Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case

[Stuart70]

vaud said:

No-one is "injured" by perjury.
...

That is such an absolutely ridiculous statement, even for here, that it cannot be allowed to stand.
Happy to explain it to you if you cannot summon the mental resources!

Bloody stupid.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

I do think that people should try to understand what paedophilia is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

It is a diagnosed as a mental illness, where the actions resulting from that illness are unlawful.

Now before people jump down my throat, I am not saying that it should not be unlawful, but perhaps as a society we should be more recognising of the mental illness aspect rather than the consequences of that illness.

[Gameface]

vaud said:

No-one is "injured" by perjury.

I strongly disagree.

[jshell]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

I do think that people should try to understand what paedophilia is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

It is a diagnosed as a mental illness, where the actions resulting from that illness are unlawful.

Now before people jump down my throat, I am not saying that it should not be unlawful, but perhaps as a society we should be more recognising of the mental illness aspect rather than the consequences of that illness.

Most people do understand that it can't be 'punished' out of them. Severe punishment must go hand in hand with proper treatment!

[vaud]

Stuart70 said:

vaud said:

No-one is "injured" by perjury.
...

That is such an absolutely ridiculous statement, even for here, that it cannot be allowed to stand.
Happy to explain it to you if you cannot summon the mental resources!

Bloody stupid.

Sorry I will rephrase.

No-one is physically injured by perjury compared to child abuse.

I am not justifying either, I am drawing a comparison as to whether a friendship could survive criminality.

[Escy]

Petrus1983 said:

I’m still confused by Prince Andrew on this one - he seems a bit dim tbh and I also believe he’d have been in such a world surrounded by your good old African war lords in Cannes and just the standard high level crooks in Russia that I’m quite sure someone like Epstein said to him “I took the wrap to protect people, I’m innocent, but I’m a good guy like that” and he was believed. Doing the interview was dumb as fk though - basically a one hour police interrogation over serious allegations without a lawyer present.

Wow, you're cutting him way too much slack, everyone knew Epstein was a pedophile before he was convicted. His private plane was known as the lolita express, that's a clue. He was friends with Epstein because he was good at procuring under age girls to have sex with and Randy Andy liked sex.

[Stuart70]

vaud said:

Stuart70 said:

vaud said:

No-one is "injured" by perjury.
...

That is such an absolutely ridiculous statement, even for here, that it cannot be allowed to stand.
Happy to explain it to you if you cannot summon the mental resources!

Bloody stupid.

Sorry I will rephrase.

No-one is physically injured by perjury compared to child abuse.

I am not justifying either, I am drawing a comparison as to whether a friendship could survive criminality.

A person perjuring themselves to protect a child abuser would be absolutely comparable - consequence of not convicting an accused due to perjury may well result in significant physical injury due to further crimes. Misleading the justice system undermines justice, that is why perjury is treated so seriously.

[vaud]

Stuart70 said:

A person perjuring themselves to protect a child abuser would be absolutely comparable - consequence of not convicting an accused due to perjury may well result in significant physical injury due to further crimes. Misleading the justice system undermines justice, that is why perjury is treated so seriously.

As I said, I was challenging if a friendship could survive criminality and imprisonment. It varies.

I know perjury is serious and could apply to many situations. Personally I wouldn't continue with someone connected to the crimes you mention.

[Petrus1983]

Escy said:

Wow, you're cutting him way too much slack, everyone knew Epstein was a pedophile before he was convicted. His private plane was known as the lolita express, that's a clue. He was friends with Epstein because he was good at procuring under age girls to have sex with and Randy Andy liked sex.

You’re right. Maybe Prince Phillip needs to take him on a drive round Paris to solve this problem.

[Stuart70]

vaud said:

Stuart70 said:

A person perjuring themselves to protect a child abuser would be absolutely comparable - consequence of not convicting an accused due to perjury may well result in significant physical injury due to further crimes. Misleading the justice system undermines justice, that is why perjury is treated so seriously.

As I said, I was challenging if a friendship could survive criminality and imprisonment. It varies.

I know perjury is serious and could apply to many situations. Personally I wouldn't continue with someone connected to the crimes you mention.

Agreed, apologies if I was banging on, it was about the topic, not at you personally

[greygoose]

Roo said:

Gameface said:

Everyone's threshold is different, but I'd expect 99% of people to draw a line at fking kids.

Someone I used to work with was convicted of having child pornography images on his computer at home.

His wife left him and I don't know of a single work colleague who kept in touch with him.
There's a line. And that's beyond it.

Exactly, if you are a dimwit like Prince Andrew then you stay mates with them, anyone with a brain would cut them out of their life.

[greygoose]

Escapegoat said:

Breadvan72 said:

Apologia for middle aged men who perv on teenaged women seem a tad frequent here. Is it a company director thing?

You keep doing this and it really muddies the water. There is a law, with a strict technical definition. You're a lawyer. Why not try to leave smears out of it?

No apologies are needed, and none are required.

Now, back to PA...

It isn’t muddying the waters, it is part of the discussion, some posters think you can tell the difference between a 17 and an 18 year old and some do not appear to understand the concept of grooming unless it involves Bradford taxi drivers.

[JuniorD]

greygoose said:

Roo said:

Gameface said:

Everyone's threshold is different, but I'd expect 99% of people to draw a line at fking kids.

Someone I used to work with was convicted of having child pornography images on his computer at home.

His wife left him and I don't know of a single work colleague who kept in touch with him.
There's a line. And that's beyond it.

Exactly, if you are a dimwit like Prince Andrew then you stay mates with them, anyone with a brain would cut them out of their life.

100%. There is no excuse for remaining friendly with a nonce. They are more avoidworthy than the plague

[vdn]

JuniorD said:

greygoose said:

Roo said:

Gameface said:

Everyone's threshold is different, but I'd expect 99% of people to draw a line at fking kids.

Someone I used to work with was convicted of having child pornography images on his computer at home.

His wife left him and I don't know of a single work colleague who kept in touch with him.
There's a line. And that's beyond it.

Exactly, if you are a dimwit like Prince Andrew then you stay mates with them, anyone with a brain would cut them out of their life.

100%. There is no excuse for remaining friendly with a nonce. They are more avoidworthy than the plague

Unless you want to continue to partake in what the nonce has to offer; as seems to be the case with PA. He’s done for. Perhaps not just in a legal sense; but his brand is over.

[paulguitar]

BadBull said:

Sten. said:

Turn7 said:

Pinoyuk is Yipper isnt it ?

(quick check of the posting history)

Absolutely, 100%.

Seems like he's been banned again.

Whether he was yipper or not, he was rather odd.

Disappointing, I was finding those fantasy posts entertaining!

[Laurel Green]

Prince Andrew: BT refuses to work with firm where the duke is patron. BT has said it will not work with a skills training firm while the Duke of York remains its patron as the fallout from his BBC interview continues. Several universities, businesses and charities are also reconsidering their connections to Prince Andrew and he has cancelled a public appearance.

[Escapegoat]

greygoose said:

It isn’t muddying the waters, it is part of the discussion, some posters think you can tell the difference between a 17 and an 18 year old and some do not appear to understand the concept of grooming unless it involves Bradford taxi drivers.

BV is most certainly muddying the waters in the "eugghhh" nonsense I quoted. He tries to smear those people who want to be sure about the technical aspects of the alleged offences. (I think that's a bit perverse for a lawyer, but it's not the first time he's done it.)

Whether you or I feel that it's cheesy for significantly older people to sleep with younger adults is neither here nor there. In E&W you can't groom anyone over 16. Sex trafficking laws and victim age is something else, but I'm not sure if they were on the UK statute books at the time of the alleged occasions.

Other people are muddying the waters with claims about PA's military service. That's BS, too.

FWIW, I have no reason to doubt anything VG has said.

[Leylandeye]

2Btoo said:

greygoose said:

So how far up the scale do people have to go before you stop associating with them, Fred West ok with his incest, rapes and multiple murders?

Equally, how far down the scale does someone have to go before you continue to associate with them? A good mate of yours is done for speeding - do you never speak to him again? Of course not. He fiddles his income tax or has an affair - do you disown him entirely? I doubt it. If we keep going with things that are perceived as more 'serious' then what is the point at which you decide that that person is no longer a friend? Or do you say that you will stick by your friends no matter what they have done?

(As I said, I'm not suggesting you should condone any of these things, just asking whether you continue to associate with someone who has done them.)

vaud said:

Playing devils advocate, what loyalty does any criminal deserve?

Exactly - thanks Vaud.

I was wanting to say something like 2Btoo but couldn't find words to say it as well as he/she has put it.

One has to be careful too in drawing comparisons between an ordinary member of public and someone in the position of PA.

You can stand by someone without condoning what they did and if PA would have used that argument for justifying spending time with Epstein, there would be some degree of validity in that point of view.

I feel it takes greater strength of character to support a wrong doer and many don't have such strength.

What came out of the interview though is that it wasn't anything to do with strength of charachter - PA just seemed either oblivious or so arrogant that he failed to recognise any wrong doing - that in my mind is the greatest failing and why he now deserves everything he's getting and more.

[vaud]

Stuart70 said:

Agreed, apologies if I was banging on, it was about the topic, not at you personally

No issue

[Escy]

Leylandeye said:

PA just seemed either oblivious or so arrogant that he failed to recognise any wrong doing - that in my mind is the greatest failing and why he now deserves everything he's getting and more.

I'm going with option 3. He valued the benefits a friendship with Epstein provided therefore didn't care about the impact his association had, at the time they'd both consider themselves untouchable. Make your own decision what those benefits were.