You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Blimey, sorry TJ I had no idea.
Then again, I'm not ashamed that I don't know too much about Dire Straits...
As I said, to prove a point. Seems to have been effective, n’est-ce pas?
Yes, the point you've proved is that you expect standards of others that you don't apply to yourself.
You aren’t concerned about marrying off children? OK.
Why would I be? All sorts of rights and responsibilities are given to children at specific ages. For example, a ten year old can be charged with a crime, but a nine year old cannot. So there is a question about what rights should be conferred at a given age, but I see no reason to object to the principle.
Not a fan of Tunnel of Love then?
when first out it was fresh and exciting but now just feels old and doesn't interest me any more.
I am prince andrew and I claim my £5
In theory under the Children Act 2003 (I think) that would still be illegal. I think a 15 yr old can’t consent in any way to sex (according to law)
Which was part of what I was saying. It would be illegal yes, but that isn't going to prevent two 15-year olds getting jiggy together.
Perhaps I misunderstand here; are you suggesting that girls of varying ages being recruited by questionable means into a life of international trafficking and sex slavery involving Politicians and Royalty leading to police investigations being shut down bears no similarity to the Epstein case simply because it was a long time ago?
No, I'm saying that it's irrelevant. Which is why you didn't understand, it doesn't appear that this is a concept you're familiar with.
Yes, the point you’ve proved is that you expect standards of others that you don’t apply to yourself.
Oh give over.
Why would I be? All sorts of rights and responsibilities are given to children at specific ages.
A logic which renders the "but she was a child!!" argument rather pointless. The law may define "a child" as someone under the age of 18 but as you've just said, specific ages is more relevant when considering a given situation.
Ok - back on track. There is now a witness to Andrew being in Tramps nightclub with a younglady!¬ so thats a direct witness to discredit one of his lies
Ooh, an on-topic post. That's killed it.
I know it's 20 years ago and being specific about dates and times and who he was with must be incredibly difficult. But I do find it odd that a member of the royal family went clubbing (or more recently to a Pizza Express) and almost no-one seems to remember these events?
Either he was such a regular that it became routine and no-one cared, or it was a one-off which is likely something you'd be talking about for years. Were they private affairs? Then, where are all the staff? Hell, why wasn't it headline news at the time?
I know there have been plenty of cover-ups over the years but this one must be a doozy. Even Savile had the sense to do it mostly behind closed doors rather than dancing on tables at the Ritzy with a blonde in one hand and a slice of ham & pineapple in the other.
Is this entire thing from beginning to end not just weird? There's something not quite right with that boy.
There’s something not quite right with that boy.
A mix of dimness and entitlement. a rather toxic mix
Oh give over.
Convincing riposte
A logic which renders the “but she was a child!!” argument rather pointless. The law may define “a child” as someone under the age of 18 but as you’ve just said, specific ages is more relevant when considering a given situation.
No, it's a statement of fact, which for reasons unknown you seem to have a problem with.
It is a statement of fact by one definition amongst several and I don't "have a problem with it" but rather I feel that it is potentially misleading and there is more accurate terminology available. So why be intentionally and unnecessarily vague unless your motive is simply to intend to colour opinion (or sell newspapers)?
I've been explaining my apparent "problem" for several pages now. If you still don't get it then I don't know what else I can add.
Weirdly there's lots of news reports about Harry and Meghan wanting security, and willing to pay for it when they visit the UK, no actual interview or statement from them, but it's good timing!
Actually, one more thing.
Referring to her as a child during a legal case makes sense because there is (at least in both the UK and the EU) a legal definition and the fact that it's part of legal proceedings gives it context.
Referring to a child across the front of a newspaper, "PRINCE ANDREW IN CHILD SEX ALLEGATIONS" is simply wrong. Not least because, having now done a lot of reading since we started discussing this, that is not what he is being charged for. He's being charged with several counts of alleged sexual assault and battery for having sex with her against her will, as far as I can tell her age is not relevant to this case. (It is of course highly relevant in the Epstein / Maxwell ones).
But I do find it odd that a member of the royal family went clubbing (or more recently to a Pizza Express) and almost no-one seems to remember these events?
I've been thinking exactly the same. I'm not the least bit "star struck" but on the odd occasion I've seen a comedian/news reader/TV show host/motorcycle racer I do still remember where i saw them just because it's not the norm. I may not recall the date but I reckon I could make a rough guess at the year.
I'm staggered that no one has come forward (or maybe I'm not!)
the [pizza express story is an obvious lie which is why no witnesses
Andrews whereabouts can be easily proved - he has a security detail
And you don’t think his previous security details and medical records won’t be fabricated to back up his story?
I would be suprised if his security detail would lie on oath
And you don’t think his previous security details and medical records won’t be fabricated to back up his story?
Or disposed of after 5/7/10 years like most routine offical records?
It is a statement of fact by one definition amongst several and I don’t “have a problem with it” but rather I feel that it is potentially misleading and there is more accurate terminology available.
It's not misleading, it's a statement of fact. You calling her a woman was misleading.
It is a statement of fact by one definition amongst several and I don’t “have a problem with it” but rather I feel that it is potentially misleading and there is more accurate terminology available.
You seem to be very exercised, but I'm not at all sure why.
Referring to a child across the front of a newspaper, “PRINCE ANDREW IN CHILD SEX ALLEGATIONS” is simply wrong. Not least because, having now done a lot of reading since we started discussing this, that is not what he is being charged for.
Are you saying that it's not alleged that he had sex with a child? It seems to me that the headline is accurate.
I would be suprised if his security detail would lie on oath
I'd tend to agree, but "unlikely" does not mean "impossible." Do you think they'd be accepted as impartial witnesses?
Ransos - If you are claiming Andrew had sex with a child so did many of us - quite legally given the age of consent in the UK is 16
Your harking on on this is crackers - it really is. You do not suddenly become an adult at 18 and only at 18. there are lods of different ages for different things and different definitions and different countries vary
I certainly do not recognize having to be 18 to be an adult given you can marry, join the army, buy cigarettes, have sex, go to university, have a job and be tried as an adult in a court at a younger age
You can even give consent to medical procedures without your parents knowledge before 16
In scotlandyou can get married without your parents consent at 16 and vote in scottish elections at 16.
In england you can be tried as an adult in court at any age.
Tjagain, you seem to be refuting arguments I haven't made, and in fact are reiterating points I made upthread, today. I am simply saying that it is accurate to describe her as a child in this context.
And i am saying thats utter nonsense given that the age of consent in the UK is 16. By your weird definitions most of us are guilty of having sex with children legally - its bonkers
You calling her a woman was misleading.
She was a woman, biologically. (I think I actually said "young woman," didn't I?) It is possible I suppose that she hadn't cleared puberty by the age of 17 but it's highly unlikely.
Referring to her as a woman with no further qualification is potentially misleading, correct. Referring to her as a child with no further qualification is also potentially misleading, which is what I was trying to shine a light onto in my example. I wasn't trying to mislead, rather I was trying to demonstrate how easy it is to mislead when using cherry-picked words. The more you argue about me being misleading, the more you prove this point.
She was a 17-year old. Why not just call her that? It's clear, unambiguous and accurate, no-one's going to be thinking you're working in Mercury years. Readers can then decide for themselves whether they consider her a child or an adult or an adolescent or a cheese sandwich for the difference it makes, she was still immutably and unquestionably 17.
Why do you insist on banging this drum when it has absolutely no bearing on the case and you've already said yourself that different rules apply to different ages of "children" as legally-defined? In case you missed it: THE LADY'S AGE IS NOT LISTED AS A FACTOR IN THE CHARGES FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE DEFENDENT. I read the initial charge sheet, it was linked here earlier (on, gods help us, the Daily Mail's website). Fixating on "yes but she was a child" suggests either a misunderstanding or a desire to mislead.
Do you want to just make it sound worse than it already is? Because christ knows it's not bad enough already. Or are you just trying to make me look bad? Cos again, I'm good enough at doing that myself also and I don't need your help. (-:
Ransos - how old was the first woman you shagged? Under or over 18? I bet half of us it was under 18
I am simply saying that it is accurate to describe her as a child in this context.
1) What is "this" context to which you refer? It is accurate to describe her as such during the proceedings of a UK or EU legal case, this was highlighted by someone pages back and we all agreed. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the first time you've mentioned context at all yet it's a word I've used repeatedly for exactly this reason; you were asserting it was unequivocal fact half a dozen posts ago and now suddenly it turns out that you agree that it's contextual after all?
2) So what if it's legally accurate, what's that gain us? Are we going to get bent out of shape if they fail to mention her eye colour?
Ransos – how old was the first woman you shagged? Under or over 18?
Irrelevant either way, he's already said he's fine with children getting married. Which is why it confuses me so as to why the definition is so important to him.
It's apparently fine for children to have sex because we apply different rules and responsibilities to different ages of children; yet it's critically important that we stress that Andrew was having sex with children.
I think this conversation has gone beyond my comprehension, I cannot square this circle. All I was trying to say all along was "be descriptive rather than emotive," I couldn't really care less about the rat bastard.
Over 18 for me. However my mate got his girlfriend pregnant at 15, she was the youngest mum at school. They're still married and happily so after 45 years with grandchildren older than my son.
The age difference thing is law here in France. Sex between two 14-year-olds is fine. It's also OK betwwen a 14 and 18 year old but at 19 it's up to a judge to decide.
But all of that really isn't the issue here, it's the trafficking and abuse of position issues that make it unacceptable.
I just thought I would check - In Scotland the age of majority IE when you are considered an adult appears to be 16.
Edit - looked at it further its 16 or 18 depending on the legal context. It is certainly not a blanket 18
But all of that really isn’t the issue here, it’s the trafficking and abuse of position issues that make it unacceptable.
Is it trafficking if done it willingly and then tell their mates how much fun they are having. Don't you need to be tricked or coerced for it to be trafficking? When does a young person having a good time turn into trafficking? Did they take her passport away and refuse to give it back until she had paid off the debt with sex?
If you were really trafficked and were living in fear I think you might have a different view on this.
Is it trafficking if done it willingly and then tell their mates how much fun they are having. Don’t you need to be tricked or coerced for it to be trafficking?
Being gaslight, being groomed etc can make it appear to be a persons own decision but its been made in a context of coercion
Being gaslight, being groomed etc can make it appear to be a persons own decision but its been made in a context of coercion
Or she could have been a young party girl that loved the lifestyle and had a blast. Now she sees an opportunity to make a few bucks out of it. Is that another possibility?
I think I will sue Thomas Cook for Trafficking me to Benidorm when I was 17 !!!
And, of course, the only reason we're even using the term trafficing is because in the US there's no statute of limitations on trafficing as a federal crime.
If they hadn't needed to desperately hunt for a law they could fit Maxwell's actions into none of us would even be mentioning trafficing as an issue here.
Is that another possibility?
You can invent all sorts of fantasy scenarios to justify all sorts of horrors, but defences such as "the murder victim was unhappy and is better off dead" don't do very well in court, and won't here.
Besides, Maxwell was found guilty.
Or she could have been a young party girl that loved the lifestyle and had a blast. Now she sees an opportunity to make a few bucks out of it. Is that another possibility?
No - given that Maxwell was found guilty in court and given what we know
Or maybe there's a law there specifically to prevent people doing what Maxwell was convicted of?
Or she could have been a young party girl that loved the lifestyle and had a blast.
I'm not sure it applies to the victim in this case, but yes, that's a theoretical possibility.
Someone I know through cycling is quite open that she went from party girl to adult worker, and has made a very comfortable life for herself and her other half from it. BUT she will also say that had she had a "normal" childhood and not been in and out of the care system, she wouldn't have taken that route. So whether she was able to make properly informed choices as an adult due to her chaotic childhood is very much open for debate.
Or she could have been a young party girl that loved the lifestyle and had a blast. Now she sees an opportunity to make a few bucks out of it.
Genuine wow, I can't begin to imagine the level of dissociation it must take to bring everyone else down to one's own level of cynicism and distrust, given what's already in the public domain about this case.
No – given that Maxwell was found guilty in court and given what we know
Are the two mutually exclusive? Is it not possible that legally a court found Maxwell guilty, but also that the statement "Or she could have been a young party girl that loved the lifestyle and had a blast. Now she sees an opportunity to make a few bucks out of it." is true?
The whole trial was finely based on technicalities rather than any massively moral standpoint. Trafficking was chosen because they could not pin anything else on her, because in general they were very careful not to have underage girls hanging around. Those that were admitted to having fake ID's etc. A party environment that young women willingly wanted to be part of.
Also evidence was given by friends of Roberts who at the time actually were underage, said that she recruited them but told them under no circumstances should that say how old they were. Yet all the moral outrage is aimed at Andrew. Where is the thread on Roberts declaring she's is a money grabbing monster that pimped out her under aged friends?
Andrew is a victim of the Zeitgeist.
Genuine wow, I can’t begin to imagine the level of dissociation it must take to bring everyone else down to one’s own level of cynicism and distrust
So if I (male) at 17 had gone to parties on a beautiful island where I had sex with the 40yo female billionaire island owner and kept going back week after week and was openly delighted when I got chosen from many to a trip to Europe with the billionaire you'd be thinking I was being abused?
So whether she was able to make properly informed choices as an adult due to her chaotic childhood is very much open for debate.
That's a different issue, and doesn't just apply to sex work.
I got a job doing heavy lifting in my summer holiday at uni. At the time I thought it was really cool and over six weeks I was properly six-packed up. (I may be exaggerating.)
Looking back though it terrifies me. I could have been hurt dropping something, I certainly put a big strain on my joints and back. I made a bad choice.
See also Tree surgeons - they always seem to retire in their 30s and 40s with knackered bodies. Professional boxers?
The law doesn't protect us from our own bad decisions.
Andrew a victim? No chance.
As for zeitgeist, we're talking about 1999 here. I'm the same age as Andrew as my mother liked to remind me. I was 39 in 1999 and wouldn't have gone near Virginia Roberts whether 18 or 17. Because the zeitgeist was that you didn't even if that was your thing unless you were looking for trouble. Andrew went looking for trouble and found it.
I got a job doing heavy lifting in my summer holiday at uni. At the time I thought it was really cool and over six weeks I was properly six-packed up.
Had you been in the care system? had you had no decent adult role models? Where you flattered and deceived into the job
I know you are only ( badly) making a point but a nasty streak of mysogeny and victim blaming has arrived in this thread
So if I (male) at 17 had gone to parties
If as that 17 year, you'd come from a abusive home, had been molested at 7, lived on the street for a while at 14, and been taken in by a 65 year old, who ran a "modelling agency" as a front for prostitution, money laundering and fraud. and you told me that you're hooking up with a millionaire? Then yes, I would've thought that you're probably being abused.
Apologies for not being a cynic.
Genuine wow, I can’t begin to imagine the level of dissociation it must take to bring everyone else down to one’s own level of cynicism and distrust, given what’s already in the public domain about this case.
Or a massive level of realism.
As for zeitgeist, we’re talking about 1999 here. I’m the same age as Andrew as my mother liked to remind me. I I was 39 in 1999 and wouldn’t have gone near Virginia Roberts whether 18 or 17.
Yet you assume he danced with her in public where he was likely to get papped and then had sex with her.
Surely what you're saying makes it *far* less likely.
mysogeny
It the opposite. If VR was a lad nobody would be talking about abuse.
What's mysogenistic(sp?) is assuming women always have to be the victim.
Or a massive level of realism.
Realism/reality is what Andrew is facing, Bazzer. You're the one in fantasy land.
Margaret got plenty of flak for dating Roddy Llewellyn, a 25-year-old because of the age difference. And there wasn't any doubt about the legality of seducing one's gardner.
. If VR was a lad nobody would be talking about abuse.
Incorrect. We have moved on from this view - even an old dinosaur like me. Read recent reports about female teachers abusing male pupils. its no longer the 1950s grandad 😉
If it was just consensual sex why would you go to the trouble of flying her over here from the US, there are hundreds of sex workers in London that could have done the job? There girls were groomed and controlled to provide a guaranteed discrete service to rich and famous clients by Maxwell, they were young, damaged and naive enough to be manipulated into servicing old men and to do it seemingly willingly. Text book trafficking.
Or a massive level of realism.
Given how much of her history is available on line for you to look at, and she's written an autobiography that goes into reasonable depths about her history, that none of the people in it have chosen thus far to dispute. She's either a victim of terrible abuse at the hands of infinitely older, educated people with vast taps of resource the depths of which that she can't begin to fathom, or at the centre of an elaborate scam to distract and bemuse a member of the royal family into paying out millions by means of a long fantastically plotted ruse.
That's where I think your version of "reality" can be handily placed.
I know you are only ( badly) making a point but a nasty streak of mysogeny and victim blaming has arrived in this thread
Has I totally knew that was coming, play the man instead of the ball.
Do you not think its nieve to think that there are not people out there who want to take advantage of a situation, you are quite happy to think that Andrew would take advantage of a situation but not Roberts.
This whole claim of victim blaming thing is a means to shut down the conversation. Its a modern way being too lazy to actually argue a point. If you can never question the other side then justice is dead.
This whole claim of victim blaming thing is a means to shut down the conversation
What conversation?
The possibility that a formally abused 17 yr plots a couple of decades long scam to wrestle millions in cash and sully the reputation of man formally known as "Handy Andy"?
That conversation?
Oh dear how does saying "i know you are only making a point" become "playing the man" its theexact opposite. By saying that I excuse the man but refute the point.
That’s where I think your version of “reality” can be handily placed.
Its not my reality, I am just putting an alternative argument. The main argument on here seems to be predicated on the fact she had no control over her actions and should not be responsible for them. This does seem to be the way people think these days, its always someone else's fault. Yeah she had a rough time and may have been looking for a way out. She got a way out, she had a fantastic time, had sex with people SHE DECIDED to have sex with, now thats everyone elses fault but hers.
or at the centre of an elaborate scam to distract and bemuse a member of the royal family into paying out millions by means of a long fantastically plotted ruse.
No just opportunism.
but a nasty streak of mysogeny and victim blaming has arrived in this thread
I was referring to that bit of your post when I mentioned playing the man.
Thats aimed at you and the thread in general as my post makes clear because thats what you are doing and it stinks. Quite honestly i am disgusted with what you have posted. its vile.
Has anyone seen any informed comment on why Andrews accuser wasn't a witness in the Maxwell case? Presumably a reason to keep the two very separate?
This whole claim of victim blaming thing is a means to shut down the conversation. Its a modern way being too lazy to actually argue a point.
We're addressing each point you make, knocking them down one by one. You now use block capitals to make a point for which you have no basis or proof.
All that we've seen so far says she was coerced into entering a room with a person about double her weight, considerably stronger, untouchable by law as far as she knew at the time and knew she was expected to have sex. Block capitals or not I suggest you're plain wrong. She was in no position to decide what happened in that room.
I am just putting an alternative argument
No. You're just speculating wildly. An argument is a carefully constructed series of reasoned statements setting out a version of events with facts that may be disputable or not. So if you've any of that, bring it on. If not make yourself familiar with the case.
had sex with people SHE DECIDED to have sex with
So the fact hat she's repeatedly stated in filed court documents that she didn't consent to sex is just her lying, right?
While I disagree with bazzer that the victim in this case may have been a willing victim, I think it's naive to think that there are never cases where someone might choose this kind of "lifestyle".
Everyone's personal morality is different. Once you are legally old enough to consent to sex, you may choose to do so in situations that the majority of people would not. An absolute "it could never happen" is unreasonable. It's easy to cry "victim blaming" and ignore that in a small minority of cases there genuinely is no victim.
And that doesn't excuse the behaviour of the men/women taking advantage of the situation.
Thats aimed at you and the thread in general as my post makes clear because thats what you are doing and it stinks. Quite honestly i am disgusted with what you have posted. its vile.
Well change my mind then? instead of just insulting me?
Are we not allowed to challenge the motives of people who make accusations against individuals? Is that victim blaiming?
Doing that is vile where starting a thread entitled "Prince Andrew, what a cowardly little ****" isn't ? He claims that he doesn't think he slept with her and we have to dismiss that out of hand based on what? His nick name "handy Andy"
What is truly vile is trial by media based on the fact people don't really like someone.
I honestly don't know what happened and neither does anyone on this thread, we don't know the motives or how damaged or not she is by all this or if she is perfectly happy and sees it as a pay check. What I do know is the majority of people have really closed views and are not at all curious about the subtleties and its the subtleties that define the morality of it all if not the legality.
We have entered an age where it is not acceptable to challenge certain claims and I find that pretty scary.
So the fact hat she’s repeatedly stated in filed court documents that she didn’t consent to sex is just her lying, right?
If there is evidence that she told Andrew that she didn't want to have sex with him and he disregarded that and went ahead, then I am the first one to nail him to the wall. Is there evidence of this?
Also have you heard of something called cognitive bias?
Of course there isn't evidence, there was no CCTV with sound (unless Epstein knows otherwise)
Also have you heard of something called cognitive bias?
You're demonstrating it perfectly.
Has anyone seen any informed comment on why Andrews accuser wasn’t a witness in the Maxwell case? Presumably a reason to keep the two very separate?
There's a lot of legal comment on 'lawtube', LegalMindset, Rekieta Law, Uncivil Law, Robert Gouveia for example. I can't link direct to anything specific.
From memory the logic could have been: VR trafficed 'Caroline' knowing 'Caroline' was underage and told 'Caroline' to lie about her age so she'd potentially be incriminating herself with her testimony and undermining the prosecution case. She's being sued by at least one of the other girls. Plus she's said a lot publicly, so she'd be easy to pick apart on inconsistencies.
Then you get her claim that:
"Epstein, for purposes of pleasure and blackmail, had also paid Giuffre to have sex with numerous high-profile individuals, including “prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister and other world leaders.”
As a witness she could have been asked about that. Can she really stand up that claim? Serving Presidents and that "prime minister" will have accounted for their time really tightly, yet she's not naming them. Looks bad on the stand.
Plus they had far more credible witnesses, and 4 was enough.
We have entered an age where it is not acceptable to challenge certain claims and I find that pretty scary.
For shame. No one is preventing Andrew from challenging in court her version of events - you'll note in fact; the extraordinary lengths he seems to want to go through not to do that.
You're essentially arguing that it's scary that people find her believable, whereas (god love him) Jive has put forward the idea that abuse like this has gone on for decades and decades. We used to live in an age where women like Virginia were routinely dismissed as hysterical or vengeful or just simply lying whores - the claim you yourself are making. All that's happened is that she's allowed to have her say in front of a judge and a jury.
sully the reputation of man formally known as “Handy Andy”?
His nickname was Randy Andy. (I suppose he could have had that one also, but it's a new one on me if so.)
she was coerced into entering a room with a person about double her weight, considerably stronger, untouchable by law as far as she knew at the time and knew she was expected to have sex. She was in no position to decide what happened in that room.
Her version:
"I led him into the upstairs bathroom.
"I was doing my best trying to put on a good show for him by slowly undressing and started to pour a bath.
"The room quickly filled with steam as I turned to Andrew and began to kiss his neck and undress him.
I bow to your superior knowledge of sex-based royal nicknames - I knew it was something like that, just couldn't put my finger on it
And i am saying thats utter nonsense given that the age of consent in the UK is 16. By your weird definitions most of us are guilty of having sex with children legally – its bonkers
No, it's a statement of fact. We've already done this and the evidence was provided. It's not my definition, it's what the law says. Why you and Cougar are triggered by it is not obvious to me.
She was a woman, biologically. (I think I actually said “young woman,” didn’t I?) It is possible I suppose that she hadn’t cleared puberty by the age of 17 but it’s highly unlikely.
What do you mean by "biologically"? The ability to have children? If so, we're potentially talking some ten year olds in that category. Do you say they're women?
You’re demonstrating it perfectly.
Not at all I am quite open to either Andrew knew exactly what was going on down to the coercion and everything and also open to the fact Roberts was a willing participant and gained massively out of it.
However I miss typed it, I meant cognitive dissonance with respect to evidence given.
People assume I have a point of view when the reality is my problem is with the way people assume the man, famous person, rich person is always in the wrong and are not prepared to consider the motivations of the parties involved.
Like you admitted there is not even any evidence that Andrew even slept with her yet everyone wants him hanged. This is the point that seems to be missed. We do have to understand there are potentially large sums of money at stake here and that can be a large motivator.
All that’s happened is that she’s allowed to have her say in front of a judge and a jury.
...and of all the people she could have sued she's picked someone who she has a selfie with and a bloke who her lawyer has a massive personal beef with.
The prime minister, the foreign presents, everyone else, she doesn't want her day in court with just those two.
No one is preventing Andrew from challenging in court her version of events – you’ll note in fact; the extraordinary lengths he seems to want to go through not to do that
If we're using reluctance to go to court as our measure then VR has been reluctant to go to court for 20 bloody years and for 99pc of the people she's accusing!
I have a point of view when the reality is my problem is with the way people assume the man, famous person, rich person is always in the wrong
While I agree that the title of thread is a bit provocative, there's no hinderance to people saying exactly what you've just proposed. But you have to be willing to suspend quite a bit of belief to hold the idea that given what is publicly known about this case, that the victims here are Maxwell, Epstein and Windsor.
And I don't think people do always assume it the rich and wealthy that are in the wrong. Look at Saville, for instance.
I've a reply to that, Outofbreath. However, this a public forum and I'm not sure how much of my personal experience I want to share, "I was doing my best trying to put on a good show" says coerced to me.
From the previous page,
But all of that really isn’t the issue here, it’s the trafficking and abuse of position issues that make it unacceptable.
Are we talking about "unacceptable" (ie, morally bankrupt) or illegal?
Andrew isn't being charged with trafficking, that was Epstein and Maxwell. As far as I can work out there is no legal concept "abuse of power," rather it's Abuse of Trust and applies in very specific circumstances (such as teacher/pupil relationships) which don't seem to be the case here. I could be wrong, I'm no lawyer, I'm just trying to understand and to separate out facts from distractions.
Again: the charges against Andrew is that he had sex with her against her will because she was scared of repercussions if she didn't. There's also a count of battery which it also explains as having non-consensual sex with her, which I don't fully understand unless they're using coy language to refer to a BDSM session. To be honest, it's not wholly clear to me either as why they're not calling it rape, unless that's a harder charge to get to stick?
Morally, yes of course, it's horrific from beginning to end. But people don't go to jail for being immoral. I guess it hinges on how much he knew about her situation, he could have been oblivious to the entire thing but given the sheer scale of Epstein's operation that seems vanishingly unlikely to me. Surely no-one is that naive by the age of 40?
So the fact hat she’s repeatedly stated in filed court documents that she didn’t consent to sex is just her lying, right?
Her words:
“I led him into the upstairs bathroom.
“I was doing my best trying to put on a good show for him by slowly undressing and started to pour a bath.
“The room quickly filled with steam as I turned to Andrew and began to kiss his neck and undress him.
If this really happened would PA have known she wasn't consenting?
....and that's assuming it actually happened which we'll never know.
But you have to be willing to suspend quite a bit of belief to hold the idea that given what is publicly known about this case, that the victims here are Maxwell, Epstein and Windsor.
Thing is I don't think there has to be a victim, whilst unsavoury it could just have been fun at the time for everyone involved. Retrospectively with a large dose of cognitive dissonance ( I meant dissonance not bias last time) who knows what she thinks now.
She had a shit childhood no doubt but that does not mean at the time she didn't enter into this willingly and felt happy. She may feel differently retrospectively.
I’ve a reply to that, Outofbreath. However, this a public forum and I’m not sure how much of my personal experience I want to share, “I was doing my best trying to put on a good show” says coerced to me.
double her weight, considerably stronger
And the hypothesis completely changes.
Basically you've decided your conclusion and even when the facts change dramatically, you adjust your hypothesis to support your original conclusion.
No way to reason with that.
Have a good day.
Thing is I don’t think there has to be a victim, whilst unsavoury it could just have been fun at the time for everyone involved
But she's said that it wasn't "fun for her at the time" repeatedly in court and in public. So, in order to make this claim, you've got to assume that that's a lie. So I'll return to the point I made when you joined the thread, You're assuming that she's just cynically trying to make a buck. That's she' splaying at being a victim, just for the pay-out.
What do you mean by “biologically”? The ability to have children? If so, we’re potentially talking some ten year olds in that category. Do you say they’re women?
You know Ranos, you could've saved me a hell of a lot of typing across multiple threads over the last couple of days if you just used google occasionally.
I don't know how often I can say the same thing in slightly different ways, this is getting tedious now. "Child" has a specific meaning in English law. Outside of that, it is ambiguous and potentially misleading. That is all.