west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,082
Re: Prine Andrew named in under age sex lawsuit
What's Brucie done?Hamann Pineapple said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Re: Prine Andrew named in under age sex lawsuit
"allegedly" - you need those quotation marks because he's OBVIOUSLY guilty, and the right to a presumption of innocence before guilt is just one of those archaic things we should throw away.
This "allegedly" happened in London or so it is inferred in the main article.
I'm so fucking sick of this paedogeddon shite and how barbarous and vile people are hiding behind children for their next group of people that they lust after violently torturing.
-dabz- said:Not in America it isn't. Where did this "allegedly" take place?Damocles said:The woman filed the case anonymously, and is understood to have been 17 at the time
Which is above the age of consent in the UK. Sorry I had to read the actual article and spoil your paedogeddon guys
"allegedly" - you need those quotation marks because he's OBVIOUSLY guilty, and the right to a presumption of innocence before guilt is just one of those archaic things we should throw away.
This "allegedly" happened in London or so it is inferred in the main article.
I'm so fucking sick of this paedogeddon shite and how barbarous and vile people are hiding behind children for their next group of people that they lust after violently torturing.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,082
Re: Prine Andrew named in under age sex lawsuit
Don't forget this is the court of Bluemoon where everyone's automatically guilty even if they're subsequently found not guilty by a real court.Damocles said:-dabz- said:Not in America it isn't. Where did this "allegedly" take place?Damocles said:Which is above the age of consent in the UK. Sorry I had to read the actual article and spoil your paedogeddon guys
"allegedly" - you need those quotation marks because he's OBVIOUSLY guilty, and the right to a presumption of innocence before guilt is just one of those archaic things we should throw away.
This "allegedly" happened in London or so it is inferred in the main article.
I'm so fucking sick of this paedogeddon shite and how barbarous and vile people are hiding behind children for their next group of people that they lust after violently torturing.
-dabz-
Well-Known Member
Re: Prine Andrew named in under age sex lawsuit
London you say?
"The case is directed towards federal prosecutors, and is part of an effort to expand an ongoing legal case, the Guardian reported. But it alleges that the woman “was forced to have sexual relations with this prince when she was a minor” in London, New York and on Epstein’s private Caribbean island, the Guardian reported. "
Put whatever spin on it you want mate, I was only highlighting the word to cover this sites arse.Damocles said:-dabz- said:Not in America it isn't. Where did this "allegedly" take place?Damocles said:Which is above the age of consent in the UK. Sorry I had to read the actual article and spoil your paedogeddon guys
"allegedly" - you need those quotation marks because he's OBVIOUSLY guilty, and the right to a presumption of innocence before guilt is just one of those archaic things we should throw away.
This "allegedly" happened in London or so it is inferred in the main article.
I'm so fucking sick of this paedogeddon shite and how barbarous and vile people are hiding behind children for their next group of people that they lust after violently torturing.
London you say?
"The case is directed towards federal prosecutors, and is part of an effort to expand an ongoing legal case, the Guardian reported. But it alleges that the woman “was forced to have sexual relations with this prince when she was a minor” in London, New York and on Epstein’s private Caribbean island, the Guardian reported. "
Re: Prine Andrew named in under age sex lawsuit
Drives me absolutely daft it does. There's a section of people on here and in society in general who are willing and baying for them to be found guilty, not because they might have done something but because they are in positions of power or authority or celebrity so they MUST be all some in-gang of kiddy fiddlers. I don't know if its jealousy or bloodlust or what but it's sad as fuck. It's not even about justice or protection any more.
west didsblue said:Don't forget this is the court of Bluemoon where everyone's automatically guilty even if they're subsequently found not guilty by a real court.Damocles said:-dabz- said:Not in America it isn't. Where did this "allegedly" take place?
"allegedly" - you need those quotation marks because he's OBVIOUSLY guilty, and the right to a presumption of innocence before guilt is just one of those archaic things we should throw away.
This "allegedly" happened in London or so it is inferred in the main article.
I'm so fucking sick of this paedogeddon shite and how barbarous and vile people are hiding behind children for their next group of people that they lust after violently torturing.
Drives me absolutely daft it does. There's a section of people on here and in society in general who are willing and baying for them to be found guilty, not because they might have done something but because they are in positions of power or authority or celebrity so they MUST be all some in-gang of kiddy fiddlers. I don't know if its jealousy or bloodlust or what but it's sad as fuck. It's not even about justice or protection any more.
Re: Prine Andrew named in under age sex lawsuit
Age of consent 16.
Age of consent 17
Age of consent 16.
Case closed.
-dabz- said:But it alleges that the woman “was forced to have sexual relations with this prince when she was a minor” in London
Age of consent 16.
New York
Age of consent 17
and on Epstein’s private Caribbean island, the Guardian reported. "
Age of consent 16.
Case closed.
-dabz-
Well-Known Member
Re: Prine Andrew named in under age sex lawsuit
A woman has alleged that she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew as part of a lawsuit that claims an American investment banker passed her around rich and powerful friends as a “sex slave” while she was still underage. A Buckingham Palace spokesman has said the claims are “categorically untrue”.
Case open
Damocles said:-dabz- said:But it alleges that the woman “was forced to have sexual relations with this prince when she was a minor” in London
Age of consent 16.
New York
Age of consent 17
and on Epstein’s private Caribbean island, the Guardian reported. "
Age of consent 16.
Case closed.
A woman has alleged that she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew as part of a lawsuit that claims an American investment banker passed her around rich and powerful friends as a “sex slave” while she was still underage. A Buckingham Palace spokesman has said the claims are “categorically untrue”.
Case open
M
M
mat
Guest
Re: Prine Andrew named in under age sex lawsuit
Bout time that Brasseye episode was repeated. In this day and age it might be treated as a factual programme.
Damocles said:west didsblue said:Don't forget this is the court of Bluemoon where everyone's automatically guilty even if they're subsequently found not guilty by a real court.Damocles said:"allegedly" - you need those quotation marks because he's OBVIOUSLY guilty, and the right to a presumption of innocence before guilt is just one of those archaic things we should throw away.
This "allegedly" happened in London or so it is inferred in the main article.
I'm so fucking sick of this paedogeddon shite and how barbarous and vile people are hiding behind children for their next group of people that they lust after violently torturing.
Drives me absolutely daft it does. There's a section of people on here and in society in general who are willing and baying for them to be found guilty, not because they might have done something but because they are in positions of power or authority or celebrity so they MUST be all some in-gang of kiddy fiddlers. I don't know if its jealousy or bloodlust or what but it's sad as fuck. It's not even about justice or protection any more.
Bout time that Brasseye episode was repeated. In this day and age it might be treated as a factual programme.
Re: Prine Andrew named in under age sex lawsuit
So your point is that given the details of the case at the moment it is literally impossible for him to be having sex with an underage girl, we should open a case about him having sex with an underage girl?
Are there any other things we should open a new case against him for? Punching somebody in their aura for example?
-dabz- said:A woman has alleged that she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew as part of a lawsuit that claims an American investment banker passed her around rich and powerful friends as a “sex slave” while she was still underage. A Buckingham Palace spokesman has said the claims are “categorically untrue”.
Case open
So your point is that given the details of the case at the moment it is literally impossible for him to be having sex with an underage girl, we should open a case about him having sex with an underage girl?
Are there any other things we should open a new case against him for? Punching somebody in their aura for example?
-dabz-
Well-Known Member
Re: Prine Andrew named in under age sex lawsuit
Are we not allowed to comment on a current news item? That's all anyone in this thread has done. The rest is in your head mate.
What the fuck are you on about?Damocles said:-dabz- said:A woman has alleged that she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew as part of a lawsuit that claims an American investment banker passed her around rich and powerful friends as a “sex slave” while she was still underage. A Buckingham Palace spokesman has said the claims are “categorically untrue”.
Case open
So your point is that given the details of the case at the moment it is literally impossible for him to be having sex with an underage girl, we should open a case about him having sex with an underage girl?
Are there any other things we should open a new case against him for? Punching somebody in their aura for example?
Are we not allowed to comment on a current news item? That's all anyone in this thread has done. The rest is in your head mate.
-dabz-
Well-Known Member
She claims it happened between 1999 and 2002.
Re: Prine Andrew named in under age sex lawsuit
What comment have you actually made?
All you've done is force me to show that having sex with a 17 year old in London, New York and the Caribbean is perfectly legal.
Your first post was a conspiratorial rant about how "they" will "bury this" and that Jimmy Saville's involvement with the royals should be investigated. Because Saville was a known paeophile. This means everybody he knew might be a paedophile and everybody should be investigated. Especially those Royals, they're all backwards and probably perverts behind the scenes they are.
Then went the "I'm just asking questions mate" route that every two bit gobshite on TV who can't back anything they say actually up always goes down. Known as the Glenn Beck defence when he accused Obama of being a Kenyan Muslim.
This is what I'm sick of. These snide little inferences and comments everywhere with the idea that it's perfectly fine to imply that a group of people are the worst thing you can call another living person in today's society because "well I'm just asking question/I'm just commenting on it mate" defence. People should have to back that shit up, it's gone so ridiculously far down the road that it's now passed BrassEye satire and is moving onto a Drumhead-like trial.
It's nothing against you dabz and you caught me in a bad moment but the amount of rampant paranoia around paedophilia and how everybody and everything is now suspect has driven me to distraction. I was talking to a mate of mine over the holidays, this is a lad that I grew up with, used to stay at each others houses, stayed in touch all of lives, that type of deal. His Dad was caught sexually abusing a young boy a few years back and was banged up for years for it. Usually that would be enough but I caught up with him and tried to go out for a beer with him round our old stomping grounds and the guy can't go absolutely anywhere. He was talking to a young barmaid and almost caused a riot because he "wasn't right him" and obviously wanted to take her outside and sexually abuse her because his Dad was found to be a nonce. Before this he was seen as a harmless guy, a bit quiet, not extremely popular apart from the lads who knew him from growing up but pretty successful at what he did. He and his siblings had never been abused or anything even approaching it yet everybody "knew" that his Dad raped him when he was growing up and now "knew" that he is going to rape children.
I've overheard conversations from lads that weren't massive mates of his growing up but knew him pretty well and how they huddle together in the pub planning to "do him in" outside so that they can "protect their kids" from him. Understand that the lad lives 500 miles away from that pub and his only crime is that he was the kid everybody used to look down on and now has a bit of cash, and his Dad was caught as a nonce.
These are grown men and women in their 30s and 40s who won't go near him and Chinese Whispers has gotten to the level where he has told us all that he isn't even going to bother going back to his "home" next year because it's not worth it to him.
It's pathetic. I've never seen anything like it and I get the feeling that this is what racism looked like in the Deep South in the 50s. When I pulled some of the lads up on this their excuse was "well has he ever diddled a kid? How do we know? His old man's got form for it....I'm just asking questions mate, no harm in that is there....why are YOU so interested in it........". You'd never have believed it unless you could have seen it yourself, I nearly dropped fucking dead and its constant for the lad.
Sad Middle Englander wankers.
-dabz- said:What the fuck are you on about?Damocles said:-dabz- said:A woman has alleged that she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew as part of a lawsuit that claims an American investment banker passed her around rich and powerful friends as a “sex slave” while she was still underage. A Buckingham Palace spokesman has said the claims are “categorically untrue”.
Case open
So your point is that given the details of the case at the moment it is literally impossible for him to be having sex with an underage girl, we should open a case about him having sex with an underage girl?
Are there any other things we should open a new case against him for? Punching somebody in their aura for example?
Are we not allowed to comment on a current news item? That's all anyone in this thread has done. The rest is in your head mate.
What comment have you actually made?
All you've done is force me to show that having sex with a 17 year old in London, New York and the Caribbean is perfectly legal.
Your first post was a conspiratorial rant about how "they" will "bury this" and that Jimmy Saville's involvement with the royals should be investigated. Because Saville was a known paeophile. This means everybody he knew might be a paedophile and everybody should be investigated. Especially those Royals, they're all backwards and probably perverts behind the scenes they are.
Then went the "I'm just asking questions mate" route that every two bit gobshite on TV who can't back anything they say actually up always goes down. Known as the Glenn Beck defence when he accused Obama of being a Kenyan Muslim.
This is what I'm sick of. These snide little inferences and comments everywhere with the idea that it's perfectly fine to imply that a group of people are the worst thing you can call another living person in today's society because "well I'm just asking question/I'm just commenting on it mate" defence. People should have to back that shit up, it's gone so ridiculously far down the road that it's now passed BrassEye satire and is moving onto a Drumhead-like trial.
It's nothing against you dabz and you caught me in a bad moment but the amount of rampant paranoia around paedophilia and how everybody and everything is now suspect has driven me to distraction. I was talking to a mate of mine over the holidays, this is a lad that I grew up with, used to stay at each others houses, stayed in touch all of lives, that type of deal. His Dad was caught sexually abusing a young boy a few years back and was banged up for years for it. Usually that would be enough but I caught up with him and tried to go out for a beer with him round our old stomping grounds and the guy can't go absolutely anywhere. He was talking to a young barmaid and almost caused a riot because he "wasn't right him" and obviously wanted to take her outside and sexually abuse her because his Dad was found to be a nonce. Before this he was seen as a harmless guy, a bit quiet, not extremely popular apart from the lads who knew him from growing up but pretty successful at what he did. He and his siblings had never been abused or anything even approaching it yet everybody "knew" that his Dad raped him when he was growing up and now "knew" that he is going to rape children.
I've overheard conversations from lads that weren't massive mates of his growing up but knew him pretty well and how they huddle together in the pub planning to "do him in" outside so that they can "protect their kids" from him. Understand that the lad lives 500 miles away from that pub and his only crime is that he was the kid everybody used to look down on and now has a bit of cash, and his Dad was caught as a nonce.
These are grown men and women in their 30s and 40s who won't go near him and Chinese Whispers has gotten to the level where he has told us all that he isn't even going to bother going back to his "home" next year because it's not worth it to him.
It's pathetic. I've never seen anything like it and I get the feeling that this is what racism looked like in the Deep South in the 50s. When I pulled some of the lads up on this their excuse was "well has he ever diddled a kid? How do we know? His old man's got form for it....I'm just asking questions mate, no harm in that is there....why are YOU so interested in it........". You'd never have believed it unless you could have seen it yourself, I nearly dropped fucking dead and its constant for the lad.
Sad Middle Englander wankers.
-dabz-
Well-Known Member
Re: Prine Andrew named in under age sex lawsuit
I also think your definition of "rant" is a bit skewiff. The Royals are above the law, end of. Also, you may have informed me about the consent laws in various countries but ignoring the basic thrust of the article. It states(not me) they were underage.
Also, I totally agree with you about peoples overreactions, but, it was reported in the last two days that the state "cannot cope" with the amount of people that has come forward since the Savile affair, being an estimated 10,000 cases. What does that tell you? It tells me that that is just the tip of the iceberg.
How many poor fuckers have died or just haven't come forward?
More to the point, how many came forward years ago but were ignored and labelled gold diggers and cranks?
Fact. Savile was protected. The police had their chance to nail the khunt many times, as recent as 2008. What happened?
That's fair enough mate but you could have started this post with "It's nothing against you Dabz" Because it certainly felt like it was.Damocles said:-dabz- said:What the fuck are you on about?Damocles said:So your point is that given the details of the case at the moment it is literally impossible for him to be having sex with an underage girl, we should open a case about him having sex with an underage girl?
Are there any other things we should open a new case against him for? Punching somebody in their aura for example?
Are we not allowed to comment on a current news item? That's all anyone in this thread has done. The rest is in your head mate.
What comment have you actually made?
All you've done is force me to show that having sex with a 17 year old in London, New York and the Caribbean is perfectly legal.
Your first post was a conspiratorial rant about how "they" will "bury this" and that Jimmy Saville's involvement with the royals should be investigated. Because Saville was a known paeophile. This means everybody he knew might be a paedophile and everybody should be investigated. Especially those Royals, they're all backwards and probably perverts behind the scenes they are.
Then went the "I'm just asking questions mate" route that every two bit gobshite on TV who can't back anything they say actually up always goes down. Known as the Glenn Beck defence when he accused Obama of being a Kenyan Muslim.
This is what I'm sick of. These snide little inferences and comments everywhere with the idea that it's perfectly fine to imply that a group of people are the worst thing you can call another living person in today's society because "well I'm just asking question/I'm just commenting on it mate" defence. People should have to back that shit up, it's gone so ridiculously far down the road that it's now passed BrassEye satire and is moving onto a Drumhead-like trial.
It's nothing against you dabz and you caught me in a bad moment but the amount of rampant paranoia around paedophilia and how everybody and everything is now suspect has driven me to distraction. I was talking to a mate of mine over the holidays, this is a lad that I grew up with, used to stay at each others houses, stayed in touch all of lives, that type of deal. His Dad was caught sexually abusing a young boy a few years back and was banged up for years for it. Usually that would be enough but I caught up with him and tried to go out for a beer with him round our old stomping grounds and the guy can't go absolutely anywhere. He was talking to a young barmaid and almost caused a riot because he "wasn't right him" and obviously wanted to take her outside and sexually abuse her because his Dad was found to be a nonce. Before this he was seen as a harmless guy, a bit quiet, not extremely popular apart from the lads who knew him from growing up but pretty successful at what he did. He and his siblings had never been abused or anything even approaching it yet everybody "knew" that his Dad raped him when he was growing up and now "knew" that he is going to rape children.
I've overheard conversations from lads that weren't massive mates of his growing up but knew him pretty well and how they huddle together in the pub planning to "do him in" outside so that they can "protect their kids" from him. Understand that the lad lives 500 miles away from that pub and his only crime is that he was the kid everybody used to look down on and now has a bit of cash, and his Dad was caught as a nonce.
These are grown men and women in their 30s and 40s who won't go near him and Chinese Whispers has gotten to the level where he has told us all that he isn't even going to bother going back to his "home" next year because it's not worth it to him.
It's pathetic. I've never seen anything like it and I get the feeling that this is what racism looked like in the Deep South in the 50s. When I pulled some of the lads up on this their excuse was "well has he ever diddled a kid? How do we know? His old man's got form for it....I'm just asking questions mate, no harm in that is there....why are YOU so interested in it........". You'd never have believed it unless you could have seen it yourself, I nearly dropped fucking dead and its constant for the lad.
Sad Middle Englander wankers.
I also think your definition of "rant" is a bit skewiff. The Royals are above the law, end of. Also, you may have informed me about the consent laws in various countries but ignoring the basic thrust of the article. It states(not me) they were underage.
Also, I totally agree with you about peoples overreactions, but, it was reported in the last two days that the state "cannot cope" with the amount of people that has come forward since the Savile affair, being an estimated 10,000 cases. What does that tell you? It tells me that that is just the tip of the iceberg.
How many poor fuckers have died or just haven't come forward?
More to the point, how many came forward years ago but were ignored and labelled gold diggers and cranks?
Fact. Savile was protected. The police had their chance to nail the khunt many times, as recent as 2008. What happened?
ColinBellsjockstrap
Well-Known Member
Difficult this presumed innocent until found guilty thing...........
Generally, I agree with it but:-
If someone stabs a guy in the street, whilst trying to rob them, in full view of 20 bystanders, is arrested, and goes before the beak, is he "innocent" before a verdict is announced?
He has obviously committed the crime...............
Generally, I agree with it but:-
If someone stabs a guy in the street, whilst trying to rob them, in full view of 20 bystanders, is arrested, and goes before the beak, is he "innocent" before a verdict is announced?
He has obviously committed the crime...............
ColinBellsjockstrap said:Difficult this presumed innocent until found guilty thing...........
Generally, I agree with it but:-
If someone stabs a guy in the street, whilst trying to rob them, in full view of 20 bystanders, is arrested, and goes before the beak, is he "innocent" before a verdict is announced?
He has obviously committed the crime...............
Yes, he is. Nobody is guilty until they have been adjudged as so by our justice system.
Hamann Pineapple
Well-Known Member
Damocles said:ColinBellsjockstrap said:Difficult this presumed innocent until found guilty thing...........
Generally, I agree with it but:-
If someone stabs a guy in the street, whilst trying to rob them, in full view of 20 bystanders, is arrested, and goes before the beak, is he "innocent" before a verdict is announced?
He has obviously committed the crime...............
Yes, he is. Nobody is guilty until they have been adjudged as so by our justice system.
So the system is flawed when he is found not guilty
Hamann Pineapple said:Damocles said:ColinBellsjockstrap said:Difficult this presumed innocent until found guilty thing...........
Generally, I agree with it but:-
If someone stabs a guy in the street, whilst trying to rob them, in full view of 20 bystanders, is arrested, and goes before the beak, is he "innocent" before a verdict is announced?
He has obviously committed the crime...............
Yes, he is. Nobody is guilty until they have been adjudged as so by our justice system.
So the system is flawed when he is found not guilty
No the system works fine, your logic is flawed.
Let's say a guy shoots another guy in the face. Guilty? Let's say that guy is a Policeman and the victim is a terrorist who was about to denote a bomb to that would kill thousands. Still guilty?
Let's say a guy stabs someone whilst trying to rob them. Guilty? Let's then say that the guy stabbed someone as part of a struggle and the other person was a kidnapper who held his kid and had her location on him as part of a bargaining deal. Still guilty?
The justice system has worked for thousands of years because it attempts to get ALL of the facts surrounding the case and put a single incident into context. Colinbellsjockstrap's example is one where he has removed any and all context from the example so there's nothing else to judge them on. That is why somebody is innocent until they get through the justice system - unlike normal people, the justice system will attempt to find all relevant details surrounding a case rather than just what's in front of them and they require proper methodologies and evidence to do it.
Stuuuuuu
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure that forcing someone to have sex as a 'sex slave' is a crime, whatever their age.Damocles said:-dabz- said:But it alleges that the woman “was forced to have sexual relations with this prince when she was a minor” in London
Age of consent 16.
New York
Age of consent 17
and on Epstein’s private Caribbean island, the Guardian reported. "
Age of consent 16.
Case closed.
Hamann Pineapple
Well-Known Member
Damocles said:Hamann Pineapple said:Damocles said:Yes, he is. Nobody is guilty until they have been adjudged as so by our justice system.
So the system is flawed when he is found not guilty
No the system works fine, your logic is flawed.
Let's say a guy shoots another guy in the face. Guilty? Let's say that guy is a Policeman and the victim is a terrorist who was about to denote a bomb to that would kill thousands. Still guilty?
Let's say a guy stabs someone whilst trying to rob them. Guilty? Let's then say that the guy stabbed someone as part of a struggle and the other person was a kidnapper who held his kid and had her location on him as part of a bargaining deal. Still guilty?
The justice system has worked for thousands of years because it attempts to get ALL of the facts surrounding the case and put a single incident into context. Colinbellsjockstrap's example is one where he has removed any and all context from the example so there's nothing else to judge them on. That is why somebody is innocent until they get through the justice system - unlike normal people, the justice system will attempt to find all relevant details surrounding a case rather than just what's in front of them and they require proper methodologies and evidence to do it.
The system is flawed because the amount of money the defendant is able to pay for their defence invariably affects the outcome. Getting off on a technicality does not make someone innocent it purely means the defence lawyer was able to circumnavigate the letter of the law.