Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case
Discussion
Pat H said:
In my view, calling him a paedophile is a more forgivable faux pas than getting a child to suck you off.
I would assume most people would agree with that. However, the point is whether calling a sex offender who has committed illegal sexual acts against a prepubescent child is more culpable than one who does the same thing against more physically mature girls. They are both horrific, they are both offensive, but the former is on a different plane. It is not the same as having sex with a girl aged 17, even if she has been trafficked. Arson is an aggravated form of criminal damage, ie it is considered a worse offence in court (in the main). One can mix them up of course; there's nothing to stop you, but it does mean that arson is reduced.
Steady on Derek - you'll get the altar boys all wound up again.....
However, I do agree with you.
As far as I can tell, the 'problem' is that the law draws no distinction - and if anyone can correct the legalities without resorting to name calling, it may be helpful.
You're a child until you're an adult - its binary and nothing in between
Children are incapable of providing consent, therefore if you have sex with a 'child' of any age, it's rape.
The reason doesn't matter - you could both be in love, you could be paying, or you could grab someone off the street & hold a knife to their throat - it's all rape.
Paedophile is a scientific term and refers to prepubescent - but it's not defined in law & therefore the law makes no distinction.
So it's OK to call someone convicted of sexual offences against a child a paedophile child rapist regardless of whether they are in love with someone a day off their adult birthday, or whether they grab a 5 year old & hold them down.
Actually, Elon Musk seems to have established that it's perfectly OK to call anyone a paedo.......
However, I do agree with you.
As far as I can tell, the 'problem' is that the law draws no distinction - and if anyone can correct the legalities without resorting to name calling, it may be helpful.
You're a child until you're an adult - its binary and nothing in between
Children are incapable of providing consent, therefore if you have sex with a 'child' of any age, it's rape.
The reason doesn't matter - you could both be in love, you could be paying, or you could grab someone off the street & hold a knife to their throat - it's all rape.
Paedophile is a scientific term and refers to prepubescent - but it's not defined in law & therefore the law makes no distinction.
So it's OK to call someone convicted of sexual offences against a child a paedophile child rapist regardless of whether they are in love with someone a day off their adult birthday, or whether they grab a 5 year old & hold them down.
Actually, Elon Musk seems to have established that it's perfectly OK to call anyone a paedo.......
Edited by BaldOldMan on Saturday 7th December 16:58
BaldOldMan said:
Steady on Derek - you'll get the altar boys all wound up again.....
However, I do agree with you.
As far as I can tell, the 'problem' is that the law draws no distinction - and if anyone can correct the legalities without resorting to name calling, it may be helpful.
You're a child until you're an adult - its binary and nothing in between
Children are incapable of providing consent, therefore if you have sex with a 'child' of any age, it's rape.
The reason doesn't matter - you could both be in love, you could be paying, or you could grab someone off the street & hold a knife to their throat - it's all rape.
Paedophile is a scientific term and refers to prepubescent - but it's not defined in law & therefore the law makes no distinction.
So it's OK to call someone convicted of sexual offences against a child a paedophile child rapist regardless of whether they are in love with someone a day off their adult birthday, or whether they grab a 5 year old & hold them down.
Actually, Elon Musk seems to have established that it's perfectly OK to call anyone a paedo.......
Anticipating some abuse coming my way. Despite me finding it repugnent and having dealt with rapes, child porn of the most extreme kind, trafficking, incest grooming and unlawful sexual intercourse, many times over the years. However, I do agree with you.
As far as I can tell, the 'problem' is that the law draws no distinction - and if anyone can correct the legalities without resorting to name calling, it may be helpful.
You're a child until you're an adult - its binary and nothing in between
Children are incapable of providing consent, therefore if you have sex with a 'child' of any age, it's rape.
The reason doesn't matter - you could both be in love, you could be paying, or you could grab someone off the street & hold a knife to their throat - it's all rape.
Paedophile is a scientific term and refers to prepubescent - but it's not defined in law & therefore the law makes no distinction.
So it's OK to call someone convicted of sexual offences against a child a paedophile child rapist regardless of whether they are in love with someone a day off their adult birthday, or whether they grab a 5 year old & hold them down.
Actually, Elon Musk seems to have established that it's perfectly OK to call anyone a paedo.......
Purely factually, in law, and not defending anyone - a child is not automatically incapable in our law of giving consent. If the child is under 13 then there is a separate equally serious offence of rape of a child under 13, which does not require proof that there was no consent.
It is illegal to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under 16, in theory that is still lawful for married people (Obviously married outside the UK). But, since other Sexual offences, would apply which do not have the exemption, it's illegal in all practical terms. But, to obtain a conviction for Rape of a child,13 years and over, there is a need to show that there was no consent and the accused did not reasonably believe that they consented. It's often possible that the consent can be negated, if they did not have the capacity to give informed consent. Again other offences would almost certainly apply.
TTmonkey said:
By that definition a 14 year old female in France is a woman, yet when she flies to England she becomes a child. And an English female of 16 is a woman, but when she is on holiday in Turkey she is a child (if she had gone to Portugal instead she would still be a woman).17 year old Virginia Giuffre was a child in the USA, yet when she got off the plane in the UK she was a woman.
Me, I am sticking to MILFs to be on the safe side.
vonuber said:
Ayahuasca said:
17 year old Virginia Giuffre was a sex trafficked child in the USA, yet when she got off the plane in the UK she was a sex trafficked woman.
Fixed that for you. An Iranian born, former Israeli spy, with links to African States, claims he was the handler for Epstein, whose mission was to blackmail powerful men, and Prince Andrew was a target.
Who said real live is more weird than fiction, wasn't wrong.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10414087/ghislaine-m...
Who said real live is more weird than fiction, wasn't wrong.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10414087/ghislaine-m...
- - Ari Ben-Menashe has a book to promote.
PA's frazzled PRs try again: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/08/prince...
It's not actual counter-evidence (again), but now friends/sources claim that PA was at Tramp a lot, although ... whoops ... he says he wasn't a party person.
It's not actual counter-evidence (again), but now friends/sources claim that PA was at Tramp a lot, although ... whoops ... he says he wasn't a party person.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff