Jump to content

The Royal Family Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Well  some are implying Prince Andrew is one !

Did Epstein have sex with a pre pubescent child ( I don't actually know) ?  The news regularly refer to him as a paedophile.

There are many examples of previously precise words now being being used, colloquially, with much wider understandings.

Not something to get annoyed about.

Edited by cgksheff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

Interesting sidelight, when I was about 13 I had a crush on my teacher. If I'd have got any where with her I can assure you it would not have had a negative effect on my life, though, being a bit sexist, I would not approve of a male teacher doing anything with a 13 year old girl.

would not have had a negative effect? 

 

predatory behavior isn't a half choice for victims, male or female, adults have a responsibility to not engage in any sexual way will children, especially teachers, it sound like your teacher was a decent normal human being.

Edited by steve68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cgksheff said:

There are many examples of previously precise words now being being used, colloquially, with much wider understandings.

Not something to get annoyed about.

I consider it is something to get very annoyed about.

The word has a specific meaning and this should be known by anyone using it.

Nowadays people who have suffered sexual abuse are referred to as survivors when in fact they are victims.

Edited by harvey19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

I consider it is something to get very annoyed about.

The word has a specific meaning and this should be known by anyone using it.

Those who get annoyed about people using paedophile when they should strictly use ephebophile are getting getting annoyed about the wrong thing. Particularly in this case as the young person concerned was a victim of sex trafficking.

 

There's a place for arguing about linguistics - this isn't it. At least, not unless you want to risk coming across as an apologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, cgksheff said:

There are many examples of previously precise words now being being used, colloquially, with much wider understandings.

Not something to get annoyed about.

I'm not sure about that, calling someone  a paedophile is pretty much the ultimate insult, those kind of accusations stick around in people's memories. Thus they should not be thrown around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, altus said:

Those who get annoyed about people using paedophile when they should strictly use ephebophile are getting getting annoyed about the wrong thing. Particularly in this case as the young person concerned was a victim of sex trafficking.

 

There's a place for arguing about linguistics - this isn't it. At least, not unless you want to risk coming across as an apologist.

I condemn any such action which is being alleged but let us be clear of what the offences are.

I think this is a time to be specific about what possible criminal acts have been committed.

I find your final sentence quite extraordinary.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how present day attitudes would view someone like Louis Mountbatten orchestrating & cultivating a relationship between a 13 year old & an 18 year old. 

 

I bet if it was common knowledge amongst  the masses of the late 1930's Britain, a few eyebrows would have been raised?

Edited by Baron99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I'm not sure about that, calling someone  a paedophile is pretty much the ultimate insult, those kind of accusations stick around in people's memories. Thus they should not be thrown around.

 

30 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

I condemn any such action which is being alleged but let us be clear of what the offences are.

I think this is a time to be specific about what possible criminal acts have been committed.

I find your final sentence quite extraordinary.

I agree to both of these. If this is so serious as has been made out, people need to stop using such blatently emotive and inaccurate language.

 

People might think that disputes over words is "trivial"  but in law that it is very much the fundamental detail. Words are absolutely the key.

 

Nothing has yet been evidenced or proven. It is time people realised that.

 

I have said before, distasteful as the lay public and sensationalist media think it may be, the fact is she was a 17-year old at the time of the alleged offences which is over the age of consent. If she fails to categorically prove that she was there under duress or forcibly made conduct a sexual act (seemingly three times in three different locations) then there is no claim against the Prince.  Simple as that.

 

There is lots of uncorroborated smearing of the high profile individual, but what about the possibility that the accusor is professionally playing victim to hide the fact that she is nothing more that some former tart who was perfectly content and agreeable to shagging around with high-profile individuals to get lots of nice goodies, lifestyle and travel opportunities. That could be the reality in all this just as much as any of her allegations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

I wonder how present day attitudes would view someone like Louis Mountbatten orchestrating & cultivating a relationship between a 13 year old & an 18 year old. 

 

I bet if it was common knowledge amongst  the masses of the late 1930's Britain, a few eyebrows would have been raised?

It suspect so.  Although within teenagers there is some difficulties as it's such a grey area.   Example, an adult couple with  5 years age difference would not turn heads. However it must be difficult circumstances when faced with a legal 16-year old having consented sexual relations with a underage minor at 14 or 15.  

 

Around the world the opinion also differs where I think even today Japan still has the legal age of consent down at 13 in some regions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

I have said before, distasteful as the lay public and sensationalist media think it may be, the fact is she was a 17-year old at the time of the alleged offences which is over the age of consent. If she fails to categorically prove that she was there under duress or forcibly made conduct a sexual act (seemingly three times in three different locations) then there is no claim against the Prince.  Simple as that.

.

 

The case being brought includes other offences including trafficking.

Edited by cgksheff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cgksheff said:

 

The case being brought includes other offences including trafficking.

No.  The present case being brought is a civil  compensation claim seeking monetary damages award for alleged sexual assault. 

 

All such criminal issues have already been heard and resolved including said alleged victim signing a big fat damages settlement agreement previously.   Now the money appears to have run out and Mrs Victim is clearly seeking another payday.  No arrests waiting to be made. No jail cell waiting for Andrew no matter how much people wish otherwise -  it isn't going to happen.  

Edited by ECCOnoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the aggressive response?

We know that it is a civil case and what that means.

We also know what she is accusing Andrew of.

It includes:

"She says the duke knew her age and that she was a sex-trafficking victim."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58871849

 

The age of consent varies from country to country (and from state to state in the US) yet judges have looked at the claims and appeals and have decided that the case merits going to court.

Edited by cgksheff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.