Prince Andrew named in Pedophile case....Royal Family becoming EXPOSED!!!

a reply to: liteonit6969

Here Here... Thanks for bringing it back on track, although saying that it was me that went off road on that one though.

@stumason I got no beef with you mate, and part of me agrees, but i think you should edit your post and take that bit off as it sends the wrong message.

It is illegal, even under the UK Sexual Offences laws which are behind the times to say the least... Did you know that marital rape was not made an offence in the UK until 1991... 1991!!!! Seriously!

Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread OP

a reply to: stumason

Statutory rape is rape. There are no two ways about it. It's a term used to draw a distinction between those are vulnerable and therefore unable to give informed consent and those who are not.

Anyone can report sexual abuse of a minor, it doesn't have to be the child themselves. They will then usually be required to give a statement.

Sometimes vulnerable young people can be 'bought off'. Sometimes they can't face the trauma of giving evidence in a trial and facing the perpetrator or reliving the experience, especially where the perpetrator has the audacity to plead innocent thus insuring they have to testify. Being paid off doesn't mean that they are 'money grabbing' or 'greedy' or any other words that the media like to throw about to sway our impressions.

It's important to remember this, and that most young people don't lie about abuse.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: stumason

First of all i like your picture. Sums up your stance before you even comment on the matter.

Ah, assumptions - the mother of all fudge ups.. Carry on!

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Your arguments all sound rediculous.

At least I can spell it!

originally posted by: liteonit6969
When you put yourself into a situation with a girl who is underage you are opening yourself to those kinds of accusations.

Indeed, but if that girl tells you she isn't a minor, do you ask to see her passport?

originally posted by: liteonit6969
A bit of advice.....dont get into bed with a minor

I didn't....

originally posted by: liteonit6969
and dont claim a friend was innocent when was clearly guilty.

As far as I am aware, he didn't actually have sex with her, but instead simply got to third base. Again, if she says she is old enough, are you supposed to ask for ID?

originally posted by: liteonit6969
It doesnt matter what the young girl did or said, he is the adult and thus should know better.

Actually, there is a defence in law for precisely this example. If the girl says she is of age and you have no reason to not believe her - ie, you met her in a pub, or she looks the right age etc. So, dismount your good Horse, Sanctimonious,

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Also this has everything to do with the scum that are the royal family. The are a family who live of the backs of hard working people in ways that people should not live. Private jets, mansions too big for 100 people never mind 3. People need to wake up to the crimes these people commit

I am going to enjoy this one - exactly how do "they" live of the backs of "hard working people"?

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Your opinions are the product of the brainwashing that the media facilitate along with the education system (non education system should i say).

Ah, the tried and tested straw man..... Brainwashed? Ok..

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Finally when someone settles out of court, why would it suggest they are lying.

Because the burden of proof in a Civil Court is significantly less than any Criminal Court and anyone can bring a prosecution with very little, if any, evidence.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Their lives have been ruined by these monsters and the choice of getting money to help with living or the process of going through the corrupt courts and pay for legal fees with money you have not got for a result which probably go against you.

You don't need to pay any money to bring a Criminal conviction, you fool! What a spurious argument and a particularly lame one at that! The State handles the prosecution and if there is evidence, convictions follow.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Unfortunately fools dont listen, they obide.

Obide? That's not even a word!

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: stumason

Statutory rape is rape

Explain why no one convicted of Sexual offences with a Child under 16 (aged over 13) is convicted of rape then! It isn't! Only sex with a child under the age of 13 is considered rape.

Here you go, have a read...

originally posted by: beansidhe
Anyone can report sexual abuse of a minor, it doesn't have to be the child themselves. They will then usually be required to give a statement.

They can refuse to give a statement, there is no "requirement"

a reply to: stumason

It is precisely for that reason both sides distanced themselves, as I am sure you would if a good mate turns out to like them young!

Um, except that Epstein was convicted of soliciting underage prostitution in 2008 and Prince Andrew stayed close public friends for 3 years!!

And with regards to the 14+ thing, this was what was in effect back when this happened - the girl has to make the complaint not another adult - I don't know if this has been changed in 2003 with a new Sexual Offences Act - I stopped caring about whether girls were old enough by then.

O_O um WHAT?!

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: stumason

Thats news to me, where is the UK Legislation that says that?

Its rape mate, plain as!

No, it isn't. It is called statutory rape because it is rape by legal definition, because one party cannot legally give consent but it is not actual rape. The offence by which someone would be prosecuted is Sexual Offences with a Child under 16, not rape.

And with regards to the 14+ thing, this was what was in effect back when this happened - the girl has to make the complaint not another adult - I don't know if this has been changed in 2003 with a new Sexual Offences Act - I stopped caring about whether girls were old enough by then.

It is illegal mate, its in the 2003 Sexual offences act and it is applied retrospectivally... If it helps, i think the only thing regarding that area that cant be applied retrospectivally to a historic sexual offence is the inclusion in the sexual offenders register.

Seriously though mate, that can send the message that its okay to sleep with a 15 year old, and thats just wrong... I hope you can see where im coming from.

originally posted by: Ridhya
Um, except that Epstein was convicted of soliciting underage prostitution in 2008[/url]

Yup, I am aware of that. And the only evidence that Epstein was "friends for 3 years" was them being photpgraphed walking in a park having what looks like quite a stern chat.

originally posted by: beansidhe

And with regards to the 14+ thing, this was what was in effect back when this happened - the girl has to make the complaint not another adult - I don't know if this has been changed in 2003 with a new Sexual Offences Act - I stopped caring about whether girls were old enough by then.

O_O um WHAT?!

And by that I mean (obviously) I was far too old to be chasing teenage girls and instead developed an affection for older women instead!

Maybe this is why Maxwell got away with so much...blackmail.

a reply to: HumanPLC

Who's arguing the legality? Not me!

I am arguing because you're insisting that it was rape, when it wasn't and the Act itself makes this distinction.

And I agree, the whole 14+ thing sounded odd when we were told about it at school - because our teachers wanted us to know our rights - and we thought the same thing. Maybe it was some grey area later sorted out, but either way, there is a defence for a girl telling you she is one age and being under-age.

a reply to: stumason
That and royal outings because, you know, the richest men in the world who can afford to go literally anywhere just so happen to meet up in the same pheasant hunt, and decide they're not going to let a little pedophilia get in between their friendship:



"Why is there an underage masseuse on your private residence?" said no prince ever

a reply to: uncommitted

Does it matter if she actually was 17 at the time?

Forced = RAPE.

And rape is rape at any age.

a reply to: stumason

Yep, were all saying rape is rape; however you seem to be saying there are different kinds of rape, hence my use of the term good rape, bad rape!

Anyway, the conspiracy side of me is starting to say to me "Is this deliberate trolling, is this fella trying to derail an important thread"... So i will leave it there if its cool as i dont wanna derail this any more.

a reply to: stumason
Not to mentionas far back as 2006 people were distancing themselves from him and yet the Prince carried on, knowingly. FIVE YEARS!

Harvard refused to return Epsteins money, despite their official policy (see link above). He probably has his tentacles deep in the court system, too.

Lord forgive thy reptilian brethren for they know not what they do.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: uncommitted

Does it matter if she actually was 17 at the time?

Forced = RAPE.

And rape is rape at any age.

You are totally and completely missing the point - deliberately? Who has said the person making the statement was raped? Who is being charged on an offence of rape? No one. And yes, the age is a key thing here as people are suggesting that the alleged victim in the alleged offence was of an age that was illegal.

a reply to: stumason

Ahh, there you go. I was wondering how long it'd go before a 'proud Englishman' would resort to victim blaming to defend their beloved inbred welfare family.

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: stumason

Yep, were all saying rape is rape; however you seem to saying there are different kinds of rape, hence my use of the term good rape, bad rape!

You can all say green is blue, but that doesn't make it so!

originally posted by: HumanPLC
Anyway, the conspiracy side of me is starting to say to me "Is this deliberate trolling, is this fella trying to derail an important thread"... So i will leave it there if its cool as i dont wanna derail this any more.

Nope, not trolling, I was just trying to inject some real life experience into this and you guys have got all anal over semantics, so I too will leave it there as obviously one cannot have an adult conversation around these parts.

a reply to: stumason

I know the legislation, I've worked with children who have been sexually abused for over 10 years. My point is that there is no 'sort of' rape or 'real' rape.
Rape is rape is rape.

This is a bugbear of mine because I hear it all the time. Rape is about power, control.. not just the act of sex.

They can refuse to give a statement, or worse (and more common) give a statement and then it all falls apart because there is no corroboration.

a reply to: beansidhe

Then you should well know the difference then between actual sexual abuse of children and a 15 year old girl climbing into bed with a slightly older teenage boy after lying about her age....

But anyway.....

a reply to: uncommitted

I think there are some crucial points that Stockholm Syndrome sufferers are failing to acknowledge, those being the words "loaned" and "sex slave" and oh yes by and American investment banker. You loan property. You are property if you are a sex slave. Nothing says SCUMBAG like the moniker "american investment banker". I am amazed at the level of successful programing though. Sleeping unwashed masses, drooling their marmite down ruddy faces stagger onward one step after another. At the behest of pomp and circumstance, waving brightly coloured rags of red, white and blue they mouth the words to ancient songs and worship ossified remnants of a withering world. How asinine to worship anyone or anything save your own divinity. Know not that ye are Gods?