Yawn.
Prince Andrew not served papers as they were handed to his police security.
- Thread starter Tefal
- Start date
Yawn.
Soldato
SOME, of the alleged offences occurred in the UK, and yes, the age of consent in the UK is 16, however in the US it's 18 in the state relevant, so I believe anyways, it does vary in the States from 16-18 depending on where about the offence occurred..
Associate
maybe ask santa to bring you a dictionary this Christmas.
Man of Honour
Soldato
None of which was being discussed when you said this to me:
I put forward the case involving Harris, which involved convictions for nonconsensual sex; there are many more, in the UK, abroad, involving adults, involving children. And so on.
Andrew could quite easily be added to the list if he has a case to answer. And to pick up on the original point, it makes no difference when it was or what age the alleged victim was.
Fair enough, I don't fundamentally disagree with what you said and why, my point now is in comparison, assuming there is sufficient evidence in both cases, why has this case not been brought forward in a UK court?
In Rolf Harris' case, there was sufficient evidence to bring a case forward, but seemingly not in this case.
Don't be obtuse!
What is the correct definition of a child?
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as "a human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".
Stop thinking its normal and acceptable for middle aged men to sleep with 17 year olds please.
Soldato
I'm really not sure, and personally I actually agree with earlier posters who talked about Sacoolas - if the Americans refuse to acknowledge that she has a case to answer in the UK then they've got a neck on them thinking they should have the right to try other countries citizens.
Why did you phrase it like you did? Sex without consent isn't sex without consent. It's rape. Call it what it is.
Obtuse?
You said; “You’re still a child at 17 even if the legal age of consent is 16.”
I was going for sardonic
Now define middle age.
Soldato
I used that phrase because that's what I read in the news report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58550197
Soldato
And here is where the media are trying to get into your head...
He's 61 now, he wasn't at the time, she's 38 now, 17 at the time, he was 40, yet there's no mention of her age now, but there is his, I wonder why...
However, if he did in fact know she was sex-trafficed then there's an issue, proving that should be the crux of the case, if they can't prove that, then the fact that he allegedly had sex with her multiple times in different countries, and nobody else (unknown) then it could be argued that he was under the impression that they were friends with benefits as/when they met. If he was, and can be proven to have been, sleeping with other girls at the same events then he has less of a leg to stand on.
He's 61 now, he wasn't at the time, she's 38 now, 17 at the time, he was 40, yet there's no mention of her age now, but there is his, I wonder why...
However, if he did in fact know she was sex-trafficed then there's an issue, proving that should be the crux of the case, if they can't prove that, then the fact that he allegedly had sex with her multiple times in different countries, and nobody else (unknown) then it could be argued that he was under the impression that they were friends with benefits as/when they met. If he was, and can be proven to have been, sleeping with other girls at the same events then he has less of a leg to stand on.
between the age of 40 and 60
Or not. I couldn’t care less if he was 30 years old. She’s still a child.
I would totally advocate the legal age of consent being raised to 18 and there fore in-line with voting, drinking, gambling etc. It would make sense to align many of the adult related activities and will make it simpler to understand and enforce legally.
As it is now, the age of consent is 16 and the onus is on the alleged victim's legal team to prove there was not consent in the UK courts.
And it's for this reason I believe this will go nowhere.
Man of Honour
Your book is objectively wrong. The idea that a person instantly changes from a child to an adult (with nothing in between) on a birthday you have decided on just isn't reality. Even the law, which is required to set arbitrary limits as a workable solution, doesn't entirely pretend reality is that simple.
As for adults being children because you say so, that's just silly. At 17, a person is an adult unless their development is restricted in a pathological way (if that's possible). They might or might not be at the age of legal majority (depending on when and where they live), but that's a completely different thing.