Discussion in 'Headline News' started by Karin Schill, Nov 18, 2019.
So we just make the rules for what is illegal whatever we want them to be at the moment.
No, the law is very straightforward and consistent. The age of consent is 16, with additional protection for vulnerable children for whom the age of consent is 18.
But what are the parameters of "additional protection for vulnerable children for whom the age of consent is 18"??
If the age of consent is actually 16?
How do we delineate the gray area --- legally?
I thought I already explained. The law states that if a child is considered to be vulnerable they are not legally able to give consent until they are 18. It's up to the court to determine whether or not a child is considered to vulnerable.
So the age of consent isn't really 16.
Just as consensual sex for a 45 year old is now sometimes retroactive rape?
Well it obviously depends on the situation. If two teens decide to have sex it's a bit different from the situation here. Here you had girls that were trafficked to stay at a millionaire's house. They were obviously groomed. They were probably treated quite well, outside of being made to have sex with older men. They probably made money from doing what they did, but that is besides the point. They were used as a commodity. They were groomed and manipulated when they perhaps were not mature enough, or in the right state of mind to make the right decisions. There was an abuse of power. This girl didn't meet Andrew at 17 and fall in love with him and decide she was going to form a relationship with him.
Not all victims of sex trafficking have their passports held by a shady gangster and are kept in a darkened room on a dirty mattress on the floor.
It is but if someone is groomed and coerced into doing something like that then they are not legitimately giving consent. They aren't behaving as they would if they were not being groomed, influenced, bribed, forced or coerced. Someone in that situation wouldn't really be seen as of sound mind.
I really really wanted the Queen to come in and hit him with her handbag during the interview.
It would have been funny if the interviewer said "You are obviously perspiring now" and just moved on to the next question.
I've heard that the title of the Duke of York is to be discontinued - even on pub names. So whoever was next in line to be it, Lizzie will have to think of something else.
The Duke of Woking?
Then what should the charge against Prince Andrew technically be?
I'm not really sure. I'm obviously not a lawyer and its a complicated case. The charges, if any are brought may not even be relating to him having sexual relations with the girl. Unless evidence comes to light that he was directly involved in the procuring of girls. He could be charged with aiding and participating in a sex trafficking ring or child prostitution or something similar. It would probably not be about an individual person.
Although he's a royal so I don't fully expect any charges to be brought. I expect he will just scurry into some dark corner somewhere and continue to live a life of luxury. Just out of the public eye.
One of his accusers claims he has sex with her when she was 15. As she would have been to young to give consent at the time, the charge would be statutory rape.
One of his accusers?
How many girls claims to have had sex with Prince Andrew?
I thought there was just one girl that was tied to the Epstein case that brought forward accusations towards Prince Andrew.
I think there are 2: Virginia Giuffre and Johanna Sjoberg.
I found an article about the Johanna Sjoberg's claim's:
You have to scroll down quite a lot to get to it. According to this article Johanna didn't have intercourse with the Prince. He just sexually harrassed her, she sat in his lap and he groped her breasts. Also she was 21 at the time.
There is also a photo of Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre. What's interesting about the photo is that it also shows Andrew's friend Ghislaine Maxwell in the same photo.
I wonder what Ghislaine Maxwell has told the FBI?
I mean she was Epstein's girlfriend so she must have known what was going on, or didn't she?
This was the picture I was referring to when I made this comment:
and I believe that's the same picture that Emily Maitlis and Prince Andrew were discussing at the 23 min mark of the video. Ms Maitlis said to the prince that his friend thought the photograph was doctored; by 'friend' I think she means Ms Maxwell. Daily Mail also says that Ms Maxwell had said she thought the photograph was doctored, but didn't report when and to whom Ms Maxwell said that. In court in the US, when VG sued her, perhaps?
Assuming this picture (above) is the photograph Ms Maitlis and Prince Andrew were discussing.... The prince said it couldn't be proven that the photograph was doctored “because it is a photograph of a photograph of a photograph”. Only he knows what he means by that and where he learnt that from, but note that he doesn’t say it’s a digital copy of a photograph or even a reprint of a photo; so might he have been told that the images in that photograph come from 3 different photographs, a composite cleverly put together to leave no trace? He says it’s definitely a photo of him in his travelling clothes, of which there are many such photographs, but everything else….
The photograph shows the upstairs of Ms Maxwell’s house. He doesn’t remember going upstairs. He claims not to allow many photographs of him with public displays of affection, so presumably he would remember those like this one and he says he doesn’t remember this one. He says he doesn’t believe that the photograph was taken in the way it was suggested.
To prove him wrong in his recollection, all Virginia Giuffre nee Roberts needs to do is produce the original photograph, as Prince Andrew himself says in the interview.
I was under the impression she hadn't spoken to the FBI.
Separate names with a comma.