Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case

[anonymous-user]

Escapegoat said:

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.)

...

It is you who are confusing things, but I assume by accident as unlike many here assuming bad faith is not a default setting. My comment had nothing to do with any legal issue. I was commenting on sleazy behaviour and the willingness of some here to defend sleazy behaviour. A 50 year old bloke can bang a 16 year old woman. Just because you can does not mean you should.

[2Btoo]

Gameface said:

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

Perhaps some place more value on friendship than others.

vaud said:

I was being slightly provocative.

Actually it varies by moral scale.

Take the old story of 10PS. A cautionary tale of a drive that went very wrong and he went to prison. I don't know him, but I would not have discarded him as a friend.

Or Jonathan Aitken who went to prison for perjury. Worthy of losing a long term friend? No-one is "injured" by perjury.

Now I too draw the line at child abusers, but my point was actually "it varies by individual and the crime" - a friendship could survive criminality.

Finally, not every conviction is safe, miscarriages of justice do still happen - and I would hope in a faulty conviction that friends might stand by me...

Agreed on all points. But if you are saying there is 'a line' then the question remains as to where you draw that line. Different people will draw it in different places but given that no-one can say they have never done anything wrong then I wonder what moral high ground people may wish to claim to say they would disassociate with someone who was previously a friend.

Back to the original point; if Andrew did indeed stick by Epstein as a genuine friend then I applaud him for it.

[vdn]

2Btoo said:

Gameface said:

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

Perhaps some place more value on friendship than others.

vaud said:

I was being slightly provocative.

Actually it varies by moral scale.

Take the old story of 10PS. A cautionary tale of a drive that went very wrong and he went to prison. I don't know him, but I would not have discarded him as a friend.

Or Jonathan Aitken who went to prison for perjury. Worthy of losing a long term friend? No-one is "injured" by perjury.

Now I too draw the line at child abusers, but my point was actually "it varies by individual and the crime" - a friendship could survive criminality.

Finally, not every conviction is safe, miscarriages of justice do still happen - and I would hope in a faulty conviction that friends might stand by me...

Agreed on all points. But if you are saying there is 'a line' then the question remains as to where you draw that line. Different people will draw it in different places but given that no-one can say they have never done anything wrong then I wonder what moral high ground people may wish to claim to say they would disassociate with someone who was previously a friend.

Back to the original point; if Andrew did indeed stick by Epstein as a genuine friend then I applaud him for it.

This is an ironic ‘joke’ post, right?

[dieselgrunt]

2Btoo said:

if Andrew did indeed stick by Epstein as a genuine friend then I applaud him for it.

Replace Epstein with Jimmy Saville and see how stupid that sounds

[Halb]

valiant said:

Once Brenda goes I think it’s time to draw a line under the monarchy and call it a day.

Time has passed to have one family in a position of immense power and wealth to continue to lord it over the rest of us commoners and to do so at a major taxpayers expense.

I fully agree that rather Queen has done a great job and fully committed herself to the role but enough is enough and it’s time for an elected head of state.

The royals will dread that day, considering how times have moved on and how the current lot act. I wouldn't be surprised if she's on stem cells up the wazoo.

[TheRealNoNeedy]

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Breadvan72 said:

It is you who are confusing things, but I assume by accident as unlike many here assuming bad faith is not a default setting. My comment had nothing to do with any legal issue. I was commenting on sleazy behaviour and the willingness of some here to defend sleazy behaviour. A 50 year old bloke can bang a 16 year old woman. Just because you can does not mean you should.

Who made you the relationship age gap police?

[2Btoo]

vdn said:

2Btoo said:

Gameface said:

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

Perhaps some place more value on friendship than others.

vaud said:

I was being slightly provocative.

Actually it varies by moral scale.

Take the old story of 10PS. A cautionary tale of a drive that went very wrong and he went to prison. I don't know him, but I would not have discarded him as a friend.

Or Jonathan Aitken who went to prison for perjury. Worthy of losing a long term friend? No-one is "injured" by perjury.

Now I too draw the line at child abusers, but my point was actually "it varies by individual and the crime" - a friendship could survive criminality.

Finally, not every conviction is safe, miscarriages of justice do still happen - and I would hope in a faulty conviction that friends might stand by me...

Agreed on all points. But if you are saying there is 'a line' then the question remains as to where you draw that line. Different people will draw it in different places but given that no-one can say they have never done anything wrong then I wonder what moral high ground people may wish to claim to say they would disassociate with someone who was previously a friend.

Back to the original point; if Andrew did indeed stick by Epstein as a genuine friend then I applaud him for it.

This is an ironic ‘joke’ post, right?

Er, no it isn't. Thanks for your contribution.

[2Btoo]

dieselgrunt said:

2Btoo said:

if Andrew did indeed stick by Epstein as a genuine friend then I applaud him for it.

Replace Epstein with Jimmy Saville and see how stupid that sounds

Judging by the prevailing views on here then I'll grant it probably sounds unusual.

To call it 'stupid' is to use a pejorative term for those who hold friendship in higher regard than you do. Insulting those who hold different views to you is something we can all do without.

[The Surveyor]

2Btoo said:

Agreed on all points. But if you are saying there is 'a line' then the question remains as to where you draw that line. Different people will draw it in different places but given that no-one can say they have never done anything wrong then I wonder what moral high ground people may wish to claim to say they would disassociate with someone who was previously a friend.
…..

It's not just 'doing something wrong' though, Epstine was a tried and convicted criminal, and not just some light fingered minor criminal, he was subjected to a lengthy FBI investigation and charged with sexually abusing upto 40 underage girls. This wasn't just some 17 year olds who he thought were 18, it included 12 year old French triplets flown in for his enjoyment as well as 13 and 14 years olds trafficked in from South America. Given the 'Randy Andy' reputation PA had, his instinct should have been to do everything in his power to disassociate himself from such a toxic criminal. He clearly drew the line in the wrong place didn't he.

2Btoo said:

…….
Back to the original point; if Andrew did indeed stick by Epstein as a genuine friend then I applaud him for it.

And as a public servant and a member of the Royal family, that shows a remarkable lack of judgement, a remarkable amount of arrogance, and he should rightly be judged for his stupidity.

[Escapegoat]

Breadvan72 said:

It is you who are confusing things, but I assume by accident as unlike many here assuming bad faith is not a default setting. My comment had nothing to do with any legal issue. I was commenting on sleazy behaviour and the willingness of some here to defend sleazy behaviour. A 50 year old bloke can bang a 16 year old woman. Just because you can does not mean you should.

There you go again. You really do have an obsession for this phenomenon. It's legal. It's consensual. The sleaziness is a creation of YOUR imagination.

Given the subject matter of this thread, I'd imagine you - of all people - ought to be able to focus on the actual law, rather than smear those who want to ... focus on the actual law.

[Gameface]

2Btoo said:

dieselgrunt said:

2Btoo said:

if Andrew did indeed stick by Epstein as a genuine friend then I applaud him for it.

Replace Epstein with Jimmy Saville and see how stupid that sounds

Judging by the prevailing views on here then I'll grant it probably sounds unusual.

To call it 'stupid' is to use a pejorative term for those who hold friendship in higher regard than you do. Insulting those who hold different views to you is something we can all do without.

Would you value the friendship of a convicted paedophile?

[anonymous-user]

Escapegoat, you do not get to dictate what people can and cannot say in this or any thread. I can but speculate why some here become sensitive and twitchy when the subject of middle aged blokes perving teenage women arises, but never mind that. The discussion embraces wider issues than the law, but in any event the alleged offences took place, if they did take place, in the context of a sleazy environment of older dudes hanging around with much younger women. Context is important to everything.

[vdn]

2Btoo said:

vdn said:

2Btoo said:

Gameface said:

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

Perhaps some place more value on friendship than others.

vaud said:

I was being slightly provocative.

Actually it varies by moral scale.

Take the old story of 10PS. A cautionary tale of a drive that went very wrong and he went to prison. I don't know him, but I would not have discarded him as a friend.

Or Jonathan Aitken who went to prison for perjury. Worthy of losing a long term friend? No-one is "injured" by perjury.

Now I too draw the line at child abusers, but my point was actually "it varies by individual and the crime" - a friendship could survive criminality.

Finally, not every conviction is safe, miscarriages of justice do still happen - and I would hope in a faulty conviction that friends might stand by me...

Agreed on all points. But if you are saying there is 'a line' then the question remains as to where you draw that line. Different people will draw it in different places but given that no-one can say they have never done anything wrong then I wonder what moral high ground people may wish to claim to say they would disassociate with someone who was previously a friend.

Back to the original point; if Andrew did indeed stick by Epstein as a genuine friend then I applaud him for it.

This is an ironic ‘joke’ post, right?

Er, no it isn't. Thanks for your contribution.

Er, well it should be.

Good to know you’d stay friends with a convicted child abuser / sex trafficker.

Bizarre.

The blanket one size fits all; “it’s great to stick by your ‘Fwwend’ “ is a little odd in this case... especially as PA states he went to end his friendship with the child abuser; only to stay a few days - and also then states that he wasnt even friends with him - but with his partner.

Good call old chap.

[Gameface]

vdn said:

Good to know you’d stay friends with a convicted child abuser / sex trafficker.

Not only that, but seemingly trying to take the moral high ground in doing so!!

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Breadvan72 said:

Escapegoat, you do not get to dictate what people can and cannot say in this or any thread. I can but speculate why some here become sensitive and twitchy when the subject of middle aged blokes perving teenage women arises, but never mind that. The discussion embraces wider issues than the law, but in any event the alleged offences took place, if they did take place, in the context of a sleazy environment of older dudes hanging around with much younger women. Context is important to everything.

Why the nasty insinuations?

[anonymous-user]

Why the apologia for the Andrews of this world?

[vdn]

Gameface said:

vdn said:

Good to know you’d stay friends with a convicted child abuser / sex trafficker.

Not only that, but seemingly trying to take the moral high ground in doing so!!

Indeed. I thought it could be a clever joke post and I was due a parrot. Apparently not!

[Pat H]

Breadvan72 said:

jshell said:

I seem to recall that even posession of those page 3 style pics from the 80's would be illegal now due to changes in the law and the girls being under 18. Is that correct, BV?

I dunno, sorry. I would have to look it up, but am too busy being sent shouty emails by someone in Cyprus.

Yep.

Possession of (or making) an indecent (sexualised) image of a person who is, or who appears to be under 18 is a criminal offence.

If you were daft enough to go looking on the internet for the page 3 photos of the 16yo Sam Fox, the images in your search results would be enough to convict you of making indecent images of a child.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Breadvan72 said:

Why the apologia for the Andrews of this world?

How about you answer my question first?