Prince Andrew not served papers as they were handed to his police security.

Tony Edwards said:
I keep mentioning this but. The legal age for a sex working in the UK is 18. Lets at least agree that Epstiens women were sex workers?
Click to expand...

I was specifically replying to hurfdurf (I know, I really should know better) inflammatory hyperbole that a sweaty nonce is only being defended because of todays rape culture.

There are other things to consider in this case though, like sex trafficking, but Andrew's claim is it was consensual as she wasn't (or at least didn't know she was) sex trafficked. It isn't defending a nonce to point out that consensual sex with a17 year old is legal, no matter how immoral you may personally judge it.

That is assuming that Andrew is telling the truth and is innocent which, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying he is. But until it goes to an actual court, rather than the court of public opinion, where a decision will be made on the facts rather than a he said she said slinging match, he should be considered innocent.
 
Hotwired said:
Sure Hurfdurf, you vanished after your bizzare sex offender by association posts and you're back like it never happened to nonce spam again (clearly nonce by association is something you strongly believe in) while claiming others are unhinged.
Click to expand...

Vanished? It’s a forum. I’m not logged in 24/7. Touch grass.
 
Greboth said:
I was specifically replying to hurfdurf (I know, I really should know better) inflammatory hyperbole that a sweaty nonce is only being defended because of todays rape culture.

There are other things to consider in this case though, like sex trafficking, but Andrew's claim is it was consensual as she wasn't (or at least didn't know she was) sex trafficked. It isn't defending a nonce to point out that consensual sex with a17 year old is legal, no matter how immoral you may personally judge it.

That is assuming that Andrew is telling the truth and is innocent which, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying he is. But until it goes to an actual court, rather than the court of public opinion, where a decision will be made on the facts rather than a he said she said slinging match, he should be considered innocent.
Click to expand...

Sex traffickers apply pressure on vulnerable victim to force them to have sex. That’s rape. 40 year olds should not be raping vulnerable 17 year old women. I am astounded this needs to be explained, but then, we live in a rape culture and a lot of posters itt are telling on themselves with “well technically it was legal?!”
 
hurfdurf said:
Sex traffickers apply pressure on vulnerable victim to force them to have sex
Click to expand...

True.

hurfdurf said:
That’s rape. 40 year olds should not be raping vulnerable 17 year old women.
Click to expand...

True.

hurfdurf said:
I am astounded this needs to be explained, but then, we live in a rape culture and a lot of posters itt are telling on themselves with “well technically it was legal?!”
Click to expand...

I am astounded that "innocent until proven guilty" is such a hard concept for you grasp.

Until it is proven, and by proven I mean in a court (either civil or criminal) and not faeces flinging in the press or because the great almighty hurfdurf says so, Andrew should rightly be considered innocent. In which case, as I said, it was consensual sex with a 17 year old which whatever moral objections you have to a 40 year old having sex with a 17 year old is, is completely legal and doesn't make him a nonce.

Just to spell it out again though, that doesn't mean I'm saying Andrew is innocent. On the balance of what we know it looks probable that he isn't BUT you can't punish anyone legally, financially or socially because they're probably guilty.
 
hurfdurf said:
Sex traffickers apply pressure on vulnerable victim to force them to have sex. That’s rape. 40 year olds should not be raping vulnerable 17 year old women. I am astounded this needs to be explained, but then, we live in a rape culture and a lot of posters itt are telling on themselves with “well technically it was legal?!”
Click to expand...
Jesus. You are making a lot of broad statements here
 
hurfdurf said:
You want to look rationally about a 40 year old man having sex with a vulnerable sex trafficked 17 year old do you? If you can’t rationally see a problem with that, you are part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Part of what problem?

We have heard no evidence more than "he said/she said" up to this point.

If my "problem" is not judging someone where it is clear there is further evidence to come from BOTH sides, then I'll accept that.

If you're saying my problem is I am defending rapists and child abusers then you are incorrect.

Which is it?
 
It does feel that way. Rather than trying to prove his innocence they're trying to prove her memories are false. Strange defence.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-12895-004

Looks like it's been used before:

Discusses the components of false memory defense used by convicted and self-confessed child molesters and their advocates to negate their criminal behavior. The 22 examined defense components use various tactics to shift blame, and negate the experiences and memories of the accusers. Some of these tactics include using the testimony of expert witnesses who subscribe to false memory syndrome, proposing other explanations for the accusation or the accuser's symptoms, misinterpreting the effects of trauma, referring to biased media articles, and using pseudoscientific jargon. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
 
hurfdurf said:
Sex traffickers apply pressure on vulnerable victim to force them to have sex. That’s rape. 40 year olds should not be raping vulnerable 17 year old women. I am astounded this needs to be explained, but then, we live in a rape culture and a lot of posters itt are telling on themselves with “well technically it was legal?!”
Click to expand...

Your argument, if applied fairly, would make all sex work highly illegal. It would require all customers to prove, absolutely prove, that the people they're hiring are not being influenced in any way, explicitly including money or anything else of value. That would obviously make sex work impossible as sex workers are paid. But you're going much further than that, all the way to classifying everyone involved as a rapist even if they didn't know the other person was being influenced in some way unknown to them. Under your rules, all sex would be extremely risky and best avoided entirely.
 
Last edited:
Minstadave said:
It does feel that way. Rather than trying to prove his innocence they're trying to prove her memories are false. Strange defence. [..]
Click to expand...

The only other defence would be to claim that she's lying. Which would be worse publicity as well as being impossible. If her claim isn't true, either she believes it's true or she doesn't. If she does, her memories are false. If she doesn't, she's lying. Those are the only two possibilities if her claim isn't true, so those are the only two possible defences against her claim.

As for proving his innocence...could you prove where you were at a specific time on a specific evening over 20 years ago? But it's irrelevant anyway because even if he could prove he wasn't even there that would be the same defence - her claim isn't true.
 
Angilion said:
Your argument, if applied fairly, would make all sex work highly illegal. It would require all customers to prove, absolutely prove, that the people they're hiring are not being influenced in any way, explicitly including money or anything else of value. That would obviously make sex work impossible as sex workers are paid. But you're going much further than that, all the way to classifying everyone involved as a rapist even if they didn't know the other person was being influenced in some way unknown to them. Under your rules, all sex would be extremely risky and best avoided entirely.
Click to expand...

Depends what level of influence you are having.

An adult making a reasoned decision to have sex for money, fine.

A child being picked up from a poor family, groomed by wealthy elites, paid money for “massages” and then told they have to have sex with people without the ability to say no, is entirely different.

You need to stop seeing the world as so black and white and learn some nuance.
 
plasmahal said:
Yes, they need to stop attacking him, innocent until proven guilty and all that!!!!!

His girlfriend looks happy in the photo though.
Click to expand...

Ey up Plasmo :) Did you mend Prince Andrew's chopper in your previous RAF life, is that the reason for your apparent loyalty to the guy? To be fair, it probably did need quite a lot of maintenance.
 
hurfdurf said:
Depends what level of influence you are having.

An adult making a reasoned decision to have sex for money, fine.

A child being picked up from a poor family, groomed by wealthy elites, paid money for “massages” and then told they have to have sex with people without the ability to say no, is entirely different.

You need to stop seeing the world as so black and white and learn some nuance.
Click to expand...

The woman was previously by her own free choice, living for six months with another known sex trafficker, and later working as a "spa attendant" <cough> at Donald Trump's Mar a Lago resort. She'd previously lived on the streets for some time. Whilst working for Epstein she herself went on a grooming mission to Thailand in order to procure a Thai girl Epstein fancied.

Yet you portray her as some innocent who was, quite unbeknown to her, being used? Far from it, even an hour's casual research shows this woman to have been street wise, morally bankrupt and "up for it".

She was a prostitute in all but name already, in my opinion, eyes wide open to all that was happening and happy with her perceived rewards.

She had unfettered opportunities to seek help if she was being coerced against her will, instead, when in Thailand trying to procure another bint for Epstein, she marries a martial arts instructor shortly after meeting him, and starts another chapter of her life.

Only later does she smell the opportunity to make more money on the back of her acquaintances, is paid off, signing a none disclosure agreement, that she then renagdes upon.

Only the most naieve or agendered could find sympathy for her.

You said "You need to stop seeing the world as so black and white and learn some nuance." I chortled... ;)
 
Last edited:
Bubo said:
Ey up Plasmo :) Did you mend Prince Andrew's chopper in your previous RAF life, is that the reason for your apparent loyalty to the guy? To be fair, it probably did need quite a lot of maintenance.
Click to expand...

Hey blubs, no I couldn't get near randy andy's chopper, he was in the navy. As for William, I oiled up his chopper real good.
 
Nice to know at least some royal choppers are properly lubed. It would not be a good idea to go into action with an unlubed chopper, depending on where it was deployed. I imagine it would be traumatic and not something easily forgotten.
 
Chris Wilson said:
The woman was previously by her own free choice, living for six months with another known sex trafficker, and later working as a "spa attendant" <cough> at Donald Trump's Mar a Lago resort. She'd previously lived on the streets for some time. Whilst working for Epstein she herself went on a grooming mission to Thailand in order to procure a Thai girl Epstein fancied.

Yet you portray her as some innocent who was, quite unbeknown to her, being used? Far from it, even an hour's casual research shows this woman to have been street wise, morally bankrupt and "up for it".

She was a prostitute in all but name already, in my opinion, eyes wide open to all that was happening and happy with her perceived rewards.

She had unfettered opportunities to seek help if she was being coerced against her will, instead, when in Thailand trying to procure another bint for Epstein, she marries a martial arts instructor shortly after meeting him, and starts another chapter of her life.

Only later does she smell the opportunity to make more money on the back of her acquaintances, is paid off, signing a none disclosure agreement, that she then renagdes upon.

Only the most naieve or agendered could find sympathy for her.

You said "You need to stop seeing the world as so black and white and learn some nuance." I chortled... ;)
Click to expand...

C'mon now Chris... Don't you understand that Guiffre only did these things as a result of the manipulation, coercion and grooming she was subjected to ;).

Hurf's method of arguing is that everyone must agree with him or you are either:
  • Naive
  • Un-intelligent
  • See everything black and white
  • Part of the problem (rape apologist, child abuser etc)
Choose 1 or more from the above and add in some emotionally triggering language to strengthen a post that would otherwise not stand on its own merit.... You know, the way tabloid media outlets act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom