Prince Andrew 'spent weeks' at Epstein home - witness

[Bday Prang]

            Regardless of the legalities, can anybody explain to me how it is that a 17 year old can be considered an innocent vulnerable child , totally unable to know what they are doing,  

             Yet at the same time , in the Uk at least, they are also considered to be, old enough to smoke, old enough to drink (in their house) old enough to drive , old enough to work , old enough to leave home, old enough to travel , old enough to have sex, old enough to get married as long as the parents don't object, old enough to give birth, and old enough to raise  a child of their own , and if they don't wish to raise the child they are also considered old enough to elect for an abortion.

             Again regardless of the legalities,  Is it really any worse for a 17 year old to have sex in luxury surroundings with a wealthy mature man and receive money for it.  Than to have sex behind a skip on a demolition site with an unemployed drug user  in exchange for a big mac and chips 

              Just asking 

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

            Regardless of the legalities, can anybody explain to me how it is that a 17 year old can be considered an innocent vulnerable child , totally unable to know what they are doing,  

             Yet at the same time , in the Uk at least, they are also considered to be, old enough to smoke, old enough to drink (in their house) old enough to drive , old enough to work , old enough to leave home, old enough to travel , old enough to have sex, old enough to get married as long as the parents don't object, old enough to give birth, and old enough to raise  a child of their own , and if they don't wish to raise the child they are also considered old enough to elect for an abortion.

             Again regardless of the legalities,  Is it really any worse for a 17 year old to have sex in luxury surroundings with a wealthy mature man and receive money for it.  Than to have sex behind a skip on a demolition site with an unemployed drug user  in exchange for a big mac and chips 

              Just asking 

 

The law is the law because experts believe that a child under 18 can't make rational decisions based on legal issues such as this. There is no "regardless of legalities".

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

I haven't seen any credible allegations from NY. Just more mud slinging from a few sex workers looking for a payout. 

 

Your desperation to categorise this child as a sex worker is concerning. The Sexual Offences Act is clear that she is not a sex worker. It is also clear that the allegations against Andrew are very serious and should be pursued with the same vigour you expect to be shown to Muslim rape gangs, whose behaviours are no less disgusting.

[RayC]

2 hours ago, peter zwart said:

What about the pizza????? i am confused.

 

TBF he has admitted that ordering a Hawaiian was a mistake. He now realises that pineapple has no place on a pizza.

[JonnyF]

28 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Your desperation to categorise this child as a sex worker is concerning. The Sexual Offences Act is clear that she is not a sex worker. It is also clear that the allegations against Andrew are very serious and should be pursued with the same vigour you expect to be shown to Muslim rape gangs, whose behaviours are no less disgusting.

 

Comparing the Muslim rape gangs to Andrew is totally disingenuous and frankly, disgusting.

 

They are not even nearly the same thing. Your moral code must be pretty warped if you think gang raping a 12 year old girl is the same as having consensual sex with a 17 year old. 

 

 

Edited January 9 by JonnyF

[Bday Prang]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

The law is the law because experts believe that a child under 18 can't make rational decisions based on legal issues such as this. There is no "regardless of legalities".

I knew you would be unable to answer and I knew you would have to respond

Of course there is a "regardless of the legalities" we are not in  court , laws are changing continually , Common sense is constant

          At one time in the UK homo man on man sex was a serious crime if it involved a "child" under 21 presumably decided by experts, and agreed by society to be disgusting   then one day, the experts changed their mind, and the law  changed at midnight, it be perfectly legal  to indulge in such practices at 16.. and  suddenly people like you started calling anybody disagreeing with that decision  a bigot or homophobe

          By your argument the keeping of slaves would once have been acceptable as it was also legal, and approved by experts  at the time.  you are using legal technicalities as an excuse for your virtue signalling.

 

  You said

"I'm saying she had no idea because she was minor and not capable of making a judgement call in this matter because of her age".

 .was that based on the current legal position, or where you speaking from a moral point of view?  two totally different things

The fact that you started the sentence with "i'm saying" indicates that it is your personal  opinion, or at least the opinion you wish to project.

Had the events taken place a few months later would you have considered poor victoria to be nothing more than a whore and  andrews behaviour to be perfectly acceptable,? 

       

 

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

I knew you would be unable to answer and I knew you would have to respond

Of course there is a "regardless of the legalities" we are not in  court , laws are changing continually , Common sense is constant

          At one time in the UK homo man on man sex was a serious crime if it involved a "child" under 21 presumably decided by experts, and agreed by society to be disgusting   then one day, the experts changed their mind, and the law  changed at midnight, it be perfectly legal  to indulge in such practices at 16.. and  suddenly people like you started calling anybody disagreeing with that decision  a bigot or homophobe

          By your argument the keeping of slaves would once have been acceptable as it was also legal, and approved by experts  at the time.  you are using legal technicalities as an excuse for your virtue signalling.

 

  You said

"I'm saying she had no idea because she was minor and not capable of making a judgement call in this matter because of her age".

 .was that based on the current legal position, or where you speaking from a moral point of view?  two totally different things

The fact that you started the sentence with "i'm saying" indicates that it is your personal  opinion, or at least the opinion you wish to project.

Had the events taken place a few months later would you have considered poor victoria to be nothing more than a whore and  andrews behaviour to be perfectly acceptable,? 

       

 

 

You're expecting me to find some merit in illegality of this nature?

 

An half of America (at least) knew that keeping slaves was evil even if legal in some states. Likewise abortion is illegal in some states and that law is evil. However, in this case we are discussing rape.

Edited January 9 by ozimoron

[The Cyclist]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again, Perjury is a serious crime.

 

So is murder, it still happens on a daily basis.

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why doesn’t the disgraced Prince Andrew file a police complaint?!

 

 

You will need to ask him that.

[Bday Prang]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

You're expecting me to find some merit in illegality of this nature?

I only expected to respond to my question without actually answering I was not disappointed

I'll change the format next time, in order not to challenge you too much.     I'll ask the question with  just  a "yes", "no", or "don't know" option for your reply, you will be able to remain in your comfort zone or safe space, and your sort love ticking boxes don't you  lets give it a try

 Do hardened 17 year old prostitutes experience emotional enlightenment on their 18th birthday

"YES" ? 

"NO" ? 

"DON'T KNOW"? 

 

[ozimoron]

13 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

So is murder, it still happens on a daily basis.

 

 

You will need to ask him that.

 

I think we can guess.

[Bday Prang]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Your desperation to categorise this child as a sex worker is concerning. The Sexual Offences Act is clear that she is not a sex worker. It is also clear that the allegations against Andrew are very serious and should be pursued with the same vigour you expect to be shown to Muslim rape gangs, whose behaviours are no less disgusting.

 She was not a "child"  by any stretch of the imagination,   Even the legal term would be "a minor"  there is a significant difference

[The Cyclist]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I think we can guess.

 

You can guess to your little hearts content, it does not mean that he is guilty of anything.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

You can guess to your little hearts content, it does not mean that he is guilty of anything.

 

I use the phrase "we can guess" in the same way as we can guess that the sun will rise tomorrow.

[Bday Prang]

8 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

You can guess to your little hearts content, it does not mean that he is guilty of anything.

They are all quoting the law whist conveniently forgetting one of the fundamental principals of it.   That being, that one is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.   I don't think that foundation stone of the legal system has been changed to suit social media   Andrew should at present be presumed innocent.  No matter how upset some people are regarding the nature of the allegations made against him 

Edited January 9 by Bday Prang

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

They are all quoting the law whist conveniently forgetting one of the fundamental principals of it.   That being, that one is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.   I don't think that foundation stone of the legal system has been changed to suit social media   Andrew should at present be presumed innocent.  No matter how upset some people are regarding the nature of the allegations made against him 

 

He failed to defend himself in a civil suit. The legal system allows a presumption of guilt in that circumstance. We can presume he is guilty.

[The Cyclist]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

The law is the law because experts believe that a child under 18 can't make rational decisions based on legal issues such as this.

 

Are you sure this is the case ?
 

The age of criminal responsibility in most Countries is much lower than 18, which seems to fly in thace of the above.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Are you sure this is the case ?
 

The age of criminal responsibility in most Countries is much lower than 18, which seems to fly in thace of the above.

 

We are discussing the coercion of a minor for sex. Illegal. Consent is irrelevant.

[The Cyclist]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

We are discussing the coercion of a minor for sex.

 

You mean alleged coercion of course, dont you ?

[youreavinalaff]

52 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

You're expecting me to find some merit in illegality of this nature?

 

An half of America (at least) knew that keeping slaves was evil even if legal in some states. Likewise abortion is illegal in some states and that law is evil. However, in this case we are discussing rape.

You may be discussing rape but nobody else is.

 

As for saying it's evil. That's your opinion. Evil people do not go to jail if they haven't broken any laws.

[ozimoron]

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

You may be discussing rape but nobody else is.

 

As for saying it's evil. That's your opinion. Evil people do not go to jail if they haven't broken any laws.

 

sex with a minor by coercion is rape, even if that coercion is money.

[The Cyclist]

16 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

That being, that one is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.   I don't think that foundation stone of the legal system has been changed to suit social media 

 

A painful financial lesson the BBC and the Met learned over the Cliff Richard saga.

[jvs]

On 1/8/2024 at 10:11 AM, JonnyF said:

 

So your "evidence" is the word of a self confessed prostitute and procurer of children for sex who stood to make millions (and did) by making the claims? 

 

Excuse me if I don't join the cries to lock him up and throw away the key...

Would you settle out of court if you were accused of a crime and did not do it?

I would certainly not!

[OneMoreFarang]

How long will they report the same story?

Imagine you are a prince, you are of course rich, and you have rich friends. And lots of women and girls want to be with you.

Of course, they want to be with you. Many women, young and old, want to be with powerful rich men.

Do all of these women do this because you are so handsome and have a sexy body? No. And who cares?

 

Personally, I also like Thai massage. And if the person who does the massage is a pretty young girl, that's great. And as far as I know it is not illegal to be massaged once a day or even more often.

 

Is there any clear evidence that Andrew forced anybody to have sex with him?

Did any women, of any age, ran out of a room and cried "rape" and showed her bruises to the police?

 

So maybe Andrew had sex with a 17 year old girl, and maybe she received money for that. And maybe that happened x decades ago. Is that really so important now that it is headline news all over the world for months or years? Really? Get a life! 

 

[youreavinalaff]

29 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

sex with a minor by coercion is rape, even if that coercion is money.

No. It isn’t.

 

Minor? I'm yet to see any proof that Andrew had sex, unconsensual sex, with a minor.

Edited January 9 by youreavinalaff

[pacovl46]

23 hours ago, BritManToo said:

You'd have thought his 24/7 armed police security detail would have noticed and stopped a rape.

Surely they should also be questioned and facing possible charges?

Not necessarily. That place is huge and if their job was to guard the perimeter they might not have even been in the house. 

[pacovl46]

23 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes they did. London.

You're right. I always only heard about the island stuff. Still, the issue is about lack of consent.

[pacovl46]

11 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. It isn’t.

 

Minor? I'm yet to see any proof that Andrew had sex, unconsensual sex, with a minor.

Yes, it is. Even if an underage person consents, it's still legally considered to the statutory rape. 

[BritManToo]

14 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Yes, it is. Even if an underage person consents, it's still legally considered to the statutory rape. 

17 is not under age in the UK or the EU.

Edited January 9 by BritManToo

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Are you sure this is the case ?
 

The age of criminal responsibility in most Countries is much lower than 18, which seems to fly in thace of the above.

Irrelevant unless those countries are places where the alleged crimes took place.

 

Referring to the subject of this thread, Epstein’s home was in NY, I doubt the disgraced Prince Andrew will visit NY again, or indeed the U.S.

[BritManToo]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Irrelevant unless those countries are places where the alleged crimes took place.

 

Referring to the subject of this thread, Epstein’s home was in NY, I doubt the disgraced Prince Andrew will visit NY again, or indeed the U.S.

Well if we're talking relevant, then none of the posts on this thread are relevant as the Royal family are not subject to the laws of the UK, and can't be extradited.