Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
Mon Autre said:
I'd say that when your son is 61 years old your responsibilities to them and any parenting you can do to guide and assist them is pretty much done. I don't think the idea of "cutting them off" holds quite the same weight and especially not when they've made the choice to befriend and associate with convicted sex offenders and invited them to stay over at your house.

And again, he didn't just sleep with a 17 year old. He slept with a 17 year old who had been groomed, trafficked and coerced to do so.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about any parenting, I was responding to a criticism (and I’m no royalist btw) that the Queen was still engaging with him.

The extent of the last line is open to interpretation and you can’t claim to know otherwise. No one can. At least no one on this board. It simply hasn’t been evidentially tested.

What I think any reasonable person can be sure of is that he had sex with her which was (legally speaking) consensual. That is what I am basing my view on, because I am certain that it happened, which for me marks it down as highly inappropriate, reprehensible and an abuse of power, but does not warrant someone being cut off from their family. People do far worse and their families stand by them (without condoning what they’ve done).
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’m not talking about any parenting, I was responding to a criticism (and I’m no royalist btw) that the Queen was still engaging with him.

The extent of the last line is open to interpretation and you can’t claim to know otherwise. No one can. At least no one on this board. It simply hasn’t been evidentially tested.

What I think any reasonable person can be sure of is that he had sex with her which was (legally speaking) consensual. That is what I am basing my view on, because I am certain that it happened, which for me marks it down as highly inappropriate, reprehensible and an abuse of power, but does not warrant someone being cut off from their family. People do far worse and their families stand by them (without condoning what they’ve done).
Click to expand...

I'd say Epstein and Maxwell's involvement in grooming and trafficking has been evidentially tested.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’m not talking about any parenting, I was responding to a criticism (and I’m no royalist btw) that the Queen was still engaging with him.

The extent of the last line is open to interpretation and you can’t claim to know otherwise. No one can. At least no one on this board. It simply hasn’t been evidentially tested.

What I think any reasonable person can be sure of is that he had sex with her which was (legally speaking) consensual. That is what I am basing my view on, because I am certain that it happened, which for me marks it down as highly inappropriate, reprehensible and an abuse of power, but does not warrant someone being cut off from their family. People do far worse and their families stand by them (without condoning what they’ve done).
Click to expand...

She has alleged it happened on 3 occasions in 3 different jurisdictions.

London, New York, and the US Virgin Islands.

In the USVI the age of consent is 18, some exceptions to this rule when the age difference is less than 5 years.

So no it isn't, legally speaking consensual.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
She has alleged it happened on 3 occasions in 3 different jurisdictions.

London, New York, and the US Virgin Islands.

In the USVI the age of consent is 18, some exceptions to this rule when the age difference is less than 5 years.

So no it isn't, legally speaking consensual.
Click to expand...
The lower age is actually 13 but unspecific as to the actual allowable age difference between consenting parties. I was under the impression that the law was that the older party wasn't permitted to be an individual in a position of authority over the younger party (either by occupation or age)? Given that the unrestricted age of consent is 18, then you could assume it's 5 years, but this is unclear and it might actually be less.

Either way this definitely means sweaty palms may have broken the law. We may never know.
 
Last edited:
Fode N The Hole said:
She has alleged it happened on 3 occasions in 3 different jurisdictions.

London, New York, and the US Virgin Islands.

In the USVI the age of consent is 18, some exceptions to this rule when the age difference is less than 5 years.

So no it isn't, legally speaking consensual.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that’s correct. Please see my previous post on the age of consent c/f sexual activity with a child. Don’t know the nuances in the BVI tbf.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’m not sure that’s correct. Please see my previous post on the age of consent c/f sexual activity with a child. Don’t know the nuances in the BVI tbf.
Click to expand...

It is.

Not British Virgin Islands, USVI. I'm aware of the English Laws but they are irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Unless you believe that the alleged act in the USVI never happened, or she was aged 18 or over, then that alleged act would be non-consensual.

18 is the upper limit, and it is a strict liability offence. There is no defence that the defendant wasn't aware of the victim's age.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
It is.

Not British Virgin Islands, USVI. I'm aware of the English Laws but they are irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Unless you believe that the alleged act in the USVI never happened, or she was aged 18 or over, then that alleged act would be non-consensual.

18 is the upper limit, and it is a strict liability offence. There is no defence that the defendant wasn't aware of the victim's age.
Click to expand...
Don’t need the concept of strict liability explaining to me.

Sorry about the jurisdictional mix up. I don’t know what took place in USVI, if anything. My view of the likelihood of him having sex with her is based on what happened here, which must have been legally consensual, or it would have been otherwise pleaded. Not saying it didn’t happen there btw; I guess it’s likely to be true. I wouldn’t expect she made that part up but not the rest, but who knows.

So I guess it’s likely something happened there and so it wasn’t legally consensual and to that extent I’ll recalibrate what I said, but I don’t think it makes a huge difference to my view of his culpability, which is high imo, but not egregiously so fwiw.

I am regularly made aware of far, far worse things thst people do to other human beings in the pursuit of sexual gratification than a guy in his early 40’s shagging 17 year old, who was old enough to consent in this juridstiction - and I’m not sure how much more culpable it makes him that he committed the act in another juridstiction where she wasn’t. Think our laws around sex and consent are about right and proportionate and so I’m happy to use them as a broad yardstick of morality. For me, it remains a reprehensible act, and an abuse of power, but in the scheme of things is quite a way down the list.

He deserves to be punished for what he has done - and I believe he has been, severely so.

Perhaps my view on this is coloured by my parents, who met when my dad was a widower approaching 30 with two young children and my mum was 17. They are still together and happily married approaching 60 years later and probaably explains why I find any accusations of older men who engage legally in sexual activity with sexually mature (in a biological sense) females as being akin to abusing pre-pubescent children to be utterly absurd and hopelessly simplistic.

Some girls thst age are better equipped to deal with advances from older men than others. My parents happy and enduring marriage is living proof of that.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
9Don’t need the concept of strict liability explaining to me.

Sorry about the jurisdictional mix up. I don’t know what took place in USVI, if anything. My view of the likelihood of him having sex with her is based on what happened here, which must have been legally consensual, or it would have been otherwise pleaded. Not saying it didn’t happen there btw; I guess it’s likely to be true. I wouldn’t expect she made that part up but not the rest, but who knows.

So I guess it’s likely something happened there and so it wasn’t legally consensual and to that extent I’ll recalibrate what I said, but I don’t think it makes a huge difference to my view of his culpability, which is high imo, but not egregiously so fwiw.

I am regularly made aware of far, far worse things thst people do to other human beings in the pursuit of sexual gratification than a guy in his early 40’s shagging 17 year old, who was old enough to consent in this juridstiction - and I’m not sure how much more culpable it makes him that he committed the act in another juridstiction where she wasn’t. Think our laws around sex and consent are about right and proportionate and so I’m happy to use them as a broad yardstick of morality. For me, it remains a reprehensible act, and an abuse of power, but in the scheme of things is quite a way down the list.

He deserves to be punished for what he has done - and I believe he has been, severely so.

Perhaps my view on this is coloured by my parents, who met when my dad was a widower approaching 30 with two young children and my mum was 17. They are still together and happily married approaching 60 years later and probaably explains why I find any accusations of older men who engage legally in sexual activity with sexually mature (in a biological sense) females as being akin to abusing pre-pubescent children to be utterly absurd and hopelessly simplistic.

Some girls thst age are better equipped to deal with advances from older men than others. My parents happy and enduring marriage is living proof of that.
Click to expand...

Well there is room for nuance in this discussion but there is a big difference between people meeting in normal circumstances and circumstances where there was always an element of exploitation.

It was never normal circumstances, and even someone as thick as Andrew must have questioned why someone as young as VG was accompanying Epstein and Maxwell on trips to the point that he should have considered that her behaviour may have been unduly influenced by Epstein.

The way Andrew behaved is even more reprehensible than you conclude. Because he held himself up to be a higher standard than he ever had any intention of meeting. He failed not only by his actions of having sex with at least one trafficked girl, but for failing to draw attention to it and put a stop to it.

For someone who would have likely been believed just because of his status and with connections to the NSPCC (from as early as 1999) that is indefensible.

We can mitigate and make allowances for people pursuing genuine mutual relationships and getting married (there is even a defence in the USVI that the parties were married) but I'm not sure the relevance here other than explaining why your views are coloured.

Only a very few people have drawn the comparisons with those who abuse pre-teens.

The royals hold themselves up to be a whiter than white, and when the mask slips and they are revealed to be less than that they should be pillioried for it.

You are entitled to express your view but you should note (if @kaz7's link above is true) that Prince Andrew is no longer allowed to deny VG's account of the events or her status as a victim.

He is a nonce and a rapist and he must wear that stain until his dying breath.
 
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