Jump to content

What If A Member Of Royal Family Was A Pedo?

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Ridgewalk said:

I'm no lover of the Monarchy, and find  Prince Andrew a less than impressive individual, bland, grey and nondescript. What is interesting is how the  pro establishment Royalty cheering right wing gutter press have influenced the public to find him guilty in the court of public opinion. 

Interestingly he is now damned as a paedophile when, as far as I understand it his accuser was 17 at the time.  She may well have been trafficked and coerced into sex with Andrew in which case he would be guilty of rape. A middle aged mad having sexual relations with a 17 year old is seedy in the extreme and  sordid, he's used and abused his position. However to decry him as a paedophile seems a bit off the mark to me. Under law in UK i believe a 17 year old is classed as a child, but strictly speaking would he still be classed as a paedophile ?

 

Not a pleasant subject this.

 

Ready for the pitchforks

 

I believe Andy was accused of having "relations" in the USA by a certain young Lady, it allegedly took place 3 times, Two of these times was while the young Lady was under age in the state where the alleged offence took place. The third time she was of age of consent.  Just what I read, is it true or false, who knows. Maybe Andy will have to go to the USA and give evidence, although some think he would be arrested as he got off the plane. (breakfast TV this morning)

 

Angel1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

I believe Andy was accused of having "relations" in the USA by a certain young Lady, it allegedly took place 3 times, Two of these times was while the young Lady was under age in the state where the alleged offence took place. The third time she was of age of consent.  Just what I read, is it true or false, who knows. Maybe Andy will have to go to the USA and give evidence, although some think he would be arrested as he got off the plane. (breakfast TV this morning)

 

Angel1.

So it is alleged sexual assualt, maybe even rape. Not paedophilia (pedophilia in the USA).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

 

"Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.[1][2] Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[4] "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, gaz 786 said:

She was old enough to say no 🤔

Misogynistic apology for sexual assault. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, gaz 786 said:

She was old enough to say no 🤔

I'm going out on a limb here...but I bet you don't say that about the victims of the Rotherham Pedo gangs...hmmm, and I wonder why

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/11/2019 at 10:33, nightrider said:

Some people on twitter have noted some interesting features in the famous photo of Andrew. Such as shadows being cast by some objects and not others.

 

 

She seems to look happy to be there in the photograph. She looks quiet flattered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jaffa1 said:

She seems to look happy to be there in the photograph. She looks quiet flattered.

thats child grooming for you

Share this post


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

thats child grooming for you

A photo of people with arms around each others waists hardly qualifies as "child grooming" - and Guiffre hardly qualifies as a "child" in that picture - could be anything fron late teens to nigh on 30 in that photo.

 

What's wrong with describing him as an alleged sexual predator or even rapist? "Pedo" usually belongs on stupid conspiracy theory forums like David Icke - let's not lower SF to that level.

Edited by Longcol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, PRESLEY said:

To be fair I think after the Queen passes away the remaining royals should be disolved and pensioned off. Im not a royalist but I think the Queen is the best of a bad bunch. She still has the old school morales and still follows royal protocol too a T.  Just look back over the past not so many years, they have all been involved in embarrasing  the institution and the country with some very bad behaviour From Phillips dodgy dealings with a car crash, Charles with his triangled  love affair,  Harry's drug abuse in night clubs and dressing as a Natzi and much more Skulldugery from the rest of the clique over the years. If you look back it will show none of them are fit to take over from the Queen.

Just imagine had Margaret been the older sister,Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ontarian1981 said:

Just imagine had Margaret been the older sister,Lol.

You win the Interwebs this week!

 

And as a bonus big ears wouldn't be next in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Longcol said:

So it is alleged sexual assualt, maybe even rape. Not paedophilia (pedophilia in the USA).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

 

"Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.[1][2] Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[4] "

That was the working definition of paedophilia in my professional life, since then however the definition seems to have broadened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Longcol said:

You win the Interwebs this week!

 

And as a bonus big ears wouldn't be next in line.

Just shows how this lot are always shiftin the goal post.  Edward had to abdicate over divorcee Mrs Simpson but big ears is next in line after marrying Camilla a divorcee. :suspect: Just think if Mrs Simpson had been Queen,  Bart would have been next in line. :hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PRESLEY said:

Just shows how this lot are always shiftin the goal post.  Edward had to abdicate over divorcee Mrs Simpson but big ears is next in line after marrying Camilla a divorcee. :suspect: Just think if Mrs Simpson had been Queen,  Bart would have been next in line. :hihi:

 This all of a sudden popular again.:D

 

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.