Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case

[NoNeed]

XJ Flyer said:

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

Well for starters I consider a relation to be for life, so based on average life expectancy a 16 year old girl will be looking for another partner at the age of 36 who may or may not have to buy into the whole she already has 4 kids thing.


If it's a one night stand and she is of a similar persuasion say liking older men then in that case it's ok

I may of course just be old fashioned.

[XJ Flyer]

NoNeed said:

XJ Flyer said:

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

Well for starters I consider a relation to be for life, so based on average life expectancy a 16 year old girl will be looking for another partner at the age of 36 who may or may not have to buy into the whole she already has 4 kids thing.


If it's a one night stand and she is of a similar persuasion say liking older men then in that case it's ok

I may of course just be old fashioned.

Other than the casual fling have you ever thought that many women don't buy into the idea that marriage ends with the death of their husband.As for life expectancy then not many women would go for those in dangerous jobs like forces etc etc.IE they can be a widow overnight and know it while waiting for the knock on the door.Maybe that's how Andy sees it being ex forces and like many single middle aged men in the position of not wanting to end his chances of finding someone,who is preferably younger than older,as a personal life choice.In which case while it is legal who can blame him.In just the same way that Harry might still be hoping for a girl like Dianna Spencer than one of his own age.In which case no one really knows how long we've got on this Earth.

[economicpygmy]

XJ Flyer said:

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 30 year old man wanting to marry another 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 nay more 'unhealthy' than a same sex one.

BTW: If you edit your post to include the age range 20-30, I'm sure it will sound less homophobic...

[NoNeed]

XJ Flyer said:

Other than the casual fling have you ever thought that many women don't buy into the idea that marriage ends with the death of their husband.As for life expectancy then not many women would go for those in dangerous jobs like forces etc etc.IE they can be a widow overnight and know it while waiting for the knock on the door.Maybe that's how Andy sees it being ex forces and like many single middle aged men in the position of not wanting to end his chances of finding someone,who is preferably younger than older,as a personal life choice.In which case while it is legal who can blame him.In just the same way that Harry might still be hoping for a girl like Dianna Spencer than one of his own age.In which case no one really knows how long we've got on this Earth.

Taking a risk is far away from marrying a certainty. as in all probability she will be single again by middle age. was my point

[MarshPhantom]

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?

He even named himself after a tasty childhood treat.

[XJ Flyer]

NoNeed said:

XJ Flyer said:

Other than the casual fling have you ever thought that many women don't buy into the idea that marriage ends with the death of their husband.As for life expectancy then not many women would go for those in dangerous jobs like forces etc etc.IE they can be a widow overnight and know it while waiting for the knock on the door.Maybe that's how Andy sees it being ex forces and like many single middle aged men in the position of not wanting to end his chances of finding someone,who is preferably younger than older,as a personal life choice.In which case while it is legal who can blame him.In just the same way that Harry might still be hoping for a girl like Dianna Spencer than one of his own age.In which case no one really knows how long we've got on this Earth.

Taking a risk is far away from marrying a certainty. as in all probability she will be single again by middle age. was my point

My point is that the two different types of woman and the results remain the same in either case.Wether it be the risk of a 20 something soldier leaving his wife and family as a casualty in battle or an 80 + year old leaving his wife and family through natural causes.The choice in either case being marry again with someone else.Or face widow hood as many other women do on the basis that there could be no one else to replace their loss.Ironically in the case of someone of Andrew's age,or for that matter Harry's,the wife and family in question might have their husband and father around for a lot longer in their lives than the unfortunate young soldier's.

[NoNeed]

XJ Flyer said:

NoNeed said:

XJ Flyer said:

Other than the casual fling have you ever thought that many women don't buy into the idea that marriage ends with the death of their husband.As for life expectancy then not many women would go for those in dangerous jobs like forces etc etc.IE they can be a widow overnight and know it while waiting for the knock on the door.Maybe that's how Andy sees it being ex forces and like many single middle aged men in the position of not wanting to end his chances of finding someone,who is preferably younger than older,as a personal life choice.In which case while it is legal who can blame him.In just the same way that Harry might still be hoping for a girl like Dianna Spencer than one of his own age.In which case no one really knows how long we've got on this Earth.

Taking a risk is far away from marrying a certainty. as in all probability she will be single again by middle age. was my point

My point is that the two different types of woman and the results remain the same in either case.Wether it be the risk of a 20 something soldier leaving his wife and family as a casualty in battle or an 80 + year old leaving his wife and family through natural causes.The choice in either case being marry again with someone else.Or face widow hood as many other women do on the basis that there could be no one else to replace their loss.Ironically in the case of someone of Andrew's age,or for that matter Harry's,the wife and family in question might have their husband and father around for a lot longer in their lives than the unfortunate young soldier's.

There is also the simple fact that an interest based on age cannot last as the age itself doesn't. So it's not only widowed by middle age, the chances of reaching that age still a partner is in itself slim.

[XJ Flyer]

economicpygmy said:

BTW: If you edit your post to include the age range 20-30, I'm sure it will sound less homophobic...

I think in this case it is more about ageophobia being directed at Andrew in addition to many others who have gone for women considered as being 'too young' for them.

[XJ Flyer]

NoNeed said:

XJ Flyer said:

NoNeed said:

XJ Flyer said:

Other than the casual fling have you ever thought that many women don't buy into the idea that marriage ends with the death of their husband.As for life expectancy then not many women would go for those in dangerous jobs like forces etc etc.IE they can be a widow overnight and know it while waiting for the knock on the door.Maybe that's how Andy sees it being ex forces and like many single middle aged men in the position of not wanting to end his chances of finding someone,who is preferably younger than older,as a personal life choice.In which case while it is legal who can blame him.In just the same way that Harry might still be hoping for a girl like Dianna Spencer than one of his own age.In which case no one really knows how long we've got on this Earth.

Taking a risk is far away from marrying a certainty. as in all probability she will be single again by middle age. was my point

My point is that the two different types of woman and the results remain the same in either case.Wether it be the risk of a 20 something soldier leaving his wife and family as a casualty in battle or an 80 + year old leaving his wife and family through natural causes.The choice in either case being marry again with someone else.Or face widow hood as many other women do on the basis that there could be no one else to replace their loss.Ironically in the case of someone of Andrew's age,or for that matter Harry's,the wife and family in question might have their husband and father around for a lot longer in their lives than the unfortunate young soldier's.

There is also the simple fact that an interest based on age cannot last as the age itself doesn't. So it's not only widowed by middle age, the chances of reaching that age still a partner is in itself slim.

That issue is for no one else to judge except the potential couple in question.I think marriage breakdown is running at around 50% regardless of the relative ages of those involved.

[stuttgartmetal]

I bet she never looked 17

She'd been revolving in this social strata for years
She'd have been clued up as to what and how everything works
Money. Cars. Yachts. Clubs. New York apartments. World travel

She knew the coup, and was in it up to her neck

Years on , washed up, looks gone and skint she probably regrets it all
She's been used,
Thoroughly rinsed

I've never liked Andrew
He's never looked that clued up.
It's not going to be a surprise if this streetwise looker has wrapped him round her little finger.
Big ego and all that, it's not inconceivable.
Hope he had the sense to bag up.

[anonymous-user]

stuttgartmetal said:

I bet she never looked 17

She'd been revolving in this social strata for years
She'd have been clued up as to what and how everything works
Money. Cars. Yachts. Clubs. New York apartments. World travel

She knew the coup, and was in it up to her neck

Years on , washed up, looks gone and skint she probably regrets it all
She's been used,
Thoroughly rinsed

I've never liked Andrew
He's never looked that clued up.
It's not going to be a surprise if this streetwise looker has wrapped him round her little finger.
Big ego and all that, it's not inconceivable.
Hope he had the sense to bag up.

hight quality, insightful post.
I seriously hope our trade ambassador didn't get a 17 yr old pregnant, that would be really embarrassing for the exec management of our government (UK/GB/England - not sure which)

Anyway, i am hoping it didn't really happen so we don't have to justify whoever he was having it off with. if it didn't happen then it's nothing to do with us.

[XJ Flyer]

desolate said:

hight quality, insightful post.
I seriously hope our trade ambassador didn't get a 17 yr old pregnant, that would be really embarrassing for the exec management of our government (UK/GB/England - not sure which)

Spare us the hypocrisy bearing in mind the state sponsored grooming of a really naive teenaged girl ( Di Spencer ) who was pushed into a loveless marriage with an older man so that the establishment could get what it wanted.Everyone on both sides of the Atlantic seemed happy enough with the arrangement at the time as I remember it.So what has suddenly changed in the bleeding heart morals of the establishment here and 'over there'.Maybe it all would have turned out differently if it had been Andrew who got Di Spencer and not Charles.

[TheSnitch]

This is a very strange thread.

[carinaman]

It's a bit off that the US authorities did a deal with Jeffrey Epstein that denied the women involved justice or redress.

On the R4 pundit show predicting 2015 they mentioned Hillary Clinton and how wherever she went in her role she asked to see the women. But in the US four women have denied justice because of a deal?

[greygoose]

XJ Flyer said:

desolate said:

hight quality, insightful post.
I seriously hope our trade ambassador didn't get a 17 yr old pregnant, that would be really embarrassing for the exec management of our government (UK/GB/England - not sure which)

Spare us the hypocrisy bearing in mind the state sponsored grooming of a really naive teenaged girl ( Di Spencer ) who was pushed into a loveless marriage with an older man so that the establishment could get what it wanted.Everyone on both sides of the Atlantic seemed happy enough with the arrangement at the time as I remember it.So what has suddenly changed in the bleeding heart morals of the establishment here and 'over there'.Maybe it all would have turned out differently if it had been Andrew who got Di Spencer and not Charles.

Do you really believe the things you type?

[Justices]

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/index1...

leads to..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/21/jeffrey-e...

Bloody hell. You'd have an idea about someone like this pretty rapidly I think.

[terenceb]

Of course this wouldn't be , as proven with the JS saga as being financialy driven.Dangerous ground taking on the Royal Family I'de have thought.

[allergictocheese]

TheSnitch said:

This is a very strange thread.

Just looked at the identity of the posters on p2 and thought, how could it be anything but?

[Dalmahoy]

No smoke without fire as they say:-

Royal Family granted new right of secrecy

The Royal Family is to be granted absolute protection from public scrutiny in a controversial legal reform designed to draw a veil of secrecy over the affairs of the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William.


Letters, emails and documents relating to the monarch, her heir and the second in line to the throne will no longer be disclosed even if they are in the public interest.
Sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act will reverse advances which had briefly shone a light on the royal finances – including an attempt by the Queen to use a state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace – and which had threatened to force the disclosure of the Prince of Wales's prolific correspondence with ministers.
Lobbying and correspondence from junior staff working for the Royal Household and Prince Charles will now be held back from disclosure. Buckingham Palace confirmed that it had consulted with the Coalition Government over the change in the law. The Government buried the plan for "added protection" for the Royal Family in the small print of plans called "opening up public bodies to public scrutiny".


http://www.independe...cy-2179148.html

[MarshPhantom]

Dalmahoy said:

No smoke without fire as they say:-

Royal Family granted new right of secrecy

The Royal Family is to be granted absolute protection from public scrutiny in a controversial legal reform designed to draw a veil of secrecy over the affairs of the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William.


Letters, emails and documents relating to the monarch, her heir and the second in line to the throne will no longer be disclosed even if they are in the public interest.
Sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act will reverse advances which had briefly shone a light on the royal finances – including an attempt by the Queen to use a state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace – and which had threatened to force the disclosure of the Prince of Wales's prolific correspondence with ministers.
Lobbying and correspondence from junior staff working for the Royal Household and Prince Charles will now be held back from disclosure. Buckingham Palace confirmed that it had consulted with the Coalition Government over the change in the law. The Government buried the plan for "added protection" for the Royal Family in the small print of plans called "opening up public bodies to public scrutiny".


http://www.independe...cy-2179148.html

Gawd bless her.