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

Captain said:
Good news at least.
Click to expand...

Ooh, that perhaps makes the above question moot re: the silliness about them arguing papers (notice of proceedings) hadn't been correctly served while literally being represented in proceedings in the relevant court.

It will be quite interesting to watch what happened next, there will be some discovery I guess, the NDA agreement she signed might need to be revealed etc..

FoxEye said:
Would you also like to raise the age of consent to 18 in this country?

Otherwise it's a bit difficult to see where the outrage is. You're outraged he may have broke the law in the US, but if he'd just slept with her here that would be OK and he totally wouldn't be "a nonce"? Or he would still be a nonce because, regardless of UK law, it's wrong for a 40 year old to sleep with a 17 year old?
Click to expand...

You've got to have a line in the sand somewhere and obviously when you get extremes then things still get a bit iffy.

I think 16 is fine in general because that's generally teenagers getting horny with eachother, would be silly to prosecute that. However we generally wouldn't find it acceptable for someone in a position of authority (say a teacher etc..) to start sleeping with a 16 or 17 year old, nor do we tend to find it acceptable for them to star in porn films or accept payment for sex.

At some point though you become an adult and can make your own decisions re: whether to partake in that sort of stuff and 18 is generally when you're considered to be an adult in the UK.

It's still rather icky for a middle-aged man to sleep with an 18 year old but it's perfectly legal for them to consent to it, presumably, that sort of thing involves the middle-aged man either being wealthy or a celebrity etc.. or just literally paying them. We shouldn't police that sort of thing but can certainly express the opinion that it's a bit gross.

It isn't legal for a 17 year old to be trafficked and told to have sex with someone as a favour for her employer as is alleged to have happened here. It's also alleged that he's had sex with her in the US in both NYC and the US Virgin Islands, both of which would also be criminal offences under US law regardless of any trafficking allegations.
 
arknor said:
if that 40 year old was purposely targeting people of that age range then I'd say it makes it wrong.
if they just happened to meet and get along then I guess that's different.

but it could be considered predatory behaviour by people who are controlling.

no doubt a lot easier to get someone around 17-20 to do what you want than it is someone closer to your own age.
Click to expand...

Where I work we tend to get a lot of younger people temping in and around college and uni - can be interesting with the approx. 18-20 year olds as a lot of the time you don't really consciously notice the age difference but then they will do something and you realise that in many respects they are just a kid.

It is interesting how closed minded a lot of people are and I definitely understand it when it comes to predatory behaviour and men who are only interested in young girls - but now and again you get 2 people with a significant age difference who anyone can see are just made for each other - but 90+% of people still have like a gag reflex to the idea.

Sadly the more usual story is 40-50 year old guy married or long term relationship, 18-20 year old girl sometimes in a relationship who is obviously easily impressed by the guy, everyone can see it coming, affair, things get messy, maybe they get together for a few months (though that is less usual) but it doesn't last.
 
One thing I don't get is - why even risk it with someone just slightly under 18? Why not just hire 18+ year olds? Like prostitution is illegal in general in the US (though not in the UK or other locations) but is probably relatively minor and hard to catch/prosecute if a discreet sugar daddy/escort situation rather than a brothel or someone literally loitering on the street or in a hotel.

The underage thing though clearly isn't just a minor thing, it's very very illegal and very socially/politically unacceptable + prosecutions can be rather political in the US. Epstein was lucky to get away with it earlier on through some dodgy shenanigans.

It seems that, as a billionaire, he had a regular supply of girls - lots of them apparently Russian or similar - I suspect they're never going to be heard of again, they're no doubt in their 30s and married now, doubt they want to admit to it and if they were over 18 at the time then meh... they've probably signed the same NDAs/have received some settlement etc.. nothing for them to gain.

It just seems so dumb for Epstein to have hired a 17 year old for this, she's pretty etc.. but nothing special and it isn't like there aren't lots of pretty 18+ year olds out there he could have hired. Also at that age range, if he is into teenagers, I'm sure there are plenty of younger-looking 18 or 19 year olds if that's his thing, it isn't like everyone ages (in terms of looks) at the same rate.

It seems like such a dumb oversight, just totally unnecessary risk, he was a billionaire who could have had an endless supply of young 18+ "girlfriends"/escorts, if Russians were a security risk for Andrew then I'm sure there are plenty of poor 18+ hot blondes in Florida to fly out to the US Virgin Islands or in New Jersey to take into his NYC mansion etc... the porn industry certainly seems to be able to find them so why not a billionaire and his fixer?

If he hadn't taken that pointless risk he'd have likely never faced legal issues either back in the day or more recently and would still be alive today + his buddy Andrew would have, at best, had a few pages in some tabloids a few years ago and then the whole thing would have blown over... (I started a thread on this in GD when the original story/allegation re: Andrew originally broke but a mod removed the thread as they thought it was distasteful, obvs since then we've had Epstine locked up and killing himself and this civil case and the story isn't going away).
 
dowie said:
It just seems so dumb for Epstein to have hired a 17 year old for this, she's pretty etc.. but nothing special and it isn't like there aren't lots of pretty 18+ year olds out there he could have hired. Also at that age range, if he is into teenagers, I'm sure there are plenty of younger-looking 18 or 19 year olds if that's his thing, it isn't like everyone ages (in terms of looks) at the same rate.
Click to expand...
plenty of 14 and 15 year old go clubbing and some children do escort work.

just playing with fire if someones purposely trying to hook up with 18year olds
I remember this story from my local paper https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/girl-15-made-14k-working-1450214
CAMPAIGNERS have called on police to probe how a 15-year-old schoolgirl managed to earn £14,000 as an escort.
Click to expand...
It is understood the South Shields youngster, who it is believed claimed to be 18 – earned more than £1,700 each weekend working for a city-based agency.
Click to expand...

Only found out because a teacher found condoms, lube and the escort agency card in her bag :eek:
I bet she wasn't the only one doing it either out of the people she knew
 
arknor said:
plenty of 14 and 15 year old go clubbing and some children do escort work.

just playing with fire if someones purposely trying to hook up with 18year olds
Click to expand...

He was a billionaire who employed her for “massages” though, not exactly hard for him to confirm her age. Or indeed the age of anyone else he employed.
 
dowie said:
He was a billionaire who employed her for “massages” though, not exactly hard for him to confirm her age. Or indeed the age of anyone else he employed.
Click to expand...
yea I'm not defending the guy, just saying "you never know" when they are young looking "adults"
 
arknor said:
yea I'm not defending the guy, just saying "you never know" when they are young looking "adults"
Click to expand...

Ah sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything like that. I get what you mean in the general sense, I agree it certainly is playing with fire for any (ordinary person) who shares his tastes, I guess ignorance might be a defence for a 20 something guy who unknowingly picks up an underaged girl in a nightclub, but a 50 year old wannabe sugar daddy or escort client specifically looking for a "teen" is definitely playing with fire.

I just meant to highlight that Epstein in particular was literally hiring these people, she was an actual employee of his (ostensibly at his mansion, giving him massages) had to go on flights with him etc.. there is no way he wouldn't know her age. He did what he did despite the fact that she was 17 when, with all his resources as a billionaire, he could have easily sourced 18+ year old girls and been in a position to verify their age. Any porn company needs to do background checks/check ID etc.. a billionaire can certainly do that - especially if they're to be on his payroll too, will need their social security number, passport for flights* on the "lolita express" etc.. etc.. No doubt he could bring in Russians/Ukrainians on student visas or as au pairs for some member of his staff etc..

*that's the other thing that is dodgy about this case, what were her parents doing??? Like to take her to London, on an international flight, he'd not only need her to have a passport with her, register her details with the pilot etc... for the flight log but he'd presumably need her parent's permission too as she's a minor. WTF did she even say to her parents:

"erm Jeffry needs me to go to London with him to, erm, give him more massages when he's over there, is that OK mum & dad?"

I mean she's the (alleged) victim here and Epstein & others the (alleged) villans but the parents have seemingly had an epic fail on the parenting front here too with the sort of red flags that should have been present.
 
StriderX said:
I'm minded to compare this thread to the rape gang thread to see the contrast in arguments over a similar situation.
Click to expand...

Could be interesting, instead of making vague comments about it though why not start a fresh GD thread about it with your findings:

Possible title:
"Are people inconsistent with their views on crime depending on the identity of the (alleged) perpetrators?"

Then post the receipts/quotes you find that illustrate the contrast if there are any.
 
StriderX said:
I'm minded to compare this thread to the rape gang thread to see the contrast in arguments over a similar situation.
Click to expand...

There's certainly a big difference in police attitudes, the police covered up, and for years failed to bring appropriate prosecutions to the rape gangs, but in this case the Prince is known to be hated by the Royal Protection Officers and disliked by the Met due to his commonly known arrogance and abrasiveness. Add that to the lefties and liberals the police have enrolled in their drive for diversity at any price and it's obvious many would relish seeing a senior Royal hugely embarrassed and possibly prosecuted.


I think the Prince was incredibly foolish and probably as he has often done, rode roughshod over salient advice and warnings from those brighter than his good self, but in my opinion claims of rape and grooming are unwarranted from a moral point of view, this girl was patently having the time of her life.

Many here will be too young to remember the number of senior Labour party members who were openly in support of paedophiles and legalising their activities not that long ago. A Google of "Paedophile Information Exchange" should bring up the sordid details and some still familiar and politically active names...
 
Last edited:
I dont care what anyone says, he is big chums with a total sex freak couple and is in a photo with his arm around one of the girls waist with another sex freak in the background with the biggest grin ever. The guy is a massive creep and the creepy royal family will try to protect him in their own self interest rather than have any sense of justice.
 
Trig said:
So you quote my post where someone who is 47 is having sex with someone who is 13, nice comparison there..

Given you've slept with one person you are ill-equipped to argue the actual realities of life and going to pubs and clubs in your teen years and seeing people that look older, or in some cases younger than they actually are.
Click to expand...

Adult and a child. Simple as that. 40 or 18 the victim is still a child and you’re actually defending the adult and blaming the child.
 
I had a conversation about this with my best pal. We concluded that, at 18, if invited to be jetted to the US to go to such a party, would we have gone? The answer, a resounding yes, and we probably wouldn't have even considered wracking our souls over whether a girl was 17 or not. It's called misguided youth. I was so rampant at eighteen even the cat would look worried.

Like unhealthy food and drinks, decadence and hedonism is something many sample, so long as it's in true moderation and no one else is harmed, it's a relatively harmless part of human nature.


In the Prince's case he would undoubtedly have had advisors less rampant and more worldly wise, that he chose to ignore or evade.

I think this photo of preparation for hedonism speaks volumes!

party-time.jpg
 
omnomnom said:
Adult and a child. Simple as that. 40 or 18 the victim is still a child and you’re actually defending the adult and blaming the child.
Click to expand...

Nope, what I'm saying is things arent always black and white, people mature and develop at different rates, at that sort of age its not always easy to tell, and actually what I'm doing is looking at the situation and not 'blaming' anyone, as I said, technically it is statutory rape, and yes, the 'child' has no reason or place in a pub, certainly not dressed or acting in a way to get attention from someone older, where all you seem to be doing is trying to suggest that I'm going around enabling people to sleep with kids, simple as that..
 
Thread re-opened.

Please stay on topic and remember that not everyone will share your life experiences or viewpoint. If you have to resort to insults or bickering to get your point across, then we will take further action and the thread shall be locked.
 
Latest on this topic:

The High Court in London will formally contact the Duke of York about allegations of sexual assault filed in a US court.

Lawyers for Virginia Giuffre, who has accused Prince Andrew, requested the High Court contact the prince about the civil case launched in New York.

The prince's lawyers have argued he has not been properly served notice of the case.

Prince Andrew has consistently denied Ms Giuffre's allegations.

His spokeswoman has declined to comment on the latest development.
Click to expand...

Prince Andrew case: High Court to notify duke of US civil proceedings - BBC News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom