4 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

The term payment is wide in scope

see section 47 to 51 of the relevant UK act

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/abuse-of-children-through-prostitution-and-pornography

And where does it say the "Sexual Offences Act 2003" can be used retrospectively???

Quote

Virginia Giuffre says she was brought to London for sex with Prince Andrew in March 2001, when she was 17 years old.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-50639011/epstein-accuser-stands-by-her-allegations

Likewise in the US the law varies from state to state and may have been rather different back in 2001. 

Seems it's a pity he's a Royal  ,  if he was a rock star involved with a young  groupie..... nothing would matter or be said !

10 minutes ago, Basil B said:

And where does it say the "Sexual Offences Act 2003" can be used retrospectively???

Likewise in the US the law varies from state to state and may have been rather different back in 2001. 

How about the 1956 sexual offences act

The original 1956 act made it unlawful to procure a person under the age of 21

32 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

How about the 1956 sexual offences act

The original 1956 act made it unlawful to procure a person under the age of 21

procure!!!   Time to get one's dictionary out...

 

In actual fact the said act say's:

Quote

 

23 Procuration of girl under twenty-one.

(1)It is an offence for a person to procure a girl under the age of twenty-one to have unlawful sexual intercourse in any part of the world with a third person.

 

 

As amended in 1995 and repealed in 2004.

 

      Totally believe her on everything.  And, especially totally believe her about having a sketchy memory for exact dates but would not forget having sex with a prince.  I have a lousy memory for exact dates, too--I'd be lucky to get the correct year right, let alone month and day.  I know I visited Singapore but was it in 2012 or 2013?  

      The palace is seizing on the sketchy dates in a desperate attempt to prove the woman wrong.  No, can't have happened because he was eating pizza that day.  Lame, lame, lame.   I'd be even worse about remembering the date of a pizza meal than a trip to Singapore.

Just watched last night's Panorama. What a pity the Jeremy Kyle show is no longer on telly. He would get the truth out with his lie-detector.   LOL

she wasn't Procured by him... she was already procured/imported,  and simply Distributed to him 

 

anyways he has no problem simply saying he did her... after all he's already Divorced and no Mrs to rip any more strips off him

 

if they did proceed with deliberations...

they'd equally have to re-arrain Cliff Richards too

 

 - same parties, same girlies

37 minutes ago, Basil B said:

procure!!!   Time to get one's dictionary out...

 

In actual fact the said act say's:

 

As amended in 1995 and repealed in 2004.

 

She was under the controll of Epstein and trafficked to various parts of the world . This is well established in US court documents amd flight logs.

The 1956 act was repealled by the 2003 act.

The 1956 act is still used today for historical cases. See CPS guidelines.

The 1956 act has no legal definition of consent. It is given its ordinary meaning and distinguished from submission.

The question arises could the girl who has been sexually exploited by a person convicted of procuring underage girls for the purpose of prostitution give consent in the circumstances described.

Where the person giving the consent is of a mental capacity to do so and is free withould the consent.

26 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

She was under the controll of Epstein and trafficked to various parts of the world . This is well established in US court documents amd flight logs.

The 1956 act was repealled by the 2003 act.

The 1956 act is still used today for historical cases. See CPS guidelines.

The 1956 act has no legal definition of consent. It is given its ordinary meaning and distinguished from submission.

The question arises could the girl who has been sexually exploited by a person convicted of procuring underage girls for the purpose of prostitution give consent in the circumstances described.

Where the person giving the consent is of a mental capacity to do so and is free withould the consent.

Then would you be so kind as to give an example where in the past a person has been prosecuted for having sex with a woman who was procured for them?

 

Also the the law on consent has changed somewhat to what it was 16 years ago, then a woman would actually have to say "no"...

The whole Brit Royal society is a Big bunch of ????

8 hours ago, PremiumLane said:

try actually reading about the case, the kinds of girls that were targeted and how they felt about it... would help

It seems most articles about Epstein and Andrew call guys who like 16 year old girls "pedophiles".  And they all pretend to be shocked that teenager girls have sex. And nobody seems to have heard of girls who are willingly exchanging their services for cash.

It also seems Epstein is already condemned because he liked to be massaged by pretty young girls. That must be a pervert. Everybody else only wants to be massaged by old women or men, or not?

If any guy physically forces a girl or woman to have sex with him then I agree those guys should be prosecuted and jailed.

On the other hand if the guy offers the girls to make a lot of money and the girls accept that offer, now why should we blame the guy?

11 hours ago, Thian said:

Andrew should go to jail for that.

 

For what?

 

A woman sold a story to the Daily Mail for $160k claiming she had sex with Prince Andrew. But she waited for decades to sell her story and start legal actions against people.

 

At 17 she was over the age of consent in the UK. Was traveling internationally as part of a group. At no time did she complain to any authorities, try to escape and waited decades to try and suddenly make some money out of it. 

 

Sorry, but these people have no idea about the real victims of sex traffickers, forced into brothels and street walking. They seemingly enjoyed the high life and now want to sell their stories for more cash. 

47 minutes ago, Tom1959 said:

The whole Brit Royal society is a Big bunch of ????

 

Yes much better to have Presidents - like Trump, Erdogan, Maduro, Kim etc etc etc.

5 hours ago, metempsychotic said:

She was 17. 

I am shocked. Sex with 17, wow! Shocking, absolutely shocking!

21 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

For what?

 

A woman sold a story to the Daily Mail for $160k claiming she had sex with Prince Andrew. But she waited for decades to sell her story and start legal actions against people.

 

At 17 she was over the age of consent in the UK. Was traveling internationally as part of a group. At no time did she complain to any authorities, try to escape and waited decades to try and suddenly make some money out of it. 

 

Sorry, but these people have no idea about the real victims of sex traffickers, forced into brothels and street walking. They seemingly enjoyed the high life and now want to sell their stories for more cash. 

She fled to Australia in 2003

Epstein settled with her out of court.

I understand Maxwell settled out of court as well

I saw the entire Panorama programme and Im not quite sure what the ruckus is all about.

This Giufre woman was not underage by law at the time of said incidents. She doesn't seem to have been

kidnapped or coerced. And neither was the South African woman. Years after the events they seem to have been

struck by some sort of outrage. They got paid, they performed their duties as prescribed.

I cant ascribe too much credibility to a wines who is accepting large sums of money to sell her story.

If they were trafficked by Ghislaine Maxwell, then their lawyers have to prove it. 

 

For me Andrews biggest stupidity lay in not decoupling himself immediately from Epstein...I mean doesnt 

the intelligence service keep tabs on the royals from a distance and advise them of developments from the to time....if only for their own protection?

 

13 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

I saw the entire Panorama programme and Im not quite sure what the ruckus is all about.

This Giufre woman was not underage by law at the time of said incidents. She doesn't seem to have been

kidnapped or coerced. And neither was the South African woman. Years after the events they seem to have been

struck by some sort of outrage. They got paid, they performed their duties as prescribed.

I cant ascribe too much credibility to a wines who is accepting large sums of money to sell her story.

If they were trafficked by Ghislaine Maxwell, then their lawyers have to prove it. 

 

For me Andrews biggest stupidity lay in not decoupling himself immediately from Epstein...I mean doesnt 

the intelligence service keep tabs on the royals from a distance and advise them of developments from the to time....if only for their own protection?

 

If he was to admit the encounter ( i do not know if true or not ) it would leave him open to prosecution.

Roberts would claim being groomed by Epstein  , trafficked  and did not consent to the sex.

 

Still waiting for the duty logs of his Protection Officer(s) .....  ????️‍♂️

6 hours ago, Jack100 said:

Seems it's a pity he's a Royal  ,  if he was a rock star involved with a young  groupie..... nothing would matter or be said !

Like bill wyman in the70s

3 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

If he was to admit the encounter ( i do not know if true or not ) it would leave him open to prosecution.

Roberts would claim being groomed by Epstein  , trafficked  and did not consent to the sex.

 

Prosecution for what, he would just say he had no knowledge of anything and she was not paid by him so no prostitution angle, just a girl he was introduced to who shagged him for what she could get out of it no doubt, she's just miffed she did not make as much out of it as she thought, might be a book coming next.

47 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Like bill wyman in the70s

How old was that Mandy 13? where was the feminist me 2 outrage over that one? Or John Peel the pervy DJ who not only married a 15 year old in the states but had a 15 year old gf in the UK when he was married, that's ok they the argument goes things were different back then.

21 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Prosecution for what, he would just say he had no knowledge of anything and she was not paid by him so no prostitution angle, just a girl he was introduced to who shagged him for what she could get out of it no doubt, she's just miffed she did not make as much out of it as she thought, might be a book coming next.

I fail to understand how you think the lack of consent is acceptable.

Of course he could claim he had no knowledge of her age , grooming or trafficking. However this would lead to questions regarding his involvement and activities with Epstein.

As for prostitution as stated earlier the payment is wide in scope and can involve a fhird party.

6 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I fail to understand how you think the lack of consent is acceptable.

 

I saw the entire documentary and never saw anything in the past photographs that showed 

a frightened, coerced woman who was withholding consent. Seems like they were paid and quite excited

to fly on jets and hang around with powerful people. This seems to be an opportune moment to

force a huge settlement from the royals.

5 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am shocked. Sex with 17, wow! Shocking, absolutely shocking!

Yes, you have made your opinions over sex with under age girls abundantly clear. 

 

A real free spirit you are. 

I don't deny there may be mixed motives in this coming to light, however it does a great job of demonstrating how cringeworthy some of attitudes here on Thaivisa are. 

 

I have found that threads here  which discuss, rape, trafficking consent, or underage women can be very illuminating at letting one understand who is who. 

 

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

I saw the entire documentary and never saw anything in the past photographs that showed 

a frightened, coerced woman who was withholding consent. Seems like they were paid and quite excited

to fly on jets and hang around with powerful people. This seems to be an opportune moment to

force a huge settlement from the royals.

Yes, what better way for Andrew to avoid sexual contact with underage women than to spend extended periods of time in the company of a wealthy and unrepentant pedophile.

I don't know much about Virginia but Andrew seems like the royal family idiot from the interview he gave.

 

"I was too honorable to break up with Epstein long distance so I flew over to stay in his house for 4 days to tell him it was over. While there I found his house full of pretty young women so I shagged as many of them as I could in the limited time. Why? Because I knew our friendship was coming to an end and I would not stay with him again. See I am not dumb."

 

Or something like that.

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

I saw the entire documentary and never saw anything in the past photographs that showed 

a frightened, coerced woman who was withholding consent. Seems like they were paid and quite excited

to fly on jets and hang around with powerful people. This seems to be an opportune moment to

force a huge settlement from the royals.

Yes Donald

Prince Andrew should just leave England, change his name and settle down in Pattaya, he will be happy here until old age. A lot of famous people can be seen here,  Ian Rush enjoyed the strip clubs when he visited last summer. 

  

8 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

I fail to understand how you think the lack of consent is acceptable.

Of course he could claim he had no knowledge of her age , grooming or trafficking. However this would lead to questions regarding his involvement and activities with Epstein.

As for prostitution as stated earlier the payment is wide in scope and can involve a fhird party.

Was violence threatened, did they hold a gun to her head, how exactly was she forced? looks very happy to have a photo taken for her mum and does not mention anything negative about it for years. She is making the most of a quick <deleted> 18 years ago under circumstances which is just her word against his, will go nowhere despite her being a much better actor on TV than he is.