2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s as simple as this.

 

Maxwell is guilty.

True, and some of the victims were just 14, so a serious crime ..... but the trial and sentencing was a proxy trial for the real  criminal because he escaped justice by taking the cowards route.  If he was also standing trial, her level of guilt and sentencing would have been very different.

1 minute ago, Kinnock said:

True, and some of the victims were just 14, so a serious crime ..... but the trial and sentencing was a proxy trial for the real  criminal because he escaped justice by taking the cowards route.  If he was also standing trial, her level of guilt and sentencing would have been very different.

She was an enabler and participant in heinous crimes.

 

Throw away the key.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t portray these minors as anything, I’ve merely stated the facts regarding they cannot give consent to any sexual act with an adult and that adult sexual acts with a minor is a crime, very serious crimes.

Yes according to "the law" they could not consent and so with that brings additional charges.  My point is that is a pretty hollow issue.  If the "law' said that the age of consent was 12, would that make what Epstein and Maxwell did any less despicable.  

The two were "sex trafficking"  irrespective of the age.  The women knew exactly what they were doing and they fact that they were not of the age of consent does not in any way diminish their culpability in agreeing to take cash in exchange for sex. 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She was an enabler and participant in heinous crimes.

 

Throw away the key.

Perhaps, but what about the parents?  I have a daughter, and at 14 I would never allow her to visit an older man or to travel except as part of a school trip.

 

Isn't lack of parental care also a crime?

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure what the age of consent in Thailand has to do with Maxwell’s trial in a U.S. Federal court.

 

You can stick to your point as long as you like, the fact remains a minor cannot consent to sex acts with an adult.

 

Maxwell’s jury found her guilty of breaking numerous, non arbitrary, laws.

 

She’s going to spend the rest of her life behind bars.

 

Thailand has the same age of consent for paid-for sex as the US and most of the civilised world - 18.

10 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Yes according to "the law" they could not consent and so with that brings additional charges.  My point is that is a pretty hollow issue.  If the "law' said that the age of consent was 12, would that make what Epstein and Maxwell did any less despicable.  

The two were "sex trafficking"  irrespective of the age.  The women knew exactly what they were doing and they fact that they were not of the age of consent does not in any way diminish their culpability in agreeing to take cash in exchange for sex. 

 

A minor cannot agree to sex with an adult, giving a minor cash for sex does not change that fact.

 

Do try to grasp that fact.

2 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Thailand has the same age of consent for paid-for sex as the US and most of the civilised world - 18.

Irrelevant, Maxwell’s victims were all under 18, some as young as 14.

14 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

Perhaps, but what about the parents?  I have a daughter, and at 14 I would never allow her to visit an older man or to travel except as part of a school trip.

 

Isn't lack of parental care also a crime?

Child neglect might be a crime.

 

But it has no bearing on the seriousness of the crimes committed by Maxwell, or indeed others who prey on vulnerable minors.

Her only hope now is ratting out a big name or two.

Does she have the goods?

Just now, Jingthing said:

Her only hope now is ratting out a big name or two?

Does she have the goods?

During the arrest of Epstein the FBI made the very unusual move of inviting NY prosecutors to attend the search of his premises and shared with them documents and evidence recovered.

 

It was suggested at the time this might have been to provide a backup against political interference in the case.

 

It is very likely prosecutors have all the evidence they need.

10 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Didn't follow the case, but I doubt if any of the 'abused' didn't know exactly what they were doing.  Compensated quite well for it also.  Always seems to be years later, when they realize they can squeeze more money out of the system, by claiming 'abuse'.

 

Don't think she was kidnapping anyone off the streets.

Regardless of what the minors were coerced into or how well they were "compensated"  this was organized crime involving people in positions of wealth, thereby "power" .that was used for abuse of said "minors". I am without doubt that the scale of abuse extends far far beyond what has been revealed but will not be. Perhaps some satisfaction can be had from the fact that this "operation" has been shut down and although all the players have not been officially named they have at  very least have been not only sidelined from further participation but are now socially suspect in "respected circles" ! 

 

5 minutes ago, Nojohndoe said:

that was used for abuse of said "minors"

I don't think they were used or abused, and knew exactly what & why they participated.

 

That doesn't help with the legality or the guilty verdict, that was handed down, as it should have been.  

 

 

Also looks bad for Randy Andy, as this gives more credence to the story of his accuser. 

On 12/30/2021 at 9:10 AM, worgeordie said:

Andrew ....next , 

regards Worgeordie

Well, Prince Andrew, if he had sex with Virginia Guiffre, and it is by no means certain that he did, is alleged to have done so in the UK, where no crime was committed, certainly not one that falls under the jurisdiction of New York State or US Federal law. Apparently at the time she claims he was screwing her he was actually at a children's party in Pizza Hut in Crawley or some other salubrious part of South London. I rather suspect that quite a lot of people might have noticed, and it might well have made the newspapers if Her Majesty's second son was boffing an American teenager in a booth in Pizza Hut!

 

Even so, stupidity on the part of The Queen's son is not a crime!

 

I understand that he is being cited in a civil case in New York. He cannot be compelled to attend. He won't attend because it as plain as the the nose on his little piggy face that if he does, some prosecutor with an eye for his own political future will arrange for his arrest while they try to fix up some charges or other against him.

 

I don't like Prince Andrew, I think he is a clown and an oxygen thief, but I don't think he should be banged up because of who his mum is - and that is certainly what would happen.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Irrelevant, Maxwell’s victims were all under 18, some as young as 14.

Which was the point I was making. Epstein would have been guilty in Thailand too, had he survived to trial. Minors cannot consent to paid-for sex.

36 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I don't think they were used or abused, and knew exactly what & why they participated.

 

That doesn't help with the legality or the guilty verdict, that was handed down, as it should have been.  

 

 

Of course it  should have and was ! You think I question that ????

On 12/31/2021 at 7:45 PM, robblok said:

Also looks bad for Randy Andy, as this gives more credence to the story of his accuser. 

More news on that front:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/01/prince-andrew-lawsuit-virginia-giuffre-effort-block-rejected

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More news on that front:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/01/prince-andrew-lawsuit-virginia-giuffre-effort-block-rejected

Do the US courts have the right to try a UK citizen.

If I were Andy, I'd just tell them to clear off, and avoid any future visits to the USA.

Presumably they have no right to extradite, as it wouldn't have been a crime in the UK.

On 12/31/2021 at 7:05 PM, brewsterbudgen said:

Thailand has the same age of consent for paid-for sex as the US and most of the civilised world - 18.

Are you claiming the UK and Europe aren't civilised?

P Andrew is an alleged abuser of very young women, so he should be held accountable. Whether there is a trial or not, his reputation and the rest of his life is tarnished. Royal family need to get rid of him now--embarrassment to the Queen and country.

.......Cat O' nine tails......

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Do the US courts have the right to try a UK citizen.

If I were Andy, I'd just tell them to clear off, and avoid any future visits to the USA.

Presumably they have no right to extradite, as it wouldn't have been a crime in the UK.

The court has jurisdiction.

 

This is a civil case, not a criminal case therefore (for this case) extradition is not an option.

 

However, the risks of criminal cases coming out of civil cases are not to be dismissed.

 

There are two issues that are almost certainly of immediate concern to the Prince:

 

1. The disclosure process.

2. This coming Tuesday the court will open the settlement file between Virginia Guiffre and Epstein.

 

The Prince would be well advised to settle out of court before this goes any further.

 

On 12/31/2021 at 7:05 PM, brewsterbudgen said:

Thailand has the same age of consent for paid-for sex as the US and most of the civilised world - 18.

To be expected, as most countries consider 18 (not Thailand, '20' for here) as the age of an adult, some, as the USA, need to be that old just to work later at night, depending what state you live in.

 

And only 1 state / province in USA has legalized prostitution.  The rest of the country still considers it uncivilized ????

 

Lower than 18 yrs, for age of consent, IMHO, are to protect minors from criminal prosecution for having sex, if consensual.   

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Are you claiming the UK and Europe aren't civilised?

No, they're part of the "civilised" world where the legal age of consent for paid-for sex is 18.  Just like in Thailand.

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

However, the risks of criminal cases coming out of civil cases are not to be dismissed.

He lives in the UK, she lives in Australia, alleged crime was allegedly committed in the UK.

Can't see it getting him, and settling would be an admission of guilt, which is these 'woke' days is an unforgivable sin. 

Best to deny everything and keep denying IMHO.

He's already made his best defence, "I wasn't there".

Up to them to prove he was there 23 years ago, good luck with that!

 

Off topic slightly,

Rolf Harris got 5 years because he foolishly wrote a letter of apology.

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

He lives in the UK, she lives in Australia, alleged crime was allegedly committed in the UK.

Can't see it getting him, and settling would be an admission of guilt, which is these 'woke' days is an unforgivable sin. 

Best to deny everything and keep denying IMHO.

He's already made his best defence, "I wasn't there".

Up to them to prove he was there 23 years ago, good luck with that!

You clearly have no idea how any of this works.

 

Prince Andrew’s legal team (which before the Court is Prince Andrew), have already engaged in the ‘Disclosure Process’ which is continuing.

 

Prince Andrew (his legal team) have made statements to the court an in public, all of which the Court has jurisdiction to examine.

 

The ‘Disclosure Process’ will be used to examine those claims.

 

Prince Andrew claims he was elsewhere, his schedule records are subject to ‘Disclosure’.

 

Prince Andrew says he can’t sweat, his medical records are subject to ‘Disclosure’.

 

He needs to do the smart thing and settle out of court.

 

And once again, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with this ‘woke’ thing of yourself you have on a hair trigger.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Prince Andrew claims he was elsewhere, his schedule records are subject to ‘Disclosure’.

Prince Andrew says he can’t sweat, his medical records are subject to ‘Disclosure’.

As far as I know it's up to the accuser to prove their claim (presumption of innocence, etc.). 

My brief always used to tell me, "say you weren't there, they probably can't prove you were, so case dismissed"

11 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

As far as I know it's up to the accuser to prove their claim (presumption of innocence, etc.). 

My brief always used to tell me, "say you weren't there, they probably can't prove you were, so case dismissed"

In civil matters, the decision-maker must be satisfied that the allegation has been proven on the balance of probabilities, while criminal matters require that the court be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. 

23 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

As far as I know it's up to the accuser to prove their claim (presumption of innocence, etc.). 

My brief always used to tell me, "say you weren't there, they probably can't prove you were, so case dismissed"

That could work in criminal cases, however this is a civil matter. Different standards apply. Even if its proven that he was with her they can't jail him for it. Its a monetary thing different standards for civil matters. Have you never heard about this ?

On 12/31/2021 at 10:36 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

The abused where minors at the time they were abused. As minors they cannot give consent to sex with an adult. A sexual abuser cannot ‘compensate’ a minor they have sexually abused.
 

What you think she did or did not do is irrelevant, she had been found guilty by the jury in an open court of law.

 

As for “Always seems to be years later, when they realize they can squeeze more money out of the system, by claiming 'abuse'.”

 

Wrong again. 
 

Maxwell was charged and found guilty of heinous criminality, her prosecution was in a criminal court and has nothing to do with anyone seeking to ‘squeeze more money out of the system’.

 

In short your comments are factually incorrect, blaming minors for the heinous crimes committed against them and offering cover for a vile sexual abuser.

 

Let me repeat this because you clearly not get it:

 

Adults committing sex acts with minors is always a crime, adults trafficking minors for sexual is always a crime.

 

Have a word with yourself.

Wasn't the main one 17 years old when she shagged Andrew. 

If that is a crime, then I need to be locked up as well.

48 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

As far as I know it's up to the accuser to prove their claim (presumption of innocence, etc.). 

My brief always used to tell me, "say you weren't there, they probably can't prove you were, so case dismissed"

The burden of proof bar in a civil case is a lot lower than in a criminal case, the presumption of innocence is not applicable in the civil trial procedure.

 

 

https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/lawsuits-and-the-court-process/evidentiary-standards-and-burdens-of-proof/