Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
gordondaviesmoustache said:
In English law, 13-16 year olds can consent to sexual activity with an adult, hence the offence 'sexual activity with a child' , which is distinct from and carries less severe sentences than rape, which requires an absence of consent (or reasonable belief thereto) for the offence to be made out. It is children who are under 13 who are not capable of giving consent.

Not sure what the position is in the States, other than it varies from State to State.
Click to expand...

How come Adam Johnson got done for having sex with a 15 year old then?
Surely 16 is the age of consent.
 
The ruling class of this country and more or less all others are utter monsters. Seems to cut across all political lines. Anyone trying to make this "Trump this" or "Democrats that" - seem to be missing the point.

Would love to see that vile Maxwell creature take the full fury of whatever case was pending. But by definition it would be the authorities needing to bring it and I imagine no one connected in any way to the depraved ruling class would want this story to keep chugging along.
 
BrianW said:
How come Adam Johnson got done for having sex with a 15 year old then?
Surely 16 is the age of consent.
Click to expand...
1. The age of consent is a misnomer imo.

2. You are conflating an absence of consent with the offence of sexual activity with a child. She must have consented to the activity or he would have been charged with sexual assault, which requires an absence of consent.

3. Johnson was not alleged to have had sex with the 15 year old female.

4. Johnson was convicted of sexual activity with a child ×2 plus one count of grooming, and acquitted on another account of sexual activity with a child.

5. Just because a 13- 15 year old consents doesn't mean that an offence hasn't been committed. It is an offence to have any form of sexual activity with someone under 16, irrespective of consent.

6. I made an error in my original post: 13-16 should have read 13-15. Now edited.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
In English law, 13-15 year olds can consent to sexual activity with an adult, hence the offence 'sexual activity with a child' , which is distinct from and carries less severe sentences than rape, which requires an absence of consent (or reasonable belief thereto) for the offence to be made out. It is children who are under 13 who are not capable of giving consent.

Not sure what the position is in the States, other than it varies from State to State.
Click to expand...


The minimum age for marriage in the USA is 18 but theres varying laws in the States .... in Alabama (surprise surprise) you can get married at the age of ten if your parents permit or if you're pregnant.....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html
 
dronefromsector7G said:
That was aimed at me wasn’t it??
Click to expand...
To be honest I've no particular poster in mind. There are some absolutely ludicrous suggestions going on. We all know it's linked to the Royal's again. Any sniff of shenanigans and they just slot people.
 
Javi Garcia's Hairstylist said:
The ruling class of this country and more or less all others are utter monsters. Seems to cut across all political lines. Anyone trying to make this "Trump this" or "Democrats that" - seem to be missing the point.

Would love to see that vile Maxwell creature take the full fury of whatever case was pending. But by definition it would be the authorities needing to bring it and I imagine no one connected in any way to the depraved ruling class would want this story to keep chugging along.
Click to expand...
Spot on mate. When you read what our glorious Royal family have done over the years it's stomach churning. Ruling with complete disregard for life and property. Yet most of the country spends their lives licking their arses and telling them how wonderful they are.
 
Damocles said:
Those aren't allegations of anything. I linked court testimony from a victim of Epstein talking about who abused her and when. You linked a tweet from a guy selling an anti-Trump book saying that they knew each other.

You're seeing what you want to see.
Click to expand...
You linked the testimony of one witness. Not really enough to prove that Trump didn’t have any worries about what Epstein might say, which is what you implied.
I’m not saying that he knew enough to implicate Trump in anything but it would hardly be a surprise if he did judging by the amount of circumstantial evidence that they were quite close. Add to that the allegations of more than 15 women about Trump’s behaviour ranging from non-consensual groping to rape as well as his penchant for walking through young girls’ changing rooms during beauty pageants, I certainly wouldn’t be rushing to defend him.
 
Damocles said:
I'd imagine that if you spent your entire career blackmailing famous and powerful people about their paedophilia, then you'd imagine he'd have thought of an out better than topping himself. A man that powerful could presumably use his leverage to broker a "give me a light sentence and I'll blow up the world" type thing.

Nobody knows, makes sense though.
Click to expand...

Entirely possible he already did that in 2008 when he got off so suspiciously light.
 
Last edited:
Some one looks happy P Andrew this morning after church.
3c6b111caff4d97574829c0ee7838c35.jpg
 
Sounds like a glimpse into the Labour Party this thread, a bile filled pathological hatred of those who are better off and a Jewish conspiracy on nearly every page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top