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

Custor said:
Thanks… you didnt linkie then?
So that’s lines a & b of the 2003 sexual offences act.
But not c then. That you’d have to reasonably believe there wasn’t consent.
Click to expand...

Well the alleged incident took place in 2001 so you're looking at the wrong law anyway and the other poster is generally a bit clueless and prone to ranting so I doubt you're going to get anything particularly coherent out of him re: why it was a crime.
 
Bottom line is when you hang about with bad people, you are bad people.

The slime bag knew exactly what he was getting into and like the rest of them was part of the ring.

He knew and took advantage of who knows how many victims.

The sad thing is he will escapes real justice, the girl was trafficked, thats official and as we all know ignorence is no defence.
 
The Queen and family will all be in hiding once the Telegraph tells its loyal silo that they are all part of Q-ANON
- Boris had planned a brexit celebration sometime though - maybe he had his.
 
dowie said:
Well the alleged incident took place in 2001 so you're looking at the wrong law anyway and the other poster is generally a bit clueless and prone to ranting so I doubt you're going to get anything particularly coherent out of him re: why it was a crime.
Click to expand...

Ranting? Hardly, I just call out racists and rape apologists. And, you got suspended last time I did it with respect to you iirc so guess it was true.

I’ll add some comments when I’m at my computer later as to how a trafficked victim can’t give consent, though I’m sad it has to be explained.
 
Angilion said:
Having consensual sex with someone who you knew travelled in from another country shouldn't be illegal in itself. Maybe it is nowadays, but it shouldn't be. That should require knowing that their consent was invalid for some reason. If he had sex with her at all, of course. Not even that has been proven.
Click to expand...


The point I’m making is that he wasn’t accused of simply having sex with somebody younger than him. He’s accused of having sex with a sex trafficking victim, by someone later convicted of similar and related crimes.
 
Custor said:
Thanks… you didnt linkie then?
So that’s lines a & b of the 2003 sexual offences act.
But not c then. That you’d have to reasonably believe there wasn’t consent.
Click to expand...
I decided to look this up because the other poster was annoying me with his lack of a clear answer.

Here is the UK law regarding consent
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/75

I think only C applies depending on circumstance maybe A and/or B
 
MoNkeE said:
The point I’m making is that he wasn’t accused of simply having sex with somebody younger than him. He’s accused of having sex with a sex trafficking victim, by someone later convicted of similar and related crimes.
Click to expand...

And still hung out with him post conviction, so has absolutely no defence. Pure pedo enabler.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
I decided to look this up because the other poster was annoying me with his lack of a clear answer.

Here is the UK law regarding consent
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/75

I think only C applies depending on circumstance maybe A and/or B
Click to expand...
I read it as you can’t deny C is any of the additional amendments applies . I.e if threatened or passed out or held captive .,, you can’t say they consented. ?
Trafficked Isn’t one of them… unless covered by drugs incarcerated etc.
so unless VG was in fear of violence, drugged up or held hostage then… HRH wasn’t a mind reader.
Happy for it to be explain otherwise … in law.

which is why no one’s complained of rape apart from Internet forums.
 
Custor said:
I read it as you can’t deny C is any of the additional amendments applies . I.e if threatened or passed out or held captive .,, you can’t say they consented. ?
Trafficked Isn’t one of them… unless covered by drugs incarcerated etc.
so unless VG was in fear of violence, drugged up or held hostage then… HRH wasn’t a mind reader.
Happy for it to be explain otherwise … in law.

which is why no one’s complained of rape apart from Internet forums.
Click to expand...
I just realised that Section 1 and 2 has lettering in it.
My first post was referring to section 2 but I've just seen Section 1 C). So unless Andrew knew her ciscumstance beforehand he can't have known that consent wasn't possible.

I think it could be argued that trafficking counts as being unlawafully detained (section 2 C), but I cannot be bothered to look up, if this is true in the legal world.
Behind the scenes she may have experienced threats of violence but once again we don't know if andrew knew.
 
a few seconds of googles cpu
Virginia Giuffre has accused Prince Andrew of knowing that she was being trafficked, according to newly released court documents. QED
 
Angilion said:
Having consensual sex with someone who you knew travelled in from another country shouldn't be illegal in itself. Maybe it is nowadays, but it shouldn't be. That should require knowing that their consent was invalid for some reason. If he had sex with her at all, of course. Not even that has been proven.
Click to expand...

I just think you’re being extremely manipulative here with your choice of language. He’s not guilty unless he’s convicted, sure - I get you here. But you also can’t seem to admit the actual crime he’s been accused of without twisting it in to “having consensual sex with somebody younger than him”. You can’t have it both ways, you’re just trivialising the accusation.
 
Angilion said:
Having consensual sex with someone who you knew travelled in from another country shouldn't be illegal in itself. Maybe it is nowadays, but it shouldn't be. That should require knowing that their consent was invalid for some reason. If he had sex with her at all, of course. Not even that has been proven.
Click to expand...

Thank Christ for that, I KNOW that you didn’t mean it that way, but if having carnal knowledge of a woman who’s flown in from another country was a criminal offence, then I seriously pushed the envelope with a Swedish divorcée circa 1979 in Vale de Lobo, on the Algarve.
 
dowie said:
To be fair it's not like she's some poor Eastern European chick who thinks she's going to the West to work as a nanny etc.. then gets her passport confiscated and threats to tell her family etc..

This is someone who willingly did this for money and allegedly recruited other girls to do so too - she was both a victim at one point because of her age and allegedly a willing coconspirator and trafficker herself when she turned 18.
Click to expand...


Has it been proven she was a prostitute? My understanding is a journalist has said she was in a court document. You are talking like its a proven fact.

Also is it unusual for girls that have been groomed to them help groom others? They are under the influence of the men who groomed them.

She may well be lying and its all a scam but there may well be lots of truth in her story, we will probably never know. You are wording it like she is guilty of offences but there is no evidence Andrew is.
 
Jean-F said:
Thank Christ for that, I KNOW that you didn’t mean it that way, but if having carnal knowledge of a woman who’s flown in from another country was a criminal offence, then I seriously pushed the envelope with a Swedish divorcée circa 1979 in Vale de Lobo, on the Algarve.
Click to expand...

You're in this film, somewhere, maybe incognito, but damn it, you're there alright ;)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074094/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom