Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case

[WinstonWolf]

Claudia Skies said:

XJ Flyer said:

I think in the case of Cliff Richard it was all about the issue of 'looking for evidence' to 'substantiate' any possible alleged case against him and that was made clear in the media.

So why no "looking for evidence" in the case of His Andiness to substantiate (or otherwise) any possible alleged case?

Let's face it, Savile got away with it for decades because nobody bothered to look.

I heard you only got away with it because people didn't look in the right places.

[XJ Flyer]

Claudia Skies said:

XJ Flyer said:

I think in the case of Cliff Richard it was all about the issue of 'looking for evidence' to 'substantiate' any possible alleged case against him and that was made clear in the media.

So why no "looking for evidence" in the case of His Andiness to substantiate (or otherwise) any possible alleged case?

Let's face it, Savile got away with it for decades because nobody bothered to look.

I think you've missed the point that Savile's ( amongst others ) antics were largely part of a concerted media campaign going on during the 1970's pushing the older man with young teenaged girl agenda ( for some reason ) which were then covered up accordingly.Which just conveniently seemed to match the establishment sniffing around the Spencer household as part of the obvious plan to fix up the too old ( by US standards ) Charles with the too young Di.The same US standards that are now being used to call 17 year old women 'under age' in the case of being with anyone considered a being 'too old' for them.As opposed to just reporting such an issue as it is in being a technical infringement of discriminatory US age of consent laws.Or at worse alleged involvement with a 17 year old prostitute.

As for the recent newspaper articles concerning Andrew they seem to go a 'bit' further than just reporting any 'search for evidence' regarding the allegations in question.Those allegations in any event being of no comparison in seriousness with those concerning the Savile case.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 7th January 23:20

[toppstuff]

Claudia Skies said:

XJ Flyer said:

.None of which seems to be the agenda in this media witch hunt.

Noooo. He should get the "Sir Cliff Richard" treatment.

You know, five squad cars parading up the Mall to Buckingham Palace and giving the place a thorough search, while BBC helicopters hover overhead for live coverage on peak time news.


OK, he doesn't live with his Mum any more but you get the point.

Just seems to me that your perspective is skewed by the simple dislike you have for the monarchy.

If it wasn't HRH , would you have the same position of assuming guilt by association, without any evidence other than hearsay?

[XJ Flyer]

toppstuff said:

Claudia Skies said:

XJ Flyer said:

.None of which seems to be the agenda in this media witch hunt.

Noooo. He should get the "Sir Cliff Richard" treatment.

You know, five squad cars parading up the Mall to Buckingham Palace and giving the place a thorough search, while BBC helicopters hover overhead for live coverage on peak time news.


OK, he doesn't live with his Mum any more but you get the point.

Just seems to me that your perspective is skewed by the simple dislike you have for the monarchy.

If it wasn't HRH , would you have the same position of assuming guilt by association, without any evidence other than hearsay?

I think the issues in question and resulting 'perspectives' are more about discriminatory societal attitudes regarding anyone seen as being 'too old' to be involved with anyone seen as being 'too young' along the lines of US age of consent laws.Rather than any arguable anti v pro Royal issue.

IE the question in this case,as in many others not involving Royals at all,is would the media be going into hyper drive over the alleged story 'if' Andrew or anyone else allegedly involved had been of same/close age as the woman/women in question at the time and not in middle age or older.

Assuming the answer is no then what has changed in societal attitudes since the idea of fixing up Charles with Di and why.

[Lost soul]

[Janluke]

Lost soul said:

So over the next few days we can expect to see the Riyals storming the Private Eye offices :-)

[Lost soul]

Janluke said:

Lost soul said:

So over the next few days we can expect to see the Riyals storming the Private Eye offices :-)

They have staff for that sort of thing

[XJ Flyer]

Lost soul said:

Going by his type in the pics maybe the problem with Fergie is that she's too curvy not too old.The one on the right looks like she's suffering from starvation.

[smn159]

XJ Flyer said:

Going by his type in the pics maybe the problem with Fergie is that she's too curvy not too old.The one on the right looks like she's suffering from starvation.

That's the Queen

[XJ Flyer]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/05/article-...

Her : Who ate all the pies and how am I supposed to work when I haven't eaten anything for weeks.

Him : Younger than Fergie is good but not thin enough is a deal breaker.

[davepoth]

I feel a little bit of sympathy for Andrew. Now it's clear that the girl was old enough to be able to have a legal relationship with him at least in the UK the waters are muddied significantly in my view. He's bloody stupid, but I think we all knew that anyway.

[MarshPhantom]

davepoth said:

I feel a little bit of sympathy for Andrew. Now it's clear that the girl was old enough to be able to have a legal relationship with him at least in the UK the waters are muddied significantly in my view. He's bloody stupid, but I think we all knew that anyway.

It's not like they were boyfriend and girlfriend FFS.


Andy is mates with a convicted billionaire paedo who keeps underage sex slaves and Andy has been having a free go.

Allegedly!

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 9th January 22:48

[carinaman]

MarshPhantom said:

It's not like they were boyfriend and girlfriend FFS.

Andy is mates with a convicted billionaire paedo who keeps underage sex slaves and Andy has been having a free go.

Mates raptes?

[XJ Flyer]

MarshPhantom said:

It's not like they were boyfriend and girlfriend FFS.


Andy is mates with a convicted billionaire paedo who keeps underage sex slaves and Andy has been having a free go.

Allegedly!

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 9th January 22:48

As has been pointed out going for a 17 year old or a 16 year old doesn't make anyone a paedo and possibly 'he' saw 'her' as 'potential' relationship material in just the same way as numerous relationships start out.In which case all she had to do was tell him she's not interested and to leave her alone.While what it 'might' do is upset American type discriminatory attitudes to age differences contained in US age of consent laws and result in a US charge related to same.Or a more serious offence assuming it involved prostitution but still not a paedo.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 9th January 23:19

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 9th January 23:46

[MarshPhantom]

XJ Flyer said:

MarshPhantom said:

It's not like they were boyfriend and girlfriend FFS.


Andy is mates with a convicted billionaire paedo who keeps underage sex slaves and Andy has been having a free go.

Allegedly!

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 9th January 22:48

As has been pointed out going for a 17 year old or a 16 year old doesn't make anyone a paedo.What it 'might' do is upset American type discriminatory attitudes to age differences contained in US age of consent laws and result in a US charge related to same.Or a more serious offence assuming it involved prostitution but still not a paedo.

If he's done nothing wrong why are the royals so keen to deny it? Even they seem to understand what he has been accused of.

[XJ Flyer]

MarshPhantom said:

XJ Flyer said:

MarshPhantom said:

It's not like they were boyfriend and girlfriend FFS.


Andy is mates with a convicted billionaire paedo who keeps underage sex slaves and Andy has been having a free go.

Allegedly!

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 9th January 22:48

As has been pointed out going for a 17 year old or a 16 year old doesn't make anyone a paedo.What it 'might' do is upset American type discriminatory attitudes to age differences contained in US age of consent laws and result in a US charge related to same.Or a more serious offence assuming it involved prostitution but still not a paedo.

If he's done nothing wrong why are the royals so keen to deny it? Even they seem to understand what he has been accused of.

Probably because the alleged implication is either an offence under US age of consent laws in a US juristiction.Or more seriously same in regards to a possible under 18 prostitution/vice matter.Neither of which are exactly something that the Royal family would want hanging over its reputation or left to go unchallenged.Especially in view of the obvious shift in societal and media expectations here which seem to think that US type attitudes and variable age of consent laws apply this side of the Atlantic too.

IE just saying 'it never happened but even if anything did we wouldn't regard it as a very serious matter anyway,bearing in mind the age of the girl in question',probably isn't an option which is why an outright official denial has been the inevitable reply to the alleged 'issues'.

I'll ask the question again in that regard would anyone really care 'if' Andrew had been the same/close age as the girl in question.

[smn159]

XJ Flyer said:

I'll ask the question again in that regard would anyone really care 'if' Andrew had been the same/close age as the girl in question.

So if Andy was 17 and had a free go with his billionaire convicted paedo friends underage sex slave it would be OK?

Possibly easier to understand from Andrews perspective due to his immaturity, but he's grown man now, so... oh, wait

[carinaman]

Perhaps he has some input to offer Theresa May's Modern Slavery Bill?

There was some bearded bloke on stage at the Tory Party conference saying how quickly victims of slavery can move on and rebuild their lives once they've been rescued.

Those promoting the Modern Slavery Bill at the Tory Party conference did also say slavery is everywhere and we need to report it as it's in our communities.

Edited by carinaman on Saturday 10th January 11:32

[XJ Flyer]

smn159 said:

XJ Flyer said:

I'll ask the question again in that regard would anyone really care 'if' Andrew had been the same/close age as the girl in question.

So if Andy was 17 and had a free go with his billionaire convicted paedo friends underage sex slave it would be OK?

Possibly easier to understand from Andrews perspective due to his immaturity, but he's grown man now, so... oh, wait

My point is that going for a 17 year old woman doesn't make anyone a paedo.That applies wether it is a prostitute type of relationship or not regardless of any age difference.Therefore at worse Andrew has some questions to answer regarding being allegedly implicated in prostitution with a girl under the age of 18.Or being involved with a girl of 17 in contravention of discriminatory ageist agephobic variable US age of consent laws.None of which needs to be regarded by anyone as a serious matter.

[Claudia Skies]

XJ Flyer said:

My point is that going for a 17 year old woman doesn't make anyone a paedo.

Tell that to the school teacher who ran off to France with a pupil and got a l-o-n-g sentence.

Whilst I agree with what you were probably trying to say (i.e. mature female) our current laws have got in a right tangle. For instance, have we ever seen two 15-year olds prosecuted for under-age sex?

The whole concept that someone of 17 years 364 days is "under age" whereas someone of 18 years and 5 minutes is "adult" is simply bonkers.