Dozens of documents naming Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and associates to be made public in 2024

[scottiejohn]

39 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Yes.

 

 

Thank you!

That means you agree that Prince Andrew was second in line!

End of the need for you to post on this topic any more!

Goodbye!

[youreavinalaff]

16 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Thank you!

That means you agree that Prince Andrew was second in line!

End of the need for you to post on this topic any more!

Goodbye!

I've never denied he was.

[JonnyF]

17 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The thing is, the law recognises that 17 year olds are not sufficiently mature enough to make the right choices in life. That is why 18 or even 21 is the age of majority in most countries.

 

Go smoke weed in Indonesia, then when you go to jail tell them it's legal in Thailand. It doesn't matter what "most countries" do, in England the age of consent is 16 so no law was broken.

 

17 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

 

Furthermore, I refuse to believe that even the sassiest, most streetwise 17 year old child is sufficiently sophisticated to be able to make rational decisions whilst under pressure from billionaire bankers or paedophile children of the queen of England.

 

At 17 in the UK you can drive, smoke, have sex, join the Army etc. People mature a lot faster than in "your day". This sex worker knew exactly what she was doing, she even recruited more girls for Maxwell so she was the trafficker, not Andrew.

 

You can't even get your terminology correct. Pedophilia relates to pre-pubescant children. 17 is not pre-pubescant. It is not illegal. While you attempts to claim the moral high ground by siding with a sex trafficking prostitute are revealing, they have no basis in the law. Even if he did sleep with her, he did not break the law. 

 

17 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

 

To suggest that she was an equal partner in Andrew's having sex with a trafficked child is beyond comprehensible, but you keep siding with the nonces if you wish. 

 

Once again, 17 is not a child. The age of consent in the UK is 16.  

 

You're like a homophobe who says two men having sex is disgusting, then when someone points out it is perfectly legal you say "well it damned well shouldn't be". Do I find the 23 year age gap between them a bit weird? Yes I do. But I dare say there are members on this forum with wives with a similar age gap. I do not judge them. They are breaking no laws, same as Prince Andrew didn't. Try not to be so judgemental. Your hatred of the Monarchy is clouding your judgement again.

[RuamRudy]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Go smoke weed in Indonesia, then when you go to jail tell them it's legal in Thailand. It doesn't matter what "most countries" do, in England the age of consent is 16 so no law was broken.

I am pretty sure that the trafficking minors for sex is illegal in England, but then again I have not spent a lot of time looking for get out clauses. 

What I have discovered, however, is that it is illegal to pay someone under the age of 18 for sex. In fact, English law is clear - if someone is engaged in sex work under the age of 18 (and it is you who insists on calling her a prostitute) then she is considered to be a child and a victim.

 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

At 17 in the UK you can drive, smoke, have sex, join the Army etc. People mature a lot faster than in "your day". This sex worker knew exactly what she was doing, she even recruited more girls for Maxwell so she was the trafficker, not Andrew.

 

She is not a sex worker, as English law makes clear. She is the victim of predatory men and women who are exploiting her. 

In the UK at 17 you cannot vote, fight for your country or get married without parental consent. She was not emancipated in the eyes of the law. 

 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

You can't even get your terminology correct. Pedophilia relates to pre-pubescant children. 

 

I bow to your obviously superior knowledge about the nuances of noncery.  

 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

It is not illegal. While you attempts to claim the moral high ground by siding with a sex trafficking prostitute are revealing, they have no basis in the law. Even if he did sleep with her, he did not break the law. 

 

I am afraid that, as is so often the case, you are wrong. See the link I supplied above to to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Once again, 17 is not a child. The age of consent in the UK is 16.  

 Ditto my previous point.

 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

You're like a homophobe who says two men having sex is disgusting, then when someone points out it is perfectly legal you say "well it damned well shouldn't be". Do I find the 23 year age gap between them a bit weird? Yes I do. But I dare say there are members on this forum with wives with a similar age gap. I do not judge them. 

 

We are not talking about a 50 year old and a 30 year old. We are talking about a powerful adult and a child. To suggest that there is no difference between that and two adults of significantly differing ages grossly insults those forum members who are in consensual adult relationships. 

 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

They are breaking no laws, same as Prince Andrew didn't.

 

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is your friend. Read it and understand why you are wrong. 

[KhunLA]

Not sure how accurate this is (do take with large grain of salt), as I don't care, but did see this, for those who wish to speculate:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1110168246567482

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

I am pretty sure that the trafficking minors for sex is illegal in England, but then again I have not spent a lot of time looking for get out clauses. 

What I have discovered, however, is that it is illegal to pay someone under the age of 18 for sex. In fact, English law is clear - if someone is engaged in sex work under the age of 18 (and it is you who insists on calling her a prostitute) then she is considered to be a child and a victim.

 

 

She is not a sex worker, as English law makes clear. She is the victim of predatory men and women who are exploiting her. 

In the UK at 17 you cannot vote, fight for your country or get married without parental consent. She was not emancipated in the eyes of the law. 

 

 

I bow to your obviously superior knowledge about the nuances of noncery.  

 

 

I am afraid that, as is so often the case, you are wrong. See the link I supplied above to to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

 

 Ditto my previous point.

 

 

We are not talking about a 50 year old and a 30 year old. We are talking about a powerful adult and a child. To suggest that there is no difference between that and two adults of significantly differing ages grossly insults those forum members who are in consensual adult relationships. 

 

 

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is your friend. Read it and understand why you are wrong. 

 

While I share your disgust at paedophilia and probably exceed your level of disgust, I am afraid you are deliberately conflating 2 very different issues to slander Prince Andrew.

 

This was obviously and factually not paedophilia. You do not "bow to my superior knowledge", you are simply wrong and I am right. No definition of paedophilia includes consenting 17 year olds, whether the 17 year old is a criminal sex trafficker or not.

 

The age of consent in the uk is 16. No crime was committed. This was not paedophilia. It was not even illegal. Weird? Maybe but lots of people engage in weird, legal, sexual behaviour.

 

Your disgust at the age difference is no different to someone who is disgusted by 2 men having sex. You might find it disgusting but it is legal. She consented. She was of legal age. 

 

Maybe you should address your own prejudices? You seem a bit out of touch and bigoted. 

[RuamRudy]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

While I share your disgust at paedophilia and probably exceed your level of disgust, I am afraid you are deliberately conflating 2 very different issues to slander Prince Andrew.

 

This was obviously and factually not paedophilia. You do not "bow to my superior knowledge", you are simply wrong and I am right. No definition of paedophilia includes consenting 17 year olds, whether the 17 year old is a criminal sex trafficker or not.

 

The age of consent in the uk is 16. No crime was committed. This was not paedophilia. It was not even illegal. Weird? Maybe but lots of people engage in weird, legal, sexual behaviour.

 

Your disgust at the age difference is no different to someone who is disgusted by 2 men having sex. You might find it disgusting but it is legal. She consented. She was of legal age. 

 

Maybe you should address your own prejudices? You seem a bit out of touch and bigoted. 

 

You have called her a prostitute on several occasions and I have shown you that it's illegal in England to purchase sex from someone under the age of 18. So by your own criticism of her you acknowledge that she is a victim.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

You have called her a prostitute on several occasions and I have shown you that it's illegal in England to purchase sex from someone under the age of 18. So by your own criticism of her you acknowledge that she is a victim.

 

Yes she was a prostitute by her own admission. She also acquired other girls for sex on behalf of Maxwell, by her own admission. She stopped her feminist crusade for young girls after receiving 16 million dollars. She is a real gem, it seems.

 

It was never proven that she slept with Andrew, and if she did it was never proven that Andrew paid her.

 

So it would appear that you have nothing other than your hatred of the royal family. 

[RuamRudy]

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes she was a prostitute by her own admission. She also acquired other girls for sex on behalf of Maxwell, by her own admission. She stopped her feminist crusade for young girls after receiving 16 million dollars. She is a real gem, it seems.

 

It was never proven that she slept with Andrew, and if she did it was never proven that Andrew paid her.

 

So it would appear that you have nothing other than your hatred of the royal family. 

 

The hopefully the police will be given full and unhindered access to investigate whether a crime has been committed.

[JonnyF]

20 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The hopefully the police will be given full and unhindered access to investigate whether a crime has been committed.

 

By all means.

 

Until that happens and Andrew is subsequently convicted of something, maybe you should stop throwing around unsubstantiated, inaccurate and insulting terms like paedophile. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if someone called you a nonce or a rapist with nothing to back it up other than a deep seated hatred of your family/class/wealth.

[RuamRudy]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

By all means.

 

Until that happens and Andrew is subsequently convicted of something, maybe you should stop throwing around unsubstantiated, inaccurate and insulting terms like paedophile. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if someone called you a nonce or a rapist with nothing to back it up other than a deep seated hatred of your family/class/wealth.

 

If he were to be faced with the full scrutiny of the police as if he were a regular person then we could all be satisfied that due process is being served. But he hasn't - and he uses royal privilege to avoid scrutiny, just as his paedophile uncle, Mountbatten, did.

[Georgealbert]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

By all means.

 

Until that happens and Andrew is subsequently convicted of something, maybe you should stop throwing around unsubstantiated, inaccurate and insulting terms like paedophile. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if someone called you a nonce or a rapist with nothing to back it up other than a deep seated hatred of your family/class/wealth.

So funny again.

 

On another thread you posted Andrew should be stripped of his titles.

 

Seem you only defend the royals, when it is the ones you like.

 

Again, the only consistency is your inconsistency.

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

If he were to be faced with the full scrutiny of the police as if he were a regular person then we could all be satisfied that due process is being served. But he hasn't - and he uses royal privilege to avoid scrutiny, just as his paedophile uncle, Mountbatten, did.

 

Unsubstantiated gossip. A biased opinion. If you have any proof of any of this please post links. 

 

Otherwise as per forum rules please do not suggest it is factual. 

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Georgealbert said:

So funny again.

 

On another thread you posted Andrew should be stripped of his titles.

 

Seem you only defend the royals, when it is the ones you like.

 

Again, the only consistency is your inconsistency.

 

Yes he should be stripped of his titles IMO. 

 

Nothing to do with an alleged, unsubstantiated interaction with the lying teenage prostitute though. 

 

He offers nothing. Same as the dumb prince and his Instagram loving wife. Get rid of the trash.

[Georgealbert]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes he should be stripped of his titles IMO. 

 

Nothing to do with an alleged, unsubstantiated interaction with the lying teenage prostitute though. 

 

He offers nothing. Same as the dumb prince and his Instagram loving wife. Get rid of the trash.

So you first defend Andrew and then want to strip him of his titles, for something in your own words, ‘has not been proven’. So why should he be stripped of his titles?

 

Why do you not Harry, is it because he has an opinion, or is there something about ‘his instagram loving wife’ that upsets you. Don't be shy, express your real reasons.

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Unsubstantiated gossip. A biased opinion. If you have any proof of any of this please post links. 

 

Otherwise as per forum rules please do not suggest it is factual. 

 

2 questions:

1) what is unsubstantiated? 

2) Who made you forum police?

 

There's a report button if you feel my post is contrary to the rules.

[KhunLA]

7 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

If he were to be faced with the full scrutiny of the police as if he were a regular person then we could all be satisfied that due process is being served. But he hasn't - and he uses royal privilege to avoid scrutiny, just as his paedophile uncle, Mountbatten, did.

He was, since never charged with a crime.  Just like anyone else would have been left alone if not charged.

 

Never let facts ruin a good spin.

[brewsterbudgen]

Why the fascination with Prince Andrew?  It's common knowledge that he, and Clinton, was Epstein's friend.  The list may contain some more surprising names; perhaps some who are running for President.

[RuamRudy]

14 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

He was, since never charged with a crime.  Just like anyone else would have been left alone if not charged.

 

Never let facts ruin a good spin.

 

UK authorities protected Prince Andrew from US Epstein investigation, book says

 

"British authorities protected Prince Andrew from US prosecutors investigating his relationship with the financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a new book by a US attorney who led the investigation in New York."

[KhunLA]

36 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

UK authorities protected Prince Andrew from US Epstein investigation, book says

 

"British authorities protected Prince Andrew from US prosecutors investigating his relationship with the financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a new book by a US attorney who led the investigation in New York."

Seriously ... a book.

 

Prince Andrew, like any intelligent person, would ignore request to give details of their life, if not necessary.  Not offering info, is not 'being protected by British authorities'

 

US can ask, but nobody is obligated to comply, and who in their right mind would.  He simply exercised his rights, like anyone, everyone should.

[stevenl]

25 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Seriously ... a book.

 

Prince Andrew, like any intelligent person, would ignore request to give details of their life, if not necessary.  Not offering info, is not 'being protected by British authorities'

 

US can ask, but nobody is obligated to comply, and who in their right mind would.  He simply exercised his rights, like anyone, everyone should.

Somehow I think the prosecutor here would know more than you.

[RuamRudy]

9 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Seriously ... a book.

 

Prince Andrew, like any intelligent person, would ignore request to give details of their life, if not necessary.  Not offering info, is not 'being protected by British authorities'

 

US can ask, but nobody is obligated to comply, and who in their right mind would.  He simply exercised his rights, like anyone, everyone should.

 

Make up your mind. Firstly you said that he had been fully investigated and subsequently exonerated. Now you are acknowledging that he has not complied with requests from the US authorities to provide further information. 

 

If he had nothing to hide, why would he not help them to the fullest?

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Make up your mind. Firstly you said that he had been fully investigated and subsequently exonerated. Now you are acknowledging that he has not complied with requests from the US authorities to provide further information. 

 

If he had nothing to hide, why would he not help them to the fullest?

You must have me confused, as I never said that.  

[RuamRudy]

5 hours ago, KhunLA said:

You must have me confused, as I never said that.  

 

I stated thus:

 

On 12/29/2023 at 12:44 PM, RuamRudy said:

If he were to be faced with the full scrutiny of the police as if he were a regular person then we could all be satisfied that due process is being served.

 

To which you replied:

 

17 hours ago, KhunLA said:

He was

 

It not me who has you confused. You have confused yourself.

[KhunLA]

14 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I stated thus:

 

 

To which you replied:

 

 

It not me who has you confused. You have confused yourself.

I believe the rules state, altering, misquoting post of others is not allowed.  Nice try though ...

Is not being charged the same as being "fully investigated and subsequently exonerated".  If he even was, as you did state 'If'

 

If so and not charged ... nuff said.  Although, not being charged and not being guilty of something isn't always the same.

 

OJ was acquitted of murder ... does anyone think he was innocent.

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

I believe the rules state, altering, misquoting post of others is not allowed.  Nice try though ...

Is not being charged the same as being "fully investigated and subsequently exonerated".  If he even was, as you did state 'If'

 

If so and not charged ... nuff said.  Although, not being charged and not being guilty of something isn't always the same.

 

OJ was acquitted of murder ... does anyone think he was innocent.

 

Everyone seems to think they are forum police these days...

 

I neither altered nor misquoted you. In fact, you altered my post by highlighting some of the text, which is against your beloved rules but I am not so petty as to get bent out of shape by it.

 

I stand by my post. You initially stated that he had been fully investigated by the police.