether or not criminal charges were brought. Stay classy Andrew.

He had sex with a 17 year old who had been trafficked for sex.

All those luxuries won’t hide his exposure and humiliation. He’s a man who destroyed his own reputation. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/14/calls-strip-prince-andrew-duke-of-york-title

Again you avoid the hard fact of ‘legal competence’.

He does actually, he admits the attacks on Giuffre by his legal team were unfounded and unacceptable. All those millions to make nothing go away. A strange thing.

I have repeatedly stated this was a civil, not a criminal case. At no time have I stated this is a criminal case or that Andrew was at risk of criminal prosecution. However, the ‘Civil’ case relates to allegations of criminal sexual activity with a minor. The court had jurisdiction and as I have said from the start Andrew had two choices, take the stand and completely distort himself or settle out of court. He was well advised to do the latter, though he would have been very much better advised to settle immediately.

And yet the US court did have jurisdiction and attempts by Andrew’s legal team to prove others failed.

Yes it was a civil case, but the allegations were of criminal sexual activity. Prince Andrew was very well advised to settle out of court before being called to the stand. He should have settled this immediately it arose.

What the UK law said at the time is irrelevant, Giuffre is a US citizen who was trafficked across a State line at the age of 17 for paid sex, IS courts and US law had jurisdiction.

Who cares what you believe, the settlement is agreed before a court of law and is legally binding.

The law does not take much notice of your opinion, it draws the line at age, and at 17 under US Federal Law, regardless of your opinion, a person is not legally competent to consent to paid sex. It’s a point you and others seem unable or unwilling to grasp. Prince Andrew suffered a similar delusion.

‘Not legally competent’ precludes volunteering for anything. She was not ‘legally competent’ to volunteer.

We have a system of law that uses courts to come to decisions on guilt/culpability. If you have a better suggestion as to how these matters should be decided please let us know. Feeling aggrieved that a ‘man’ is being held accountable is not a rational criticism of the court system but I do understand that it might disturb some.

What part of ‘not legally competent to give consent to paid sex’ do you not understand?

The ‘man’ in question had the opportunity to defend himself, his extreme wealth assured him of the very best legal advice.

Under the law it doesn’t matter who did the trafficking. And yes I know precisely why this was filed in NY in August 21, I’ve already remarked Virginia Giuffre is a very smart cookie.

I’m not the subject of this thread. Refer the Opening Post for a clues at to what is.

That is genuinely confusing.

A ‘not’ actually, but thanks for the timely heads up.

Away with you faux outrage. At age 17 she was not legally competent to consent to paid sex, by definition she was trafficked. Her record on helping the victims of sexual abuse and trafficking is solid.

It’s not a law I ever envisage myself breaking.