Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case
Discussion
Claudia Skies said:
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.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534546/Te...
Claudia Skies said:
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.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/teenager-j...
The reason why 'our' societal views are getting mixed up is because of a media driven agenda that is pushing American ideas,based on a variable age of consent,which criminalises age difference in that regard,as opposed to our 'actual' long standing laws.The relevant issue in that case being the situation of someone in middle age being with a woman of under 18 being seen as different and in some way societally unacceptable,as opposed to someone of her own/close age.That issue also arguably even applying in the Forrest case in which it is a reasonable bet that the law was applied,regarding his sentence,in a discriminatory way because of 'his' age not hers.
Which is also the basis of US age of consent laws and by that standard would have at least resulted in an arguable case of grooming to answer regarding the relationship between Charles and Di Spencer.As I said the question in that case being what has changed in societal outlooks here since that time and why.
Interesting article here about the whole thing:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/jeffr...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/jeffr...
You guys seem totally hung up about "age" with very little heed to "maturity".
Similarly you don't seem to understand the law as it applies to school teachers and others in a position of trust,
1. Age becomes for practical purposes irrelevant, and
2. Leaving your job before "getting involved" doesn't get you off the hook.
Similarly you don't seem to understand the law as it applies to school teachers and others in a position of trust,
1. Age becomes for practical purposes irrelevant, and
2. Leaving your job before "getting involved" doesn't get you off the hook.
Claudia Skies said:
You guys seem totally hung up about "age" with very little heed to "maturity".
Similarly you don't seem to understand the law as it applies to school teachers and others in a position of trust,
1. Age becomes for practical purposes irrelevant, and
2. Leaving your job before "getting involved" doesn't get you off the hook.
I agree (and who said all posters are guys?) that being a teacher should be an increased factor in the judgement.Similarly you don't seem to understand the law as it applies to school teachers and others in a position of trust,
1. Age becomes for practical purposes irrelevant, and
2. Leaving your job before "getting involved" doesn't get you off the hook.
Claudia Skies said:
You guys seem totally hung up about "age" with very little heed to "maturity".
Similarly you don't seem to understand the law as it applies to school teachers and others in a position of trust,
1. Age becomes for practical purposes irrelevant, and
2. Leaving your job before "getting involved" doesn't get you off the hook.
Feel free to explain why the example I posted above didn't result in a jail sentence in that case.Instead of what actually happened in the form of resignation and her ( then former ) teacher setting up home with her from the the age of 16 under a st storm of media controversy before marrying her at 18 +. Similarly you don't seem to understand the law as it applies to school teachers and others in a position of trust,
1. Age becomes for practical purposes irrelevant, and
2. Leaving your job before "getting involved" doesn't get you off the hook.
If it is supposely all about 'maturity' of the girl and not agephobic dicrimination then why not just make the age of consent 18 regardless and why would it be considered as ok for someone of 16-22 for example to shag a 16 year old girl but not someone of 22+ under US type law.While,as I've said,by those standards the fixing up of Di Spencer with Charles was an arguable case of grooming and as for the case of Philip and the Queen best not to even go there based on her age during their early communications.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 10th January 21:49
MarshPhantom said:
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.
Michael Jackson demonstrated that failure to vehemently deny things is a mistake. He should have come out fighting.The New York lawyer accused with His Andiness is using the right tactics - maximum denial. However, that still remains very different from proof of innocence.
Amongst other things, it's almost impossible to prove a negative. "Evidence" usually relates to things which have happened as opposed to things which haven't. And this is where His Andiness has a problem. He needs people to believe that although they can see smoke there is no fire.
Lost soul said:
Claudia Skies said:
The New York lawyer accused with His Andiness is using the right tactics - maximum denial. However, that still remains very different from proof of innocence.
Although obviously an alien concept to the agephobes in the media the relevant test is proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.While even 'if' it was proven to that level,then 'guilt',at worse,in this case being a technical offence,either based on discriminatory agephobic US age of consent laws in a US juristiction.Or the possibility that the girl in question was in fact a hooker when Andrew 'might' have thought she was a potential partner resulting in a vice offence regarding her being a matter of months under age for the 'job' that 'she' had obviously chosen 'for herself'.Neither of which fits the headlines inferring a paedo type offence. vonuber said:
Interesting article here about the whole thing:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/jeffr...
Thank you for that link. That plea bargain deal sounds a bit dodgy. Not like the Council in Rotherham seeking to take out a High Court injunction to stop The Times printing stuff on the child abuse there at all.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/jeffr...
Surely going after HRH Prince Andrew, if there's any involvement, could benefit the greater good and raise questions about whether those that stood by and did nothing in Rotherham should be allowed to continue without some kind of comeuppance. The evidence is there.
It seems in both cases serious efforts were made to hide what was going on.
Isn't part of Theresa May's Modern Slavery Bill about sexual exploitation and trafficking for sexual exploitation? Including minors? This Epstein case would seem to fit those new laws that are being promoted as 'World Class'. When it gets passed wont it get the Royal stamp of approval.
Prince Andrew sex claims: Fresh documents filed in US court'
BBC said:
The woman who has accused Prince Andrew of sexual misconduct has repeated the claims in fresh US court documents.
She alleges she was forced by financier Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with the prince when she was a minor in the US.
In the latest papers filed in Florida, the US woman, known legally as Jane Doe #3, said she knew the prince was a member of the British royal family but that she just called him "Andy".
Buckingham Palace has already strongly denied the allegations.
They said on Wednesday they had nothing to add following the filling of the new court papers.
This is the first time the woman, named elsewhere as Virginia Roberts, has given a statement in her own words to the courts.
Her lawyers said they had sent Prince Andrew a letter asking him to respond under oath to the allegations.
They say the letter was sent back to them as having been refused by the recipient.
'Hurt by denials'
In the letter they wanted to discuss the circumstances around a photograph of Jane Doe #3 and Prince Andrew, as well as the other times she says they met.
The woman says in the new court papers that Epstein had taken the photograph - which appeared in the latest court documents.
BBC Washington correspondent Rajini Vaidyanathan said of the fresh documents: "Over several pages, and crucially, in her own words, Jane Doe #3 reasserts her claims that she was forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew on three separate occasions, including once at an orgy."
Our correspondent added: "Her lawyers say she has taken this step because she stands by her story, and has been hurt by denials from Buckingham Palace.
"Prince Andrew has yet to comment on this latest development, but has in the past has strongly rejected the allegations, describing them as false and without foundation."
The allegations against Prince Andrew emerged in evidence submitted to a US court in a case involving US financier Epstein, who spent time in jail in 2008-9 for a sex offence with a minor.
Prince Andrew, 54 and fifth in line to the throne, stepped down as UK trade envoy in July 2011 following controversy over his friendship with Epstein.
The prince is not party to any legal proceedings.
She alleges she was forced by financier Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with the prince when she was a minor in the US.
In the latest papers filed in Florida, the US woman, known legally as Jane Doe #3, said she knew the prince was a member of the British royal family but that she just called him "Andy".
Buckingham Palace has already strongly denied the allegations.
They said on Wednesday they had nothing to add following the filling of the new court papers.
This is the first time the woman, named elsewhere as Virginia Roberts, has given a statement in her own words to the courts.
Her lawyers said they had sent Prince Andrew a letter asking him to respond under oath to the allegations.
They say the letter was sent back to them as having been refused by the recipient.
'Hurt by denials'
In the letter they wanted to discuss the circumstances around a photograph of Jane Doe #3 and Prince Andrew, as well as the other times she says they met.
The woman says in the new court papers that Epstein had taken the photograph - which appeared in the latest court documents.
BBC Washington correspondent Rajini Vaidyanathan said of the fresh documents: "Over several pages, and crucially, in her own words, Jane Doe #3 reasserts her claims that she was forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew on three separate occasions, including once at an orgy."
Our correspondent added: "Her lawyers say she has taken this step because she stands by her story, and has been hurt by denials from Buckingham Palace.
"Prince Andrew has yet to comment on this latest development, but has in the past has strongly rejected the allegations, describing them as false and without foundation."
The allegations against Prince Andrew emerged in evidence submitted to a US court in a case involving US financier Epstein, who spent time in jail in 2008-9 for a sex offence with a minor.
Prince Andrew, 54 and fifth in line to the throne, stepped down as UK trade envoy in July 2011 following controversy over his friendship with Epstein.
The prince is not party to any legal proceedings.
I can't understand why Andrew doesn't just make a statement explaining:
1) His recollection of the events surrounding the photograph which has been published.
2) His understanding at the time of the relationship of the young lady pictured with him to Mr Epstein and others present. Usually when you are introduced to someone you would know who they were and their connections to other people etc.
Then this whole thing could be cleared up and everyone would leave the poor bloke alone.
1) His recollection of the events surrounding the photograph which has been published.
2) His understanding at the time of the relationship of the young lady pictured with him to Mr Epstein and others present. Usually when you are introduced to someone you would know who they were and their connections to other people etc.
Then this whole thing could be cleared up and everyone would leave the poor bloke alone.
Camoradi said:
I can't understand why Andrew doesn't just make a statement explaining:
1) His recollection of the events surrounding the photograph which has been published.
2) His understanding at the time of the relationship of the young lady pictured with him to Mr Epstein and others present. Usually when you are introduced to someone you would know who they were and their connections to other people etc.
Then this whole thing could be cleared up and everyone would leave the poor bloke alone.
Depends upon the nature of his recollections I suppose, it might be that he remembers having a damn good time shortly after/before the picture was taken...1) His recollection of the events surrounding the photograph which has been published.
2) His understanding at the time of the relationship of the young lady pictured with him to Mr Epstein and others present. Usually when you are introduced to someone you would know who they were and their connections to other people etc.
Then this whole thing could be cleared up and everyone would leave the poor bloke alone.
Camoradi said:
I can't understand why Andrew doesn't just make a statement explaining:
1) His recollection of the events surrounding the photograph which has been published.
2) His understanding at the time of the relationship of the young lady pictured with him to Mr Epstein and others present. Usually when you are introduced to someone you would know who they were and their connections to other people etc.
Then this whole thing could be cleared up and everyone would leave the poor bloke alone.
Hmmmmm,. British Prince gets introduced to sweet young American girl for the first time. Places arm around bare midriff.... 1) His recollection of the events surrounding the photograph which has been published.
2) His understanding at the time of the relationship of the young lady pictured with him to Mr Epstein and others present. Usually when you are introduced to someone you would know who they were and their connections to other people etc.
Then this whole thing could be cleared up and everyone would leave the poor bloke alone.
think he may be playing the full "it wasn't me" card. In a 'shaggy stylie'.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff