Prince Andrew

[icowden]

I'm sorry TC but could you elaborate? Which crime is a strict liability offense? Having paid sex with someone who has been trafficked (whether or not you knew about the trafficking)? If you didn't pay, would the legal position be different, all other conditions being the same?
I'm genuinely confused.

He maybe can't but I can. It's about coercion. If the sex is consensual there isn't an issue. As soon as there is an element of coercion with the 16/17 age bracket, statutory offences are committed. So if she was trafficked that would count as coercion, and thus an offence occurred.

It should be noted that Andrew had a a *lot* of contact with Epstein and Maxwell. They were friends. They bailed out Fergie.

 

[icowden]

I'm a man in my forties so about the same age as Prince Andrew at the time of the alleged incident and if seventeen year old girls suddenly started throwing themselves at me I think I would find it decidedly weird. I know people love to argue about the technicalities regarding age of consent and wave the DSM5 around or whatever when it comes to the strict definition of noncery but I promise you, it's farking weird and would creep me out.

That's about it. Andrew knew he was hanging out and enjoying parties filled with very young girls. Instead of extricating himself he became chums with Epstein and Maxwell.

 

[slowmotion]

He maybe can't but I can. It's about coercion. If the sex is consensual there isn't an issue. As soon as there is an element of coercion with the 16/17 age bracket, statutory offences are committed. So if she was trafficked that would count as coercion, and thus an offence occurred.

Thanks. In that situation, does it matter if the person having sex with the trafficked person pays for it, or doesn't pay for it? Does the fact that money does or doesn't change hands alter the definition of "trafficked" in such a case?

BTW, I'm not trying to defend or condemn Prince Andrew, just trying to find out what the law is.

 

[matticus]

'Two wrongs'.

... is the start of a well-known phrase, yes: and your point is?

 

[theclaud]

I'm not trying to defend or condemn Prince Andrew

Not seen the interview, eh? Here's a transcript.

 

[theclaud]

... is the start of a well-known phrase, yes: and your point is?

That your use of it trivialised the fact that Andrew is a sexual abuser.

 

[matticus]

That your use of it trivialised the fact that Andrew is a sexual abuser.

Please do explain. In all my years I've been unaware that the phrase had such powers, so I'm keen to learn.

 

[PaulB]

It's just been announced that Prince Andrew has been honoured with the title 'Earl of Inverness', AKA the Loch Ness Noncer.

 

[Deleted member 28]

It's just been announced that Prince Andrew has been honoured with the title 'Earl of Inverness', AKA the Loch Ness Noncer.

Comedy gold, how do you think of these?

 

[theclaud]

Thanks. In that situation, does it matter if the person having sex with the trafficked person pays for it, or doesn't pay for it? Does the fact that money does or doesn't change hands alter the definition of "trafficked" in such a case?

You might have noticed that Andrew isn't actually being prosecuted, so isn't currently having to answer specific charges. The institutionally misogynist Met simply aren't interested in disturbing royal noncery, funnily enough. He's dodging a US civil lawsuit by Giuffre, in which she alleges he abused her in three locations - in one of these jurisdictions she was a minor under US law. There's a raft of UK and international legislation aimed at prosecuting sex traffickers and their clients, some of which hinges on child abuse, some on consent, and some on financial power or control. I was merely pointing out that what Andrew was doing was the same thing as every other grubby punter looking for the youngest girls in the place and asking no questions about how she got there, but it's only the ruling classes that get to portray this as girls 'throwing themselves' at eligible bachelors.

 

[theclaud]

I believe the charge in Giuffre's suit is 'sexual assault and battery', so to answer slowmo's point more literally, no it doesn't depend on payment.

 

[matticus]

It's just been announced that Prince Andrew has been honoured with the title 'Earl of Inverness', AKA the Loch Ness Noncer.

This is just rubbish.



Andrew was granted the title in 1986.

 

[icowden]

Thanks. In that situation, does it matter if the person having sex with the trafficked person pays for it, or doesn't pay for it? Does the fact that money does or doesn't change hands alter the definition of "trafficked" in such a case?

I think the fact that the girls are trafficked and therefore working under coercion is the important point, not who they are servicing.

 

[icowden]

Not seen the interview, eh? Here's a transcript.

That's just a picture?

This is the transcript:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50449339

 

[Deleted member 49]

That's just a picture?

This is the transcript:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50449339

Worked for me same as you posted ?
Although once was enough surely to see he's lying.