Inflammatory name calling posts and replies have been removed.

 

Posts with unattributed content and the replies have been removed.  Please provide a valid link to the source of information when posting.

15 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

But that is only half the story.

 

In those European countries you mention, there are what's known as 'Romeo and Juliette' clauses. Basically, although the age of consent is 14, the older party must not be over 18 (or in some cases, 21).

 

Those partying on Epstein Island would still have been guilty of having sex with a minor under Austrian, German, etc law. 

 

No. You have misunderstood the rules. In Spain the age of consent is 16, regardless if you're 16 or 62. The Romeo exception applies if a girl under the age of 16 has sex with someon of similar young age, but if the girl is over 16 then age of her partner is totally irrelevant.

3 hours ago, Presnock said:

no matter what tag may be attached to those criminals, the individuals are true losers and should all be jailed for a long time IMHO anyway!

I do not disagree, but I think pedophiles (molesters of prepubescent children) as much worse than child molesters (molesters of pubescent children) so I do not like the language watered down. 

 

Big difference between a guy having sex with a 17 year old, and a 7 year old. 

22 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No. You have misunderstood the rules. In Spain the age of consent is 16, regardless if you're 16 or 62. The Romeo exception applies if a girl under the age of 16 has sex with someon of similar young age, but if the girl is over 16 then age of her partner is totally irrelevant.

 

You are cherry-picking. 

 

There are 'Romeo and Juliette' clauses in operation in most of the European countries mentioned.

 

In the case of Spain, there is provision to prosecute the likes of Epstein and his cohorts as Spanish law has a clause which states that the other (older) person is close in age (undefined) or at the same level of physical and psychological maturity as the younger party.

36 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No. You have misunderstood the rules. In Spain the age of consent is 16, regardless if you're 16 or 62. The Romeo exception applies if a girl under the age of 16 has sex with someon of similar young age, but if the girl is over 16 then age of her partner is totally irrelevant.

But they were not in Spain. 

 

Minors in the US are not able to consent, so even if they are prostitutes, men that bang them are guilty of statutory rape. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

In the case of Spain, there is provision to prosecute the likes of Epstein and his cohorts as Spanish law has a clause which states that the other (older) person is close in age (undefined) or at the same level of physical and psychological maturity as the younger party.

 

This is if the girl is under the age of 16 when she has sex. Again, if she is 16 or over the age of her partner is irrelevant.

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

But they were not in Spain. 

 

Minors in the US are not able to consent, so even if they are prostitutes, men that bang them are guilty of statutory rape. 

 

 

 

Actually at the time Epstein operated, prior to 2009, the age of consent in Spain was 13, so there was no way Epstein would have been convicted of anything if he had confined himself to Spain.

 

Yes, the law creates a legal fiction in the United States, regarding statutory rape, however, Epstein was not a pedophile. He liked young teenage girls. Not toddlers.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

Actually at the time Epstein operated, prior to 2009, the age of consent in Spain was 13, so there was no way Epstein would have been convicted of anything if he had confined himself to Spain.

 

Yes, the law creates a legal fiction in the United States, regarding statutory rape, however, Epstein was not a pedophile. He liked young teenage girls. Not toddlers.

Which made him a child molester 

Just now, mogandave said:

Which made him a child molester 

 

Again, not strictly accurate.

None of these guys seemed to give a whit about Biden showering with his daughter, remember? 

 

I guess it’s only wrong when it’s someone else’s daughter…

26 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

This is if the girl is under the age of 16 when she has sex. Again, if she is 16 or over the age of her partner is irrelevant.

 

Agreed but this has nothing to do with the original point, which purported to show that in some European countries, the age of consent is 14.

 

As I pointed out, Epstein and his cohorts still could have been prosecuted in those countries under 'Romeo and Juilette' clauses.

28 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Actually at the time Epstein operated, prior to 2009, the age of consent in Spain was 13, so there was no way Epstein would have been convicted of anything if he had confined himself to Spain.

 

 

Not true.

 

As I stated before, there was provision under Spanish law at the time to prosecute the likes of Epstein due to a clause which stated that the other (older) person should be close in age (undefined) or at the same level of physical and psychological maturity as the younger party.

Just now, RayC said:

 

Not true.

 

As I stated before, there was provision under Spanish law at the time to prosecute the likes of Epstein due to a clause which stated that the other (older) person should be close in age (undefined) or at the same level of physical and psychological maturity as the younger party.

 

Again, you have completely misunderstood the Romeo exception, which applies when a girl UNDER 13 has sex with someone of similar age. In 2009, the age of consent was 13, so if the girl was over 13, the age of her partner was immaterial.

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Again, you have completely misunderstood the Romeo exception, which applies when a girl UNDER 13 has sex with someone of similar age. In 2009, the age of consent was 13, so if the girl was over 13, the age of her partner was immaterial.

 

Whether I have misunderstood an obsolete Spanish law is completely irrelevant.

 

The relevant point is that in the (few) European countries where the age of consent is 14 e.g. Germany, 'Romeo and Juilette' clauses usually exist. 

 

I am no expert on German law but I would hazard a guess that Epstein and friends could have faced prosecution in a German court if the victims were aged 14 - 18.

6 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

We really need a yawn emoji short cut...............🥱

Indeed we do.

15 hours ago, Red Forever said:

Oh Cond…oops sorry, Jonny. Have you ever heard the wise saying “ if you find yourself in a hole. Stop digging “?

 

Did you have a counter argument by any chance?

 

Or just the same tired old cliches?

11 hours ago, RayC said:

 

 

But that is only half the story.

 

In those European countries you mention, there are what's known as 'Romeo and Juliette' clauses. Basically, although the age of consent is 14, the older party must not be over 18 (or in some cases, 21).

 

Those partying on Epstein Island would still have been guilty of having sex with a minor under Austrian, German, etc law. 

Of course.

14 hours ago, candide said:

In summary, you have nothing! 🙂

Correct. There is nothing of significance on Trump.

12 hours ago, RayC said:

 

 

But that is only half the story.

 

In those European countries you mention, there are what's known as 'Romeo and Juliette' clauses. Basically, although the age of consent is 14, the older party must not be over 18 (or in some cases, 21).

 

Those partying on Epstein Island would still have been guilty of having sex with a minor under Austrian, German, etc law. 

Partying is one thing, having sex is another.

7 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Whether I have misunderstood an obsolete Spanish law is completely irrelevant.

 

The relevant point is that in the (few) European countries where the age of consent is 14 e.g. Germany, 'Romeo and Juilette' clauses usually exist. 

 

I am no expert on German law but I would hazard a guess that Epstein and friends could have faced prosecution in a German court if the victims were aged 14 - 18.

12 European countries actually.

7 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Whether I have misunderstood an obsolete Spanish law is completely irrelevant.

 

The relevant point is that in the (few) European countries where the age of consent is 14 e.g. Germany, 'Romeo and Juilette' clauses usually exist. 

 

I am no expert on German law but I would hazard a guess that Epstein and friends could have faced prosecution in a German court if the victims were aged 14 - 18.

 

In Germany the age of consent is not 14, it is 16 now. It used to be 14 but now that only applies if you are under 21, if you are over 21 and have sex with a 14  year old,  a complaint by the 14 year old could  send you to jail.

 

The Romeo exception would also not protect a 15 year old who has sex with his 13 year old girlfriend, he would be committing sexual abuse of minors. If she's 14 he's in the clear.

 

But if you are over 21 and have sex with a 14 year old in Germany it is extremely likely that a complaint by the girl or parents will follow, in which case you are at risk of going to jail.

 

Even though nominally the age of consent is 14, it is qualified by a number of prohibitions. The safe age for sex in Germany is 16.

 

Whether or not Epstein would have faced charges in Germany would have depended on a number of factors, such as:

 

1) Did the girl or her parents complain to police

2) Would Epstein's financial position have been interpreted as creating some special relationship involving dependency.

 

Teachers, and others in a special relationship with a child that creates an air of authority for the older person, would 100% go to jail if they have sex with a 14 year old student.

 

 

It's similar in Thailand btw, where people tell you the age of consent is 15, but that's not true. In reality it's 18. Because if you have sex with a girl aged 15 to 18 and she complains and it is determined that she was induced to have sex  through deceit, intimidation, or exploitation of trust, even if she is 17 you will go to jail in Thailand.

 

The safe age is actually 20, since even if she's 18, she's still considred a minor in Thailand, where 20 is when she ceases to be a minor.

It is interesting that when rich guys are banging underage prostitutes on a private island, they’ve got to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which I fully support. 

 

But when the “poor” commit sexual assaults the are let out on no cash bail.

14 hours ago, mogandave said:

Were you concerned about Bill Clinton dodging the draft?

 

How about Biden’s asthma? 

both of these in my book were really poor representative of the US Presidency and from what I have heard some friends within their respective states, were totally worthless individuals too.  Not a fan of many presidents, especially Democratic in my voting years since the early 60's

5 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

In Germany the age of consent is not 14, it is 16 now. It used to be 14 but now that only applies if you are under 21, if you are over 21 and have sex with a 14  year old,  a complaint by the 14 year old could  send you to jail.

 

The Romeo exception would also not protect a 15 year old who has sex with his 13 year old girlfriend, he would be committing sexual abuse of minors. If she's 14 he's in the clear.

 

But if you are over 21 and have sex with a 14 year old in Germany it is extremely likely that a complaint by the girl or parents will follow, in which case you are at risk of going to jail.

 

Even though nominally the age of consent is 14, it is qualified by a number of prohibitions. The safe age for sex in Germany is 16.

 

Whether or not Epstein would have faced charges in Germany would have depended on a number of factors, such as:

 

1) Did the girl or her parents complain to police

2) Would Epstein's financial position have been interpreted as creating some special relationship involving dependency.

 

Teachers, and others in a special relationship with a child that creates an air of authority for the older person, would 100% go to jail if they have sex with a 14 year old student.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

It's similar in Thailand btw, where people tell you the age of consent is 15, but that's not true. In reality it's 18. Because if you have sex with a girl aged 15 to 18 and she complains and it is determined that she was induced to have sex  through deceit, intimidation, or exploitation of trust, even if she is 17 you will go to jail in Thailand.

 

The safe age is actually 20, since even if she's 18, she's still considred a minor in Thailand, where 20 is when she ceases to be a minor.

 

There seems to be a trend in Europe to raising the age of consent among countries where it was previously 14 (or younger).

 

However, the point is that - highlighted by your examples - even when a 'young' age of consent existed, there were clauses in the legislation of many (most?) countries which allowed for the prosecution of adults who had sex with 14-year olds. 

 

To suggest that Epstein would have got off scot free if he had committed his acts in certain European countries, at a certain point in time, is not necessarily true.

Just now, RayC said:

There seems to be a trend in Europe to raising the age of consent among countries where it was previously 14 (or younger).

 

Absolutely right ,we've seen this not just in Europe, but also in Asian countries like Philippines and Japan. It seems a wave of moral conservatism washed over the world, after decades of overly permissive behaviour in the 70s.

 

Of course Holland and Denmark amended their laws on bestiality porn as well, and the UK introduced ID requirements to access porn.

 

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

However, the point is that - highlighted by your examples - even when a 'young' age of consent existed, there were clauses in the legislation of many (most?) countries which allowed for the prosecution of adults who had sex with 14-year olds. 

 

To suggest that Epstein would have got off scot free if he had committed his acts in certain European countries, at a certain point in time, is not necessarily true.

 

Well, it's debatable, I mean Epstein was not a teacher or a stepfather, but I wonder if his financial clout would have led people to accept that an exploitative relationship existed. It's hard to say really.

On 10/7/2025 at 3:37 AM, daveAustin said:

She gets banged up yet the ones who did all the dirty deeds walk around Scott free. Meanwhile, that scumbag P Diddy gets a veritable slap on the wrist for all his exploits. 

She was not only a sex trafficker, but she also actively participated in the actual child abuse. So she was very much a part of those ‘doing all the dirty deeds’. 
Having said that, all those other ones doing the dirty deeds (Donald Trump very probably being one of them) need to get locked up as well. I don’t care who or what they are, Democrats or Republicans or whatever; if they’re guilty of child abuse, they need to be locked up for a very long time. Every single one of them. 
But Mike Johnson is doing every thing he can right now to avoid a vote about the Epstein files. This whole shutdown is a godsend as far as Trump and Johnson are concerned. Johnson won’t even swear in the New Democratic member of the House from Arizona Adelita Grijalva, for fear it might tip the scale in favor of releasing the Epstein files.

And they call themselves the party of law and order…..

3 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

participated in the actual child abuse

 

There was no child abuse. Nobody in the Epstein cases was ever convicted of  "child abuse".

 

At least get your facts right..

 

"Donald Trump very probably being one of them" - You do realise that both Virginia Giuffre, the whore in chief, and Ghislaine Maxwell have said categorically that Trump never engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever?

 

5 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

don’t care who or what they are, Democrats or Republicans or whatever; if they’re guilty of child abuse, they need to be locked up for a very long time. Every single one of them. 

 

I think you need to be locked up for posting totally unsubstantiated fantasy. Again, nobody in the Epstein cases was convicted of any "child abuse".

 

 

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

nobody in the Epstein cases was convicted of any "child abuse".

Semantics.

 

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

You do realise that both Virginia Giuffre, the whore in chief, and Ghislaine Maxwell have said categorically that Trump never engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever?

Another so-called ‘man’ who feels the need to belittle women by calling them a whore. You must be so proud of yourself. 
And you do realize that Ghislaine Maxwell has absolutely no reason whatsoever to say that Trump engaged in any wrongdoing, don’t you? In fact, she has every reason to deny that categorically. She’s hoping for a pardon, remember? So saying bad things about Trump would not be the smartest thing to do then.

Maxwell also has a history of lying, or at least not telling the truth. The DOJ in 2022 stated that she engaged in a ‘significant pattern of dishonest conduct’. Considering her wish for a pardon, and her history of lying, her claim that Trump never engaged in any wrongdoing doesn’t mean diddly-squat. And not to put too fine a point on it: Maxwell said that she never witnessed Trump doing anything wrong. Slight difference.

 

Long story short: there are way too many people trying way too hard to prevent the release of the Epstein files and client list. That alone tells me that some (probably quite a few) very powerful people are guilty as sin, and that they are doing everything they possibly can to make this go away. 

2 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

Semantics.

 

Another so-called ‘man’ who feels the need to belittle women by calling them a whore. You must be so proud of yourself. 
And you do realize that Ghislaine Maxwell has absolutely no reason whatsoever to say that Trump engaged in any wrongdoing, don’t you? In fact, she has every reason to deny that categorically. She’s hoping for a pardon, remember? So saying bad things about Trump would not be the smartest thing to do then.

Maxwell also has a history of lying, or at least not telling the truth. The DOJ in 2022 stated that she engaged in a ‘significant pattern of dishonest conduct’. Considering her wish for a pardon, and her history of lying, her claim that Trump never engaged in any wrongdoing doesn’t mean diddly-squat. And not to put too fine a point on it: Maxwell said that she never witnessed Trump doing anything wrong. Slight difference.

 

Long story short: there are way too many people trying way too hard to prevent the release of the Epstein files and client list. That alone tells me that some (probably quite a few) very powerful people are guilty as sin, and that they are doing everything they possibly can to make this go away. 

 

 

Thank you......he's the only poster in 10 years I've put on ignore.