Prince Andrew halts public duties over sex scandal

[BritManToo]

5 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

This is the problem of all the current wave worldwide of complaints of rape & sexual harassment, and including those against priests. The claims are made 20 & 30 years after the supposed 'event', usually with no evidence in support, just assertion. So it becomes one person's word against another's.

If I were raped I'd either 1. forget about it, or 2. be down the police station as soon as I could walk.

As far as I'm concerned anyone that waits more that a week, (or where evidence can no longer be gathered), has an agenda outside of justice, and should be routinely disbelieved.

[soalbundy]

4 hours ago, faraday said:

However, Epstein et al were/ are adults by about 20 years, & had, most probably considerable influence over them.

 

The females were under 18.

 

 

The influence was money. She is no longer young and innocent looking and has to work for a living so now it's rape.

[Dogmatix]

4 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

This is the problem of all the current wave worldwide of complaints of rape & sexual harassment, and including those against priests. The claims are made 20 & 30 years after the supposed 'event', usually with no evidence in support, just assertion. So it becomes one person's word against another's.

 

As we see with Cardinal Pell's case in Oz, application of the criminal law becomes difficult in an environment of public hysteria stirred up with modern comms technology (what used to be known as 'witchhunt').

 

In the moron York's case, clarity is made more difficult by his manifest stupidity, blindness & arrogance. The US court hearings - if they ever happen - will be fascinating. Not expecting anything in the UK but.

The problem for Andrew is that he is never fully alone as he has bodyguards shadowing him all the time.  If the US court hearings take place and they decide to subpoena same, he might really be in the soup.

[BritManToo]

4 hours ago, faraday said:

However, Epstein et al were/ are adults by about 20 years, & had, most probably considerable influence over them.

The females were under 18.

Age of consent is 16 for the UK and most of Europe.

Discussion shouldn't be about age, but be about consent.

When she didn't report it immediately, her statements must become suspect.

[soalbundy]

Just now, Dogmatix said:

The problem for Andrew is that he is never fully alone as he has bodyguards shadowing him all the time.  If the US court hearings take place and they decide to subpoena same, he might really be in the soup.

Why, they weren't in bed with him.

[soalbundy]

What were his duties again ?, I mean apart from shagging on the taxpayers money and siring two God ugly daughters.

[Dogmatix]

9 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Why, they weren't in bed with him.

I expect they were somewhere in the house and in a position to see who else was there.  

[Dogmatix]

6 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

What were his duties again ?, I mean apart from shagging on the taxpayers money and siring two God ugly daughters.

Opening new hospital wings, attending royal events overseas as a representative of the queen and that sort of thing.  He is also patron of various charities which will probably ask him to step down to avoid compromising their abilities to raise funds.  After he left the navy where he apparently did a brief stint of active duty followed by a lengthy period in an inactive position he was made a special trade ambassador for a few years, receiving mixed reviews.

 

Up until the recent revelations and this interview his greatest claim to fame was dating Koo Stark.

[rkidlad]

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If I were raped I'd either 1. forget about it, or 2. be down the police station as soon as I could walk.

As far as I'm concerned anyone that waits more that a week, (or where evidence can no longer be gathered), has an agenda outside of justice, and should be routinely disbelieved.

You've never been raped so how on earth could you possibly know how you'd react? You really think you could be raped by another man and simply just talk about it to a bunch of strangers straight away? 

 

Epstein was convicted of procuring underage girls for prostitution and soliciting them for prostitution. He's clearly a complete scumbag. If you don't wanna be called a scumbag, don't hang out with and stay at complete scumbag's homes. Simples. 

[cleopatra2]

34 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

Her allegation concerns something she claims happened in the UK where the age of consent is 16.  So how could she not give her consent?  In the video  clip of her interview she is not specific that she was forced to have sex with him.  She said that Ghislaine Maxwell told her to do the same for him as she does for Jeffery Epstein without saying what that was.  She implied that she did what she was told but it is unclear exactly what that was, although she implied it was some sort of intimate act.  She also doesn't say she was actually forced to do whatever she did and she certainly doesn't suggest she was raped or put up any resistance.  It seemed she was suggesting she was coerced by virtue of whatever hold Maxwell and Epstein had over which is unclear, although it was presumably largely financial.  She didn't suggest she was kidnapped and forcibly taken to London and could presumably have refused to get on the plane.  Having already been abused by Epstein in the US, she must have been able to guess that she was not just being taken on a nice holiday with no strings attached. It does seem likely that whatever men accepted "gifts' in the form of young women sent to service them by Maxwell/Epstein were well aware that these women were not coming to them just because they found them attractive or even fully of their own free will.

At which point under UK law she becomes a vulnerable child , under 18 for todays standards , under 21 for the time the alleged offence took place. In such circumstances she cannot lawfully give consent 

[Dogmatix]

7 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

At which point under UK law she becomes a vulnerable child , under 18 for todays standards , under 21 for the time the alleged offence took place. In such circumstances she cannot lawfully give consent 

I don't understand what you are trying to say.  The age of sexual consent in the UK is 16 and has been since 1885.  Before that it was 13.  It has never been 21 or 18.  You may be confusing the age of consent with the age that people can vote which used to be 21 but was reduced to 18 in 1970.

[cleopatra2]

14 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

I don't understand what you are trying to say.  The age of sexual consent in the UK is 16 and has been since 1885.  Before that it was 13.  It has never been 21 or 18.  You may be confusing the age of consent with the age that people can vote which used to be 21 but was reduced to 18 in 1970.

Here is the current guidelines from the CPS 

 

 

Abuse of children through prostitution or pornography (sections 47-50)

Children involved in prostitution are primarily victims of abuse and people who take advantage of them by exploiting them, are child abusers. The use of children in the sex industry is entirely unjustifiable. Sections 47-50 provide offences specifically to tackle the use of children in the sex industry, where a child is under 18.

These offences are:

• Section 47 - paying for sexual services of a child;
• Section 48 - causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography;
• Section 49 - controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography;
• Section 50 - arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography.

Key points

• A person is a child if under 18
• Consent is not in issue. It does not matter if a child of 16 or 17 consents to the activity, it is those who exploit children who commit a criminal act;
• There is a defence that a person reasonably believed that the child was over 18. This does not apply if the child was under 13.
• The definition of 'payment' is very wide.
• A person is involved in pornography if an image of the child is recorded.

 

Code for Crown Prosecutors - considerations

Although the legal age of consent for sexual activity is 16, Parliament considered that persons should be protected from sexual exploitation up until the age of 18. The intention behind these provisions is to provide maximum protection for children from those who exploit or seek to exploit them for the purposes of prostitution or pornography. A prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour. These are very serious offences in which the public interest will normally require a prosecution.

[Dogmatix]

3 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Here is the current guidelines from the CPS 

 

 

Abuse of children through prostitution or pornography (sections 47-50)

Children involved in prostitution are primarily victims of abuse and people who take advantage of them by exploiting them, are child abusers. The use of children in the sex industry is entirely unjustifiable. Sections 47-50 provide offences specifically to tackle the use of children in the sex industry, where a child is under 18.

These offences are:

• Section 47 - paying for sexual services of a child;
• Section 48 - causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography;
• Section 49 - controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography;
• Section 50 - arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography.

Key points

• A person is a child if under 18
• Consent is not in issue. It does not matter if a child of 16 or 17 consents to the activity, it is those who exploit children who commit a criminal act;
• There is a defence that a person reasonably believed that the child was over 18. This does not apply if the child was under 13.
• The definition of 'payment' is very wide.
• A person is involved in pornography if an image of the child is recorded.

 

Code for Crown Prosecutors - considerations

Although the legal age of consent for sexual activity is 16, Parliament considered that persons should be protected from sexual exploitation up until the age of 18. The intention behind these provisions is to provide maximum protection for children from those who exploit or seek to exploit them for the purposes of prostitution or pornography. A prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour. These are very serious offences in which the public interest will normally require a prosecution.

 

Thanks for posting this interesting summary.  Interestingly Thailand's legal approach is similar. The age of sexual consent is unclear in the criminal code but for decades has regularly been interpreted as being 15 by the courts.  However, the 1999 Prostitution Act made paying for sex with a minor under the age of 18 a criminal offence. The difficulty of course is getting evidence of payment and the victims often recant their testimony before cases get to court after being offered more money by the accused.  As far as I know there have been very few convictions under this law and police are usually happy to use it to extort money from the customers and let them go.

[Dogmatix]

I guess the UK will have to do a major review of the cost of the royal family once the Brexit idiocy has resulted the queen being only queen of England and Wales with the further prospect of Wales eventually breaking away too. Little England's tax economy and tax revenue will shrivel.

[madmen]

9 hours ago, BritManToo said:

All my party time was 100% funded by the BBC, which some may consider 'the public purse'.

Although I prefer to think of it as 'legitimate work expenses'.

 

I still don't think Andy did it.

Very hard to refute an accusation made 20 years after the event, I certainly don't remember that far back in much detail.

So I show a pic of a hot girl with your arm around and you can't recall if you banged her? yeah right

[Dogmatix]

22 minutes ago, madmen said:

So I show a pic of a hot girl with your arm around and you can't recall if you banged her? yeah right

That could be true if he had hundreds of young girls around that time. His response in the interview suggests this when he claimed he had been wracking his brains to remember such an incident.

 

It is noticeable that he didn't deny categorically that he had done it on the grounds that he is absolutely sure that he never had sex with any very young girls around that time.  That seems to imply that he is scared more conclusive evidence might arise and prove him a liar.  Guilty as charged M'lud.

[steve187]

4 hours ago, KKr said:

if one cannot do the time, stay away from the crime.

what crime, other than the gutter press are after him

[cleopatra2]

48 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

That could be true if he had hundreds of young girls around that time. His response in the interview suggests this when he claimed he had been wracking his brains to remember such an incident.

 

It is noticeable that he didn't deny categorically that he had done it on the grounds that he is absolutely sure that he never had sex with any very young girls around that time.  That seems to imply that he is scared more conclusive evidence might arise and prove him a liar.  Guilty as charged M'lud.

He did deny being in the place that the photo was taken. 

 

[faraday]

 

[Brigand]

He was a total moron for doing that dumb-ass interview. True, he's a Richard and should know better, plus that the world has changed, but at the rate the news cycle goes round and things are forgotten now then he should have just sat tight and let it run out of steam/ride it out. I mean, hell, look at all the outrageous stories you read in the press and within a week or two they are totally gone other than a small footnote. He had some bad advisors for sure and it's not up to him to prove his innocence, it's up to the police etc. to prove his guilt despite this BS now that just a slight allegation makes you the Devil's right hand man and damned/guilty.

[mfd101]

28 minutes ago, Brigand said:

He had some bad advisors for sure

He didn't have bad advisers at all. He had perfectly sensible advisers whom he ignored. As he has done on many previous occasions.

 

Which just reinforces the image of an arrogant self-centered <deleted>.

[SteveK]

2 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

He didn't have bad advisers at all. He had perfectly sensible advisers whom he ignored. As he has done on many previous occasions.

 

Which just reinforces the image of an arrogant self-centered <deleted>.

He wanted to have sex with young girls and thought he was untouchable because he was royalty. He needs to be made an example of. Utter scumbag.

[newnative]

     Will likely serve in the future as a textbook case of what to absolutely not do in handling a scandal.  For 'The Firm' to be at this for as long as they have, they certainly are clueless.  Somewhere, Olivia Pope is muttering, "If they had only called me first..."  The other day I said he should be locked in the attic and, at least, they are sort of doing that.  

[BritManToo]

4 minutes ago, SteveK said:

He wanted to have sex with young girls and thought he was untouchable because he was royalty. He needs to be made an example of. Utter scumbag.

It's entirely OK to have sex with 17-year-olds in the UK (and Europe, and almost everywhere except the USA).

But not quite so acceptable to have sex with them without their consent ........ which is what this is all about (consent, not age).

[roo860]

7 hours ago, sawadee1947 said:

And you as British taxpayers paid for his prostitutes and his multi flights to meet them ????????????

Strip him off all his privileges and give him charity work in a nursing home for the rest of his life. 

Money well spent.

[Brigand]

50 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

He didn't have bad advisers at all. He had perfectly sensible advisers whom he ignored. As he has done on many previous occasions.

 

That's kinds of half true ... seems from what I read it was the ginger menace ex that convinced him to do the fail interview in a misguided attempt to pre-empt the press and give it nowhere to go but instead just sprayed the fire with gasoline because a royal doing this is unheard of. Should have done what they do best and stone-walled it until the press lost interest as there is no way there is enough evidence to convict him otherwise he would have been 'bagged and tagged' already. It is not for him or you to prove your innocence, it's for the law and enforcement agencies to prove your guilt despite the thought police public/twitter users doing their best to savage all and sundry though speculation/hearsay/conjecture.

 

Just insinuation and random allegations is not enough. It's the same for the average Joe too ... how do you defend yourself against historic allegations when it's just someone's word against yours? Nonsense really if no evidence ... but we have entered the realm of an allegation now is enough to destroy your life/lose you job or family whether guilty or not, and many a normal dude has found this out in the #meetoo witch hunt era. Not saying anyone is guilty or not but it has all gone way too far and if someone accuses you of something now if you are a white male then you have almost no chance of being cleared. Look no further than the nasty allegations against senior UK army commanders by that mental nutcase that Tom Watson supported and goaded police into destroying their lives and they served the country and the conclusion was a quick "Never mind, sweep it all under the carpet and carry on the inquisition." It's out-of-control now.

[madmen]

Just shows how out of touch Royality are with the common people. He was 100% sure he would just say " cant remeber mate" and realy truly thought the love would be there...Idiot !

[retayl]

A biographer of the Royal family has stated that Andrew will probably spend the rest of his days somewhere “warm & pleasant”. So if at sometime in the future you are sitting in a Pattaya bar listening to a fat, profusely sweating ex-pat telling you he used to be a prince. Don’t automatically dismiss it as out of hand.

[madmen]

1 hour ago, retayl said:

A biographer of the Royal family has stated that Andrew will probably spend the rest of his days somewhere “warm & pleasant”. So if at sometime in the future you are sitting in a Pattaya bar listening to a fat, profusely sweating ex-pat telling you he used to be a prince. Don’t automatically dismiss it as out of hand.

Princes CIA and SAS are a dime a dozen in the family resort. He will fit right in

[sawadee1947]

4 hours ago, roo860 said:

Money well spent.

Jeez, this you should explain! 

Taxpayer's money is well spent for his prostitutes? 

Or well spent for that useless Royal in general? 

????