Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case

[MarshPhantom]

XJ Flyer said:

MarshPhantom said:

Oakey said:

MarshPhantom said:

Because Prince Andrew?

You seem to be ignoring the part where the girl was of the legal age.

As posted above. If nothing doing why the massive denial by those royals earlier.

Probably because the Royals are just another part of the PC establishment.Which now thinks it is better for a same sex couple to marry and adopt children than for someone who is considered as being 'too old' to be with someone of the opposite sex who is considered as being 'too young'.Hence why we've now got people having to deflect the disgusting accusation of paedophile for being with or even associated with being with a 17 year old woman.

So paedophilia is more acceptable than gay sex.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[XJ Flyer]

Oakey said:

"However, for the avoidance of doubt, any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue".

Which is categorically true, because the girl in question was the legal age of consent in the locations she allegedly met him. what do you propose if not denial? They admit to something he hasn't done?

You seem to be getting confused with the case against Eppstein, who was having sex with underage girls (younger than just 17), in Florida, where it is illegal.

I think federal law overrules state law in the case of any adult ( 18+ ) being in a physical relationship with anyone under the age of 18.Even to the point where it is possible for what was a legal relationship between two under 18's suddenly turns criminal if/when one reaches 18 before the other in which case all 'activeties' have to stop until both reach the age of 18.'If' that's the right interpretation of US federal law hopefully Andy hasn't actually done the deed in the US with an under 18 girl and the case turns criminal.

[Mojocvh]

XJ Flyer said:

Probably because the Royals are just another part of the PC establishment.Which now thinks it is better for a same sex couple to marry and adopt children than for someone who is considered as being 'too old' to be with someone of the opposite sex who is considered as being 'too young'.Hence why we've now got people having to deflect the disgusting accusation of paedophile for being with or even associated with being with a 17 year old woman.

yep.

[XJ Flyer]

MarshPhantom said:

XJ Flyer said:

MarshPhantom said:

Oakey said:

MarshPhantom said:

Because Prince Andrew?

You seem to be ignoring the part where the girl was of the legal age.

As posted above. If nothing doing why the massive denial by those royals earlier.

Probably because the Royals are just another part of the PC establishment.Which now thinks it is better for a same sex couple to marry and adopt children than for someone who is considered as being 'too old' to be with someone of the opposite sex who is considered as being 'too young'.Hence why we've now got people having to deflect the disgusting accusation of paedophile for being with or even associated with being with a 17 year old woman.

So paedophilia is more acceptable than gay sex.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I think it was obvious that it was the idea of 'non paedophile' relationships ,which comply with the age of consent,being regarded as such just because of the age factor which was being referred to.In which case the only way that Andrew could possibly have done anything suspect would be in the event of having broken any age of consent laws.Which as I've said in this case could only ( possibly ) be the ( arguable ) issue of US federal law concerning clarification of 18 + involved with under 18.Assuming anything actually even took place in that regard.

[Oakey]

XJ Flyer said:

I think it was obvious that it was the idea of 'non paedophile' relationships ,which comply with the age of consent,being regarded as such just because of the age factor which was being referred to.In which case the only way that Andrew could possibly have done anything suspect would be in the event of having broken any age of consent laws.Which as I've said in this case could only ( possibly ) be the ( arguable ) issue of US federal law concerning clarification of 18 + involved with under 18.Assuming anything actually even took place in that regard.

"The Federal government has a legal age of consent of 18. Federal law, however, applies only to sexual acts that involve travel between different states, countries, or on federal property. This makes it a crime to use any form of communication between states to try to get a minor to have sex with an adult."

I'm not sure how relevant this would be to this case or Prince Andrew?

[MarshPhantom]

Strange word isn't it, Paedophile. Just like someone that enjoys a good hi-fi, but very different.

[Oakey]

MarshPhantom said:

Strange word isn't it, Paedophile. Just like someone that enjoys a good hi-fi, but very different.

Can you just clarify, are you saying that a middle aged man who has sex with a 17yr old girl is a paedophile despite the fact the age of consent in 3/5ths of US states is 16 and only 18 in 10 states?

So basically anyone having sex with a 17yr old in 4/5ths of US states is a paedophile?

[MarshPhantom]

Oakey said:

MarshPhantom said:

Strange word isn't it, Paedophile. Just like someone that enjoys a good hi-fi, but very different.

Can you just clarify, are you saying that a middle aged man who has sex with a 17yr old girl is a paedophile despite the fact the age of consent in 3/5ths of US states is 16 and only 18 in 10 states?

So basically anyone having sex with a 17yr old in 4/5ths of US states is a paedophile?

Yes, that is why the palace have absolutely denied that it happened.

Blame the victims and all that.

[NoNeed]

MarshPhantom said:

Strange word isn't it, Paedophile. Just like someone that enjoys a good hi-fi, but very different.

I'm going to try one plast time. IT ISN'T PAEDOPHILIA.


If you must give it a label it is Ephebophelia.

[XJ Flyer]

Oakey said:

XJ Flyer said:

I think it was obvious that it was the idea of 'non paedophile' relationships ,which comply with the age of consent,being regarded as such just because of the age factor which was being referred to.In which case the only way that Andrew could possibly have done anything suspect would be in the event of having broken any age of consent laws.Which as I've said in this case could only ( possibly ) be the ( arguable ) issue of US federal law concerning clarification of 18 + involved with under 18.Assuming anything actually even took place in that regard.

"The Federal government has a legal age of consent of 18. Federal law, however, applies only to sexual acts that involve travel between different states, countries, or on federal property. This makes it a crime to use any form of communication between states to try to get a minor to have sex with an adult."

I'm not sure how relevant this would be to this case or Prince Andrew?

I'd guess that it is probably sensible to at least view that interpretation as possibly covering a UK national,or out of state US national,travelling to any US state and getting 'involved' physically with an under 18 there.

[MarshPhantom]

NoNeed said:

I'm going to try one plast time. IT ISN'T PAEDOPHILIA.


If you must give it a label it is Ephebophelia.

And that is the exact reason Buckingham Palace have been denying any of this happened.

[NoNeed]

MarshPhantom said:

NoNeed said:

I'm going to try one plast time. IT ISN'T PAEDOPHILIA.


If you must give it a label it is Ephebophelia.

And that is the exact reason Buckingham Palace have been denying any of this happened.

Well to be fair, if this did happen to be an ephebophile you must have an unhealthy interest in teens in general, I don't think one teen would prove that as that could just be an interest in that particular person.

I would be very surprised if a senior royal got caught up in this.

[XJ Flyer]

Oakey said:

MarshPhantom said:

Strange word isn't it, Paedophile. Just like someone that enjoys a good hi-fi, but very different.

Can you just clarify, are you saying that a middle aged man who has sex with a 17yr old girl is a paedophile despite the fact the age of consent in 3/5ths of US states is 16 and only 18 in 10 states?

So basically anyone having sex with a 17yr old in 4/5ths of US states is a paedophile?

If Federal law is interpreted literally then it is probably best to see it as any under 18 is off limits to any over 18 in 'every' US state regardless of state age of consent laws.

[Galsia]

Still, not the first member of the Royal Family to be accused of being involved with people that were under-age. Lord Mountbatten anyone?

[Oakey]

XJ Flyer said:

If Federal law is interpreted literally then it is probably best to see it as any under 18 is off limits to any over 18 in 'every' US state regardless of state age of consent laws.

I'm not sure that's correct according to this:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_sexual_con...

It seems to be more to do with soliciting sex with minors across state lines, I think?

[XJ Flyer]

NoNeed said:

Well to be fair, if this did happen to be an ephebophile you must have an unhealthy interest in teens in general, I don't think one teen would prove that as that could just be an interest in that particular person.

I would be very surprised if a senior royal got caught up in this.

Why would/should any type of 'interest' in the opposite sex,that complies with age of consent laws,be considered as 'unhealthy'.

[NoNeed]

XJ Flyer said:

NoNeed said:

Well to be fair, if this did happen to be an ephebophile you must have an unhealthy interest in teens in general, I don't think one teen would prove that as that could just be an interest in that particular person.

I would be very surprised if a senior royal got caught up in this.

Why would/should any type of 'interest' in the opposite sex,that complies with age of consent laws,be considered as 'unhealthy'.

Why would you think that a 50 year old man with an interest in 16 year old girls would be healthy?

[XJ Flyer]

Galsia said:

Still, not the first member of the Royal Family to be accused of being involved with people that were under-age. Lord Mountbatten anyone?

It would all depend on the definition of 'involved' and compliance with the age of consent.IE Prince Philip was in 'communications' with the Queen when she was 13.While Prince Charles first took an interest in Dianna Spencer when she was 15.It seems obvious that the current issues are all about anyone seen as being too old for someone else and nothing to do with actual age.IE would anyone really care if it was someone of 17,or even 20,being with a girl of 17.Whereas,as I've said,even Harry probably wouldn't be as lucky in finding similar societal acceptance,of going for a girl of Dianna Spencer's age now as his father did in the late 1970's.

[JensenA]

MarshPhantom said:

NoNeed said:

I'm going to try one plast time. IT ISN'T PAEDOPHILIA.


If you must give it a label it is Ephebophelia.

And that is the exact reason Buckingham Palace have been denying any of this happened.

I think you really do have some serous 'issues' don't you?

She was 17 FFS, whatnis your problem?

[XJ Flyer]

NoNeed said:

XJ Flyer said:

NoNeed said:

Well to be fair, if this did happen to be an ephebophile you must have an unhealthy interest in teens in general, I don't think one teen would prove that as that could just be an interest in that particular person.

I would be very surprised if a senior royal got caught up in this.

Why would/should any type of 'interest' in the opposite sex,that complies with age of consent laws,be considered as 'unhealthy'.

Why would you think that a 50 year old man with an interest in 16 year old girls would be healthy?

I'd,personally,consider it as more healthy than a 20-30+ year old man wanting to marry another 20-30+ year old man and adopt children.But as in that case if it is legal then that's good enough.So what is your reasoning as to why a heterosexual relationship,that complies with the age of consent,should be viewed as any more 'unhealthy' than a same sex one.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 2nd January 23:45