Prince Andrew settles out of court.

[Liverpool Lou]

17 hours ago, KhunLA said:

19 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

No it is not an opinion, it is a matter of the law, it was filed in civil court.

 

Just because something is filed in civil court doesn't mean it's not a crime.  

And just because a case is filed in a civil court doesn't mean that the respondent committed any crime.

[Liverpool Lou]

17 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

19 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Law in US applies if incidents happened there. UK not relevant. Media reports 17yo

You are misinformed.

 

The first ruling by the court in this case was to answer the question ‘Does the court have jurisdiction?’.

 

The US court has jurisdiction.

But she wasn't underage for sexual consent in New York or the US Virgin Islands, either!

[ozimoron]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

But she wasn't underage for sexual consent in New York or the US Virgin Islands, either!

She was under age for prostitution in the jurisdiction where the offense occurred.

[Liverpool Lou]

17 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She was not legally competent under US law to give her consent to paid sex or to cross a state line for the purposes of paid sex.

No one is the civil case has been accused of paying for sex with her nor taking her across state lines for paid sex!

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

And just because a case is filed in a civil court doesn't mean that the respondent committed any crime.

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.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

No one is the civil case has been accused of paying for sex with her nor taking her across state lines for paid sex!

The civil case was settled out of court before that question could be answered. The original case was about jurisdiction, not the merits of the accusation.

[Liverpool Lou]

17 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1. At age 17 she was not legally competent to consent to paid sex.

2. I’m sure Andrew’s lawyers explained to him that admitting to statutory rape is not something he should do, let alone something he should be proud of.

1.  Andrew wasn't being sued for participating in paid sex so the age of consent for that is irrelevant.

 

2. No one ever accused him of statutory rape.  

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No one is the civil case has been accused of paying for sex with her nor taking her across state lines for paid sex!

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

[ozimoron]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

1.  Andrew wasn't being sued for participating in paid sex so the age of consent for that is irrelevant.

 

2. No one ever accused him of statutory rape.  

Really? Then what was the complaint?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

1.  Andrew wasn't being sued for participating in paid sex so the age of consent for that is irrelevant.

 

2. No one ever accused him of statutory rape.  

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

 

 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

17 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

US law applies because a US citizen under age 18 was trafficked across a State line for paid sex.

That's not anything that Prince Andrew was accused of or sued for! 

[giddyup]

21 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

How do you know that when no one else does as no details of the settlement are being made public?

He doesn't.

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Get your relevance (and your understanding of what the legal case was) straight, there was no criminal case, the woman was suing him in a civil case. 

 

When she first, allegedly, had sex with him in London she was, at 17, i.e. over the age of consent in the UK.    When she subsequently, allegedly, did the same thing in the US she was over 18 and there was no allegation of prostitution being an element in the case against Andrew.   

 

Prince Andrew has not been accused of trafficking her as evidenced by there being no criminal charges against him, either here or in the US. 

You are confusing compliance with consent.

Staying with UK law, Guffrie would be regarded as a victim of child sexual exploitation. A person under the age of 18 is regarded as a child. It is established fact that Epstien groomed and exploited Guiffre.

If Andrew engaged in sexual activity then he would  also be inflicting harm .

 

[sammieuk1]

Just imagine how much the Sun would pay to find Epstein's video stash and how many more nonces pedo's and rapists would fall so much has been suppressed and bought off now justice will never be done ???? 

[Will B Good]

Massive queues form outside Buckingham Palace on the news that Prince Andrew is giving away huge amounts of money to people he has never met.

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Really?

As far as I see he signed a statement so that the case doesn't drag on forever.

 

It's like if my gf accuses me I looked at another girl.

Option a: "sure, sorry, I don't do it again"

Option b: nagging, nagging, nagging.... 

 

Seriously?

 

If you are equating the situation of someone with rank, wealth and privilege, who was a long-term friend of a pedophile, with your own, you are attempting to make that concession trivial.

 

My GF understands I can look at other women all I want, as long as I don't touch. Does your GF intimidate you?

[Sparktrader]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

But she wasn't underage for sexual consent in New York or the US Virgin Islands, either!

6 months over

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If you are equating the situation of someone with rank, wealth and privilege, who was a long-term friend of a pedophile, with your own, you are attempting to make that concession trivial.

Why do so many people (deliberately?) misuse that word pedophile? From Wikipedia:

Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.^[1][2] Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,^[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13

From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

 

It seems the youngest girl Epstein was accused of having sex with was 14. Having sex with a 14 year old girl is in most countries illegal but the person who does it is by definition no pedophile. There is a huge difference between pedophiles who are interested in prepubescent children and guys who are attracted to girls who are "mature" enough to be able to have children.

 

Rich and famous people like to have sex just like ordinary people. One big difference is that many young and pretty girls (legal or not) prefer the rich and famous. I spoke with a couple of musicians who played in bands. They all told me part of the attraction was that lots of girls were eager to go with the "famous" guys. Personally I don't blame any famous person if he takes what is on offer. That's the whole point of being famous, or not?

[spidermike007]

20 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Just because something is filed in civil court doesn't mean it's not a crime.  Civil is more about compensation.  It's always about the money.

 

Success for 2 opportunist; he got his jollies off, she got compensated for it.  Only negative I see, is people think it's news-worthy.  Well, just the news / distraction creating folks do, and  ....  hook line & sinker.

 

Win win wins all around.

I see some people who cannot put their smartphones down. I see some people checking their phones every 3 minutes. It is like an obsession, and a compulsive addiction for many. I wonder, what would we do without our phones?

 

Think back just 15 years ago when few had them. No social media related societal ills. Kids actually played outdoors. People interacted with one another. And that generation actually had social skills. 

[seedy]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I'm just saying that innocent people cooperate with the FBI when asked, especially royalty.

Smart people DO NOT talk to the police

[cleopatra2]

14 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why do so many people (deliberately?) misuse that word pedophile? From Wikipedia:

Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.^[1][2] Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,^[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13

From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

 

It seems the youngest girl Epstein was accused of having sex with was 14. Having sex with a 14 year old girl is in most countries illegal but the person who does it is by definition no pedophile. There is a huge difference between pedophiles who are interested in prepubescent children and guys who are attracted to girls who are "mature" enough to be able to have children.

 

Rich and famous people like to have sex just like ordinary people. One big difference is that many young and pretty girls (legal or not) prefer the rich and famous. I spoke with a couple of musicians who played in bands. They all told me part of the attraction was that lots of girls were eager to go with the "famous" guys. Personally I don't blame any famous person if he takes what is on offer. That's the whole point of being famous, or not?

I do not think this does any favours.

To understand how absurd your point is. Stand up and and state

Epstein is not a peadophile , just a person who sexually assaults a child and it is ok if they are famous.

[Lacessit]

15 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why do so many people (deliberately?) misuse that word pedophile? From Wikipedia:

Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.^[1][2] Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,^[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13

From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

 

It seems the youngest girl Epstein was accused of having sex with was 14. Having sex with a 14 year old girl is in most countries illegal but the person who does it is by definition no pedophile. There is a huge difference between pedophiles who are interested in prepubescent children and guys who are attracted to girls who are "mature" enough to be able to have children.

 

Rich and famous people like to have sex just like ordinary people. One big difference is that many young and pretty girls (legal or not) prefer the rich and famous. I spoke with a couple of musicians who played in bands. They all told me part of the attraction was that lots of girls were eager to go with the "famous" guys. Personally I don't blame any famous person if he takes what is on offer. That's the whole point of being famous, or not?

Quite correct, I misused the term. That does not make what I posted any less valid.

A child may be mature physically. As I have pointed out previously, they are not considered to be mature enough for sex mentally, nor should they be.

I blame any person, famous or not, who has not got the nous to ensure the person they are having sex with is of legal age. Prisons have a fair proportion of people who didn't.

[OneMoreFarang]

18 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I do not think this does any favours.

To understand how absurd your point is. Stand up and and state

Epstein is not a peadophile , just a person who sexually assaults a child and it is ok if they are famous.

It's not my fault if you and/or other people don't understand the meaning of certain words.

Personally I look it up if I am not sure...

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

It's not my fault if you and/or other people don't understand the meaning of certain words.

Personally I look it up if I am not sure...

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. 

[OneMoreFarang]

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Quite correct, I misused the term. That does not make what I posted any less valid.

A child may be mature physically. As I have pointed out previously, they are not considered to be mature enough for sex mentally, nor should they be.

I blame any person, famous or not, who has not got the nous to ensure the person they are having sex with is of legal age. Prisons have a fair proportion of people who didn't.

I think everybody should be responsible for what they are doing.

Some people are not grown up even if they are legally mature.

And others are are old enough even if they are in some countries not legally old enough. It's almost funny when a girl crosses the border from country A to B and suddenly she is too young or old enough.

 

Considering that this thread is in a Thai forum with lots of member who are in Thailand since decades I would like to see how many of those members always checked the age of their girl of the day. I remember the time when in some bars the front row was filled with 16 year old girls. I don't remember that too many guys complained about that at that time.

Obviously now times are different and we all would be outraged if we would ever meet a girl in a bar who is not at least 20 years old. But some time ago, about the time when Epstein and Andrew were active, times were different - at least that is what other people tell me.

[OneMoreFarang]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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. 

If I would visit the USA then probably I would inform myself about any important laws over there which I should know about. But I am pretty sure that even in the unlikely case that I would ever visit the USA I wouldn't be interested to have sex with anybody of any age over there. So why should I learn about sex related laws from that country?

 

Considering that this is Thailand you should know that people get sometimes locked up here because of "wrong words". Try to accuse anybody in Thailand to be a pedophile and watch what will happen...

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If I would visit the USA then probably I would inform myself about any important laws over there which I should know about. But I am pretty sure that even in the unlikely case that I would ever visit the USA I wouldn't be interested to have sex with anybody of any age over there. So why should I learn about sex related laws from that country?

 

Considering that this is Thailand you should know that people get sometimes locked up here because of "wrong words". Try to accuse anybody in Thailand to be a pedophile and watch what will happen...

I’ve never made such an accusation.

 

 

[Lacessit]

37 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I think everybody should be responsible for what they are doing.

Some people are not grown up even if they are legally mature.

And others are are old enough even if they are in some countries not legally old enough. It's almost funny when a girl crosses the border from country A to B and suddenly she is too young or old enough.

 

Considering that this thread is in a Thai forum with lots of member who are in Thailand since decades I would like to see how many of those members always checked the age of their girl of the day. I remember the time when in some bars the front row was filled with 16 year old girls. I don't remember that too many guys complained about that at that time.

Obviously now times are different and we all would be outraged if we would ever meet a girl in a bar who is not at least 20 years old. But some time ago, about the time when Epstein and Andrew were active, times were different - at least that is what other people tell me.

They were not different in the USA, which is one of the most puritanical countries in the world. More religious organizations than I could shake a stick at. The weird thing is, while prostitution is illegal there, filming hardcore pornography is not. Go figure.

Have never had a problem with working out whether a girl is too young here, as I prefer mature women. Ones that understand themselves, and me. Most legal age teenagers are as dumb as a can of soup.

The verbal gymnastics you are engaged in make all kinds of excuses for Prince Andrew, including a spot of victim blaming. Putting it bluntly, he's a sleazebag who thought his position would protect him from the consequences of his actions. Som nam na.

[OneMoreFarang]

20 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The verbal gymnastics you are engaged in make all kinds of excuses for Prince Andrew, including a spot of victim blaming. Putting it bluntly, he's a sleazebag who thought his position would protect him from the consequences of his actions. Som nam na.

My point is: Is he guilty only because he is a sleazebag?

 

And about victim blaming: Sometimes I really don't want to hear that word "victim" in this kind of situation again.

If someone attacks a woman and rapes her and hurts her then she is clearly a victim.

If a girl or a woman decides she wants to make a lot of money by visiting rich guys I don't pretend they are victims. She didn't have to visit him. She could have walked away anytime.

[VocalNeal]

On 2/16/2022 at 11:49 AM, Doctor Tom said:

He's an entitled, arrogant,  dick head, end of. 

He's an entitled, arrogant,  dick head, combat helicopter pilot. Had he been American and in Vietnam all the seppos would have a different opinion.