Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case

[audidoody]

"As well as explosive allegations about Prince Andrew, ‘Jane Doe #3’ told the court she was ‘trafficked for sexual purposes’ to a string of other powerful men – including ‘a well-known Prime Minister’."

That's a terrible allegation. I think she is a compulsive lair.

[HoHoHo]

911Gary said:

Come on lets not beat about the bush....Guilty or not??
My vote goes yes!

He's now got your name and you're first in the queue for a room with a view in the tower matey

Of course he didn't do it. Apparently his lawyers asked him last night prior to releasing an official statement suggesting it's all bks - do you honestly think he'd lie to save any embarrassment to himself the royal family

[Lost soul]

XJ Flyer said:

Boris Morris said:

Lost soul said:

Is 17 a child?

Legal I think so

In this country the age of consent is 16 not 18 with marriage also being legal at that age in Scotland,or in England with parents consent.

America has some strange age issues which have swung from the extreme of legal marriage at 13,as in the case of Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to Myra Brown,to what seems like federal law now which effectively makes the age of consent 18 where one party to the relationship is 18 or over.

As for the issue with Andrew that seems like more to do with the strange societal confusion on both sides of the Atlantic concerning anyone considered as being 'too old' to be with someone considered as being 'too young'.Which is probably why,unlike his father,Harry won't be as lucky now in finding a girl of Dianna Spencer's age when she first met Charles when she was 15.

You mixed up the quotes

[911Gary]

HoHoHo said:

He's now got your name and you're first in the queue for a room with a view in the tower matey

Of course he didn't do it. Apparently his lawyers asked him last night prior to releasing an official statement suggesting it's all bks - do you honestly think he'd lie to save any embarrassment to himself the royal family

Hmmm "Randy Andy" ring a bell?? Koo Stark Etc?? He was known to be "A bit of a boy" when younger.
Dont know why joking aside but hes always been my least favorite royal,perhaps because he married that hideous creature.

[NoNeed]

911Gary said:

HoHoHo said:

He's now got your name and you're first in the queue for a room with a view in the tower matey

Of course he didn't do it. Apparently his lawyers asked him last night prior to releasing an official statement suggesting it's all bks - do you honestly think he'd lie to save any embarrassment to himself the royal family

Hmmm "Randy Andy" ring a bell?? Koo Stark Etc?? He was known to be "A bit of a boy" when younger.
Dont know why joking aside but hes always been my least favorite royal,perhaps because he married that hideous creature.

It does make you wonder why Harry is so popular.

[HoHoHo]

NoNeed said:

911Gary said:

HoHoHo said:

He's now got your name and you're first in the queue for a room with a view in the tower matey

Of course he didn't do it. Apparently his lawyers asked him last night prior to releasing an official statement suggesting it's all bks - do you honestly think he'd lie to save any embarrassment to himself the royal family

Hmmm "Randy Andy" ring a bell?? Koo Stark Etc?? He was known to be "A bit of a boy" when younger.
Dont know why joking aside but hes always been my least favorite royal,perhaps because he married that hideous creature.

It does make you wonder why Harry is so popular.

Is there he answer:

A) He's not really a member of the royal family
B) He's got a huge todger
C) He's not really a member of the royal family

Answers on a postcard please.

[XJ Flyer]

greygoose said:

XJ Flyer said:

desolate said:

hight quality, insightful post.
I seriously hope our trade ambassador didn't get a 17 yr old pregnant, that would be really embarrassing for the exec management of our government (UK/GB/England - not sure which)

Spare us the hypocrisy bearing in mind the state sponsored grooming of a really naive teenaged girl ( Di Spencer ) who was pushed into a loveless marriage with an older man so that the establishment could get what it wanted.Everyone on both sides of the Atlantic seemed happy enough with the arrangement at the time as I remember it.So what has suddenly changed in the bleeding heart morals of the establishment here and 'over there'.Maybe it all would have turned out differently if it had been Andrew who got Di Spencer and not Charles.

Do you really believe the things you type?

On the basis that the issue in question is all about agephobic changes in societal outlooks,concerning anyone who is considered as being 'too old',in this case Andrew's age,absolutely.

[XJ Flyer]

HoHoHo said:

NoNeed said:

911Gary said:

HoHoHo said:

He's now got your name and you're first in the queue for a room with a view in the tower matey

Of course he didn't do it. Apparently his lawyers asked him last night prior to releasing an official statement suggesting it's all bks - do you honestly think he'd lie to save any embarrassment to himself the royal family

Hmmm "Randy Andy" ring a bell?? Koo Stark Etc?? He was known to be "A bit of a boy" when younger.
Dont know why joking aside but hes always been my least favorite royal,perhaps because he married that hideous creature.

It does make you wonder why Harry is so popular.

Is there he answer:

A) He's not really a member of the royal family
B) He's got a huge todger
C) He's not really a member of the royal family

Answers on a postcard please.

None of which would make it any easier for him to pull a girl of under 18,or possibly even much younger than himself,in these agephobic times as it was for his father amongst many others in the 1970's.

[xjsdriver]

XJ Flyer said:

In this country the age of consent is 16 not 18 with marriage also being legal at that age in Scotland,or in England with parents consent.

America has some strange age issues which have swung from the extreme of legal marriage at 13,as in the case of Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to Myra Brown,to what seems like federal law now which effectively makes the age of consent 18 where one party to the relationship is 18 or over.

As for the issue with Andrew that seems like more to do with the strange societal confusion on both sides of the Atlantic concerning anyone considered as being 'too old' to be with someone considered as being 'too young'.Which is probably why,unlike his father,Harry won't be as lucky now in finding a girl of Dianna Spencer's age when she first met Charles when she was 15.

On that note, Price Philip was sending love letters to Betty when she was only 13 and he was 18, or 19. What sort of 18 or 19 year old these days would get away with that? I believe it would be reported to the cops as grooming if it were anyone else. I guess it runs in the family.

[Moonhawk]

xjsdriver said:

On that note, Price Philip was sending love letters to Betty when she was only 13 and he was 18, or 19. What sort of 18 or 19 year old these days would get away with that? I believe it would be reported to the cops as grooming if it were anyone else. I guess it runs in the family.

I wouldn't be so quick to pull out the "it runs in the family" card. It wasn't too long ago that the attitudes towards large age gap marriages was very different to today and the age of consent and marriage in this country was much lower than it is now - it's likely that many of us have family members in living memory who started relationships at ages that would at the very least raise eyebrows in these enlightened times.

[xjsdriver]

Moonhawk said:

xjsdriver said:

On that note, Price Philip was sending love letters to Betty when she was only 13 and he was 18, or 19. What sort of 18 or 19 year old these days would get away with that? I believe it would be reported to the cops as grooming if it were anyone else. I guess it runs in the family.

I wouldn't be so quick to pull out the "it runs in the family" card. It wasn't too long ago that the attitudes towards large age gap marriages was very different to today and the age of consent and marriage in this country was much lower than it is now - it's likely that many of us have family members in living memory who started relationships at ages that would at the very least raise eyebrows in these enlightened times.

......maybe in your family, certainly not in mine.

[groucho]

Moonhawk said:

I wouldn't be so quick to pull out the "it runs in the family" card. It wasn't too long ago that the attitudes towards large age gap marriages was very different to today and the age of consent and marriage in this country was much lower than it is now - it's likely that many of us have family members in living memory who started relationships at ages that would at the very least raise eyebrows in these enlightened times.

My Mother was married whilst pregnant at 17. Back in 1960

ETA: They are still married today.

[MikeO996]

Jerry Lee Lewis career was damaged by marrying his 13 year old cousin, but Elvis, who got together with Priscilla when she was 14 and he was 24, didn't do so bad. Could you imagine that happening today? He'd be disgraced and probably arrested.

[911Gary]

groucho said:

My Mother was married whilst pregnant at 17. Back in 1960

ETA: They are still married today.

I thought that the other day when watching the Elvis documentary even today it looks iffy.

[groucho]

911Gary said:

groucho said:

My Mother was married whilst pregnant at 17. Back in 1960

ETA: They are still married today.

I thought that the other day when watching the Elvis documentary even today it looks iffy.

She didn't marry Elvis, she married my Dad.

[smn159]

groucho said:

911Gary said:

groucho said:

My Mother was married whilst pregnant at 17. Back in 1960

ETA: They are still married today.

I thought that the other day when watching the Elvis documentary even today it looks iffy.

She didn't marry Elvis, she married my Dad.

Maybe Elvis is your Dad?

[groucho]

There is a similarity.

[MarshPhantom]

terenceb said:

Of course this wouldn't be , as proven with the JS saga as being financialy driven.Dangerous ground taking on the Royal Family I'de have thought.

Would you pretend to have been raped by Prince Andrew/Jimmy Savile for the money?

[XJ Flyer]

Moonhawk said:

xjsdriver said:

On that note, Price Philip was sending love letters to Betty when she was only 13 and he was 18, or 19. What sort of 18 or 19 year old these days would get away with that? I believe it would be reported to the cops as grooming if it were anyone else. I guess it runs in the family.

I wouldn't be so quick to pull out the "it runs in the family" card. It wasn't too long ago that the attitudes towards large age gap marriages was very different to today and the age of consent and marriage in this country was much lower than it is now - it's likely that many of us have family members in living memory who started relationships at ages that would at the very least raise eyebrows in these enlightened times.

The issue is not that of any arguments about age of consent.The issue is that of double standards being applied in regard to the age of consent depending on age gaps.IE it is considered as no problem for a couple of same/similar age to be given virtually carte blanche but society then tries to impose a system of moving goal posts when a certain age is reached.Which in the case of the US seems to translate as it being seen as ok for anyone between the age of 16-18-possibly even 23 depending on translation,to do as they like with anyone of 16 +.But that all changes as soon as anyone hits 18 or possibly 23.When reading the law literally means that even the girl's husband would become a criminal over night in that case assuming he doesn't halt all 'activeties' until she reaches the age of 18.

Whereas at least in this country the age of consent still means what it says.Except for the trojan horse of those considered to be 'in a position of trust'.In which case a similar US type moving goal post system applies and in which case the age of consent seems to mean whatever the establishment feels like but certainly not lower than 18 and certainly not the accepted 16.

The result of all that being the type of ageist/agephobic societal changes which those like Andrew seem to have run into in recent times.

[XJ Flyer]

groucho said:

Moonhawk said:

I wouldn't be so quick to pull out the "it runs in the family" card. It wasn't too long ago that the attitudes towards large age gap marriages was very different to today and the age of consent and marriage in this country was much lower than it is now - it's likely that many of us have family members in living memory who started relationships at ages that would at the very least raise eyebrows in these enlightened times.

My Mother was married whilst pregnant at 17. Back in 1960

ETA: They are still married today.

In my family there is at least one who was pregnant at 15 the father being a serving copper and one who married at 16 to someone of 47.Ironically the latter example being relatively more recently than the former.