Why the prince andrew` scandal` is ridiculous

a reply to: eletheia

Prostitution is not legal under the age of eighteen.

But you already know that, it is you that is misleading through omission.

a reply to: eletheia

If you cant understand how Prince Andrews sex offender friend who supplied the underage prostitute to him and had the prince visit his mansion where he kept a underage prostitutes then you are being selectively ignorant.

Seriously.. lay on the question mark button even though you know damn well how Epstein fits into this.

What is your agenda? You are trying to downplay Prince Andrews crimes and hia friendship with a sex offender who trafficked Andrew an underage prostitute who he then allegedly proceeded to rape.

It's actually starting to creep me out a little bit.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: midicon
It makes all the difference. The age of consent may be sixteen but not when prostitution is involved. That is without even bringing up the question of the particulars of her claims. Of course you knew this already. In this case the lawyer is not going to lie about her age.

What's your problem

16 years is the legal age of consent in UK

Prostitution is legal in the UK

Perhaps immoral? But NOT illegal

Ever heard of *misleading by omission*

No you are either being ignorant or lying.

In the UK prostitution is illegal with anyone under 18. The age of consent is not extended to sex work.

Also pimping and pandering are illegal as is forced prostitution. You seem to be ommitting the fact this gurl was TRAFFICKED from another country. So even if she were legal in the UK (which she wasn't) she'd have to be legal in the place she left.

You are really working hard to justify someone elses sex crime.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Yep. At this point it's kinda weirded me out. Well past the point where someone should change their opinion. Maybe it's someone that can't admit they are wrong, I dont know, but it's creepy. I like to believe there aren't paid opinuons out there really engaging people, but I've never run across one like this.

The poster has, lied and denied and justified. In one of the last posts she said the age of consent in the UK is 16 and prostitution is legal implying 16 year old prostitutes were legal. Failed to mention that the age of consent for prostitution is actually 18 and the only prostitution thar is legal is to pay someone for sex. You cant walk the streets, solicit, pimp, and sure as hell cant traffic girls from other countries for other people.

Reply to
grandmakdw
midicon
GogoVicMorrow

LOL!!! sure as hell cant fault you for imagination!

If I were 16 yrs. and having sex for money I sure as hell would not
be sharing my income with anyone else.

I thank God that I live within a justice system which deals in
FACTS and is not swayed by the vitriol, envy, and jealousy
of those who are less materially advantaged.
AND
That a person is deemed innocent till proven guilty .....
And not *guilty* simply by association

Hope none of you have done jury service ... I have.

a reply to: eletheia

What you are saying doesnt make sense.
First it's not just guilt by association. There is an alleged victim and witness. That's pretty bad, but then we know he was on this island.. easy enough to see if he was there at the same time as underage girls.

You are talking as if all the facts are gathered. We arent talking jury service we are talking about enough of a case to build and investigate more. You don't want to know if he's done even more vile things. With the way thibgs have been going in the UK, Celebrities and MPs wrappes up in peadophile rings, I can see why, but it needs to happen.

Then we will talk Jury Service (and btw one couldnt ask for a better juror than me, I had Casey Anthony pegged not guilty before the verdict).

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

Except the witness never claimed Prince Andrew did anything. Every accusation made was towards her pimp. So assuming she is being honest, she was paid by someone else to have sex with the Prince, did so, and Andrew did nothing wrong.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

Except the witness never claimed Prince Andrew did anything. Every accusation made was towards her pimp. So assuming she is being honest, she was paid by someone else to have sex with the Prince, did so, and Andrew did nothing wrong.

It would have been nice if Andrew had given a statement under oath as was requested. That is not to say that he should respond to every statement made about him but this case has background and merits investigation. I daresay if there hadn't been a photograph he would have denied ever meeting her.

We also shouldn't lose sight of what this is about. If she is being honest and was paid to have sex with Andrew then he does have a case to answer. A crime has been committed.

Of course he can easily deny having sex, knowing her age or background etc. It would be interesting to find out how many of those sex parties he attended. What is he doing hanging around with a convicted child trafficker and paedophile anyway? Perhaps he is just a sleaze ball I can't say but Virginia Roberts so far has been quite determined to prove her case and we will see what comes out.

Edit to add...

If someone pays a seventeen year old to have sex with me then I have most assuredly done something wrong.

a reply to: eletheia

If I were 16 yrs. and having sex for money I sure as hell would not be sharing my income with anyone else.

I am sure you wouldn't but you would be breaking the law. Is it not revealing, given your stance on this thread, that for you it all comes down to money and not about the abuse that the girl has suffered.

You have made much of the idea that teenage girls lie, perhaps you should be reminded that Virginia Roberts is not a teenager.

There has been no vitriol, jealousy or envy displayed in any of my posts...please quote me, that I may attend to any misconstrued comments.

Regards midicon.

originally posted by: midicon
We also shouldn't lose sight of what this is about. If she is being honest and was paid to have sex with Andrew then he does have a case to answer. A crime has been committed.

Yes, but not by him.

If someone pays a seventeen year old to have sex with me then I have most assuredly done something wrong.

100% false, can you show me exactly what crime that is?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I would have been complicit in a crime.

I may plead ignorance, fair enough, but I would be investigated and rightly so.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I would have been complicit in a crime.

I may plead ignorance, fair enough, but I would be investigated and rightly so.

You did not say you would need to be investigated, you said you would be guilty of a crime. Why can't you tell me exactly what the charge would be? Because you realize he committed no crime?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You did not say you would need to be investigated, you said you would be guilty of a crime. Why can't you tell me exactly what the charge would be? Because you realize he committed no crime?

I said...

I would have been complicit in a crime.

I may plead ignorance, fair enough, but I would be investigated and rightly so.

I don't know that he has committed no crime. He might have known her age and circumstance. If there was no connection established between Epstein, Andrew and the girl then her claim would have been dismissed out of hand. Guilty or not.

If what the girl says is true then a crime has been committed. Should it not then follow that all those involved are investigated even if only to exonerate the innocent?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

WRONG. She said he raped her. She was underage. She was trafficked for sex. All three of those are crimes.
And you guys don't want to investigate what he was up to when he visited the underage sex island. He went there.. he knew underage girls were kept there.

More investigation is required to bring more charges, but should already be facing the three known crimes.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

Except the witness never claimed Prince Andrew did anything. Every accusation made was towards her pimp. So assuming she is being honest, she was paid by someone else to have sex with the Prince, did so, and Andrew did nothing wrong.

Why lie. She DID say is was Andrew. No, not every accusation was made towards her pimp.

'I will not be bullied into silence': Woman who claims Prince Andrew abused her while she was billionaire's 'underage sex slave' says she is being 'unjustly victimised' Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... html"
Link

originally posted by: stosh64
Why wont everyone leave poor Andrew alone, cant you see he is being set up.

The royals and the rest of the elites have the highest of moral standards and are the poor targets of the jealous peasants.

They would not have, or need the ability to hide perversities like they are accused of.

I feel sorry for the peasants that are so jealous of our poor royals that they have to make up such heinous lies.

Cant you see he is just a down to earth, wholesome family man?
SARC/off

People need to study up on trauma based mind control and dissociative identity disorder.

...and all paid for with public money...'aving a laugh, and flippin' the bird...

...of course, he thought he was attending a 'fundraiser'...

Å99

i can not see why any fellow english man would try and support this scum she was 17 and under the laws where she was it was illegal period ,this is fact
how long has strange been associated with this family ,i e ,jack the ripper the royal coach(ever wondered why they never caught him)

the royals are guilty of hiding many secrets including their love of prostitutes and all things sick..

oh my god :he is a decendant of the prince regent