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

a reply to: stumason

A 15 year old girl IS a child under legislation. She is still considered vulnerable because she is not considered to have the emotional maturity to have informed consent.

These are allegations, bear in mind.

Just my tuppence worth as some people seem to think that it's "guilty" without any examination of the facts. Jeffrey Epstein sounds quite unsavoury, and has form, but who's to say that the allegations are true, or exaggerated to ensure widespread press coverage.

Regards

originally posted by: beansidhe
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.

So, take all of the names out of the equation and what do we have here? A civil court prosecution where someone is making allegations not to see someone convicted and imprisoned, but one where they want to get money. The word rape is not used anywhere I have seen, rather that she was a sex slave but no detail whatsoever that I have seen as to how that took place. Prince Andrew mentioned as an alleged person who allegedly had sex with her with totally no detail as to where, when, how and under what circumstances that allegedly took place. People are quick to say it was allegedly with a minor yet the alleged victim was above the legal age in the UK.

And yet you are already saying it's rape. That wicked crime requires a little more than throwing someones name into the hat before it can be considered conclusive - I could just as easily name any member of your family (if I knew who they were, obviously) and say they had committed such a vile act. Would that be ok with you?

a reply to: beansidhe

Sigh.... yes, I know... Again, that was not the point I was making, but well done for twisting it to suit your purpose...

I give up...



a reply to: paraphi

I started off saying that, got sidetracked with a personal story and taht was that...

Still, this is a Civil trial, no criminal trial at all, merely allegations and the bulk of ATS have already convicted the man like he was actually charged with an offence, without even hearing the allegations in detail, much less any defence. Same as usual, then.

a reply to: paraphi

I do agree but Epstein is already a convicted sex offendeder and so it would be fair to say he has already demonstrated the natural tendency to behave in a particular way.

a reply to: HumanPLC

Clarification! Prince Andrew is not a convicted sex offender!

I know you meant the other chappy, but this thread is about Andrew and there is no evidence and no prior form, so judging him on the actions of a friend is laughable to the extreme.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: uncommitted

My point earlier was solely to clarify the misapprehension between rape and statutory rape. I haven't commented on the OP.

The word rape is not used anywhere I have seen, rather that she was a sex slave

Sex slave? Oh, that's ok then. That would imply equality, respect and consent. Would it?

Andrew has chosen to remain freindly with a Schedule One offender, even after charges had been brought, according to the Guardian article. That is interesting, I would say, although not proof of anything.

a reply to: stumason


I apologise for the poor spelling. But at least i can apologise for a mistake, the worry is that you truly believe what you are saying. It is frightening to say the least. As others have said RAPE IS RAPE.

I WILL REPEAT DOWN HERE IN CASE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND:

RAPE IS RAPE.


Ok got that out of the way. It does appear to me you are trolling. You are making very large comments repeating yourself trying to overtake a real conversation about the real issues here. Not the definition of rape, but the abuses of those in power and the elite. The facts that many of them are above the law and know it.

The Royal Family living off the backs of the hard working? How do you even question that. It is fact. Do a bit of basic research into the history of not only this royal family but throughout the world and how they have tortured murdered enslaved the mass to feed their thirst for power. Blue blood? Ha!!


Please do some research on important issues instead of derailing important topics with grammar and spelling corrections.
And also for yourself and your family do some subjective research on these issues and come to your own educated opinion. Then hopefully you will see beyond your union jack tinted glasses and see what the heck is going on. I dont have any problem with you and wish you all the best in this new year thats why im conversing with you because i feel people are not really seeing.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: HumanPLC

Clarification! Prince Andrew is not a convicted sex offender!

I know you meant the other chappy, but this thread is about Andrew and there is no evidence and no prior form, so judging him on the actions of a friend is laughable to the extreme.

lol, okay keep calm (and carry on).. sorry i couldnt resist that!

I think its obvious who i am referring to as its a reply however ive made it even more clear

originally posted by: liteonit6969
I apologise for the poor spelling. But at least i can apologise for a mistake, the worry is that you truly believe what you are saying. It is frightening to say the least. As others have said RAPE IS RAPE.

I WILL REPEAT DOWN HERE IN CASE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND:

RAPE IS RAPE.

Actually, no it isn't. I have gone over why and believe me, sleep with a 15 year old girl (in the UK) and you will not be charged with rape (unless of course, you raped her....). Sexual Acts with a child under 16, yes, but not rape.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
The Royal Family living off the backs of the hard working? How do you even question that. It is fact. Do a bit of basic research into the history of not only this royal family but throughout the world and how they have tortured murdered enslaved the mass to feed their thirst for power. Blue blood? Ha!!

You made the claim buddy, so put up or shut up. Don't presume to tell me to do "basic research" and offer nothing yourself to back up what you said....

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Please do some research on important issues instead of derailing important topics with grammar and spelling corrections.

I did far more than that and it is telling you have to mention it twice in a post just to flesh out what you're saying.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
And also for yourself and your family do some subjective research on these issues and come to your own educated opinion. Then hopefully you will see beyond your union jack tinted glasses and see what the heck is going on. I dont have any problem with you and wish you all the best in this new year thats why im conversing with you because i feel people are not really seeing.

Uh-huh....

a reply to: stumason

Actually, no it isn't. I have gone over why and believe me, sleep with a 15 year old girl (in the UK) and you will not be charged with rape (unless of course, you raped her....). Sexual Acts with a child under 16, yes, but not rape.

C'mon ref (MODS) Please!!!

This is plain ignorance.

Rape - Sexual Offences Act 2003

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Nothing to do with anyone being aged over 15.

There is a second offence which does refer to someone under the age of 13

Rape of a child under 13

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis, and

(b)the other person is under 13.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Note... Its still referred to as rape in the title.

Source:

Maybe you could now admit you were a wee bit wrong on that?

a reply to: liteonit6969

Um, you're aware that it is the responsibility of the person making a claim, to supply the evidence to back their claim up. This applies to law, to science, to everything (except ATS apparently). You don't make a claim, then tell people to research it for you.

a reply to: uncommitted

"The age of consent in the UK is 16, she claims she was 17 and at least some of the 'offences' happened in London - therefore even if true, she wasn't underage. If it had happened in Florida, than it appears that would be a different question.

"Do 17 year olds in Florida really not have sex?"

I find your comment extremely offensive. You appear to be justifying this crime. Even if the girl was only 17, she alleges she was loaned out to several men by Epstein and bullied and threatened as well as repeated raped by him. Since several other women have come out with the same accusations, her account is by odds probably true.

Your comment appears to be a prime example of "blame the victim" in rape cases, and is absolutely revolting!

a reply to: stumason

"Embarrassing, perhaps, but not bad."

How revolting these comments are! It is "not bad" to loan out a teenage girl to several rapists while repeatedly raping her yourself as the "pimp"? What planet do you people live on? If true, this is a horrendous, despicable crime -- Epstein has already been found guilty for pedophilia, and here you are attempting to say his actions are "not bad"?

Your comments along with several others on this post are highly offensive to victims of rape and abuse everywhere.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Michael Jackson was exposed at least twice. The victim was paid off and he is still treated like royalty instead of the child molester he was.
this will be a repeat scenario most likely even if he is innocent.

Actually, no criminal charges stuck and he settled out of court which proves nothing other than his "victims" were willing to be paid a large sum of money rather than seek justice, which speaks volumes.

The same applies here - if there was any evidence, then surely criminal proceedings should be sought, not a civil trial were it seems at least some of the "victims" of this "abuse" were content to be paid off.

I don't know about you, but if I was raped as a youngster, I'd want Justice to be served, not a pot of cash.

So are you suggesting that she has prostituted herself for taking the money?

You are aware of how these things work Stu. Woman makes an accusation, the Police have either looked into these allegations and decided not to pursue a legal case or it was a direct civil case, omitting the Police from the equation. Rich man decides he can do without the hassle of a court case and makes an out of court offer. If he was squeaky clean, would he make an out of court offer? IMO, I don't think he would. I know for certain I wouldn't, so why make an offer?

Sure if I was abused as a youngster I would want the Police to get involved and the full effect of the justice system felt. However, historically these allegations have not been taken seriously. There's always someone, somewhere willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that it is never taken seriously. We have seen evidence of this in the U.K with Savile and the historic abuse of girls, boys and women.

In your sanitised view of the World, the justice system is there to protect victims, but we know damn well, that there are/were people entrenched within the establishment that just would not allow the police to do their job. Even Savile warned the officers who arrested him in Yorkshire in The 1980's that if was taken down, then the whole of the Yorkshire Constabulary would be taken down with him.

So, sure in a civilised society, where no one is above the law you would expect them to want their day in court and their perpetrator feeling the full force of the justice system. But, in real life it doesn't always work like this, so to receive financial compensation for any wrong doing is the only justice they are going to receive.

I just want to drop in and say:

you apologists make me sick. Anyone with a working brain can see that the elite of our wourld are sick, twisted perverts with a passion for abuse and violence.

originally posted by: lululeopard
www.dailymail.co.uk...

The daily mail isn't exactly a reliable news source. Its not for no reason that we nickname it the daily fail.

a reply to: liteonit6969

There is probably more incest as well in "royal families" than you would find in even the most remote regions of Arkansas.

originally posted by: BMorris

originally posted by: lululeopard
www.dailymail.co.uk...

The daily mail isn't exactly a reliable news source. Its not for no reason that we nickname it the daily fail.

news.sky.com...

www.bbc.co.uk...