[Puffer Fish]

How was it a sexual assault, though? She said that she presented herself to him as a fully willing partner and that he wasn’t in any way unpleasant to her. The sex on the face of it was consensual.

Of course it wasn't "rape" or "sexual assault",
but in America this would be seen as "sexual abuse", since the young underage female would have been taken advantage of, especially given the situation where someone else is using her and has groomed her to have sex as part of a business.

Obviously Prince Andrew, assuming these allegations are even true, would not have been the one to coerce or manipulate her. That would be Epstein and Ghislaine who would have done that. But Andrew would have been taking advantage of her in that situation.
(If you have sex with a girl, is the girl really consenting if you are aware that someone else may very likely have coerced her into consenting to sex with you?)

I don't believe we can truly know for certain how much this girl was coerced or manipulated. For all we know she did it on her own accord, and she was simply given an offer and tempted with money and a lifestyle which she voluntarily accepted.

[Godstud]

@Puffer Fish You sound like a misogynist or an Incel. Women are believed in rape and sexual assault cases because of the history of this being the predominant case, and them NOT getting any justice.

False accusations are as rare as false accusations of ANY crime, and so fuck off(I really mean that) with this lying bullshit about men being the victims. It's weak and pathetic!

If a man has been accused of sexual assault then there's good basis to believe that this happened. This is based on REALITY. Women don't like to tell people they've been sexually assaulted. Making the accusation itself is painful.

[Puffer Fish]

@Puffer FishFalse accusations are as rare as false accusations of ANY crime, and so fuck off(I really mean that) with this lying bullshit about men being the victims.

Oh yes, false accusations are "uncommon" when the woman stands to be awarded millions of dollars...

I'll let other readers here use their brains and come to their own opinions on that.


If I tell a woman I'm going to give her a million dollars to accuse some man of sexual misconduct, we all know how wrong that is.
But suddenly when the government gives her a million dollars because she accused a man of sexual misconduct, everyone applauds her and thinks that is justice.

Hmm... something for us to think about.


Woman with severe psychological issues falsely accused 15 different men of rape over the years
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8741509/f ... pe-appeal/

It's amazing this wasn't caught sooner. But I guess that's due to the woman usually getting automatically believed.

[colliric]

@Puffer Fish You sound like a misogynist or an Incel. Women are believed in rape and sexual assault cases because of the history of this being the predominant case, and them NOT getting any justice.,

Actually most cases are thrown out, this is because the victim did not immediately report to police and they did not take DNA samples or immediately go looking for evidence, and there was therefore very little evidence and in some cases the Statute of limitations comes into play.

False accusations are as rare as false accusations of ANY crime, and so fuck off(I really mean that) with this lying bullshit about men being the victims. It's weak and pathetic!

However accusations that have enough evidence to prove things occurred beyond reasonable doubt are in fact quite rare. So most cases don't succeed and most rape victims don't get justice.

If a man has been accused of sexual assault then there's good basis to believe that this happened. This is based on REALITY. Women don't like to tell people they've been sexually assaulted. Making the accusation itself is painful.

Evidence is needed to prove things occurred beyond reasonable doubt because everyone is innocent until proven guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT (the part People love delibrately forgetting). And that's where most cases fall apart. Heck that's why OJ got not guilty.

ACCUSATIONS ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH EVIDENCE without eyewitnesses, cctv cameras and physical evidence, like a Blue dress with semen on it for instance. Always keep the evidence even for the "public trial", learn from Monica as she was pretty smart.

[colliric]

In case Godstud challenges me, here's the damn numbers:
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020 ... conviction

[Saeko]

The Metropolitan police are taking no further action, which would suggest that, legally, he is entirely blameless in the UK.

In the UK? Who knows. It's a barbaric place anyway. But if he transported a minor internationally out of the US in order to have sex with them, then he broke US laws. Which are the only kind of laws that really matter, tbh.

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh yes, false accusations are "uncommon" when the woman stands to be awarded millions of dollars...

I'll let other readers here use their brains and come to their own opinions on that.

If I tell a woman I'm going to give her a million dollars to accuse some man of sexual misconduct, we all know how wrong that is.
But suddenly when the government gives her a million dollars because she accused a man of sexual misconduct, everyone applauds her and thinks that is justice.

Hmm... something for us to think about.


Woman with severe psychological issues falsely accused 15 different men of rape over the years
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8741509/f ... pe-appeal/

It's amazing this wasn't caught sooner. But I guess that's due to the woman usually getting automatically believed.

If your only example is one woman who had mental health issues, then you have no evidence.

[Puffer Fish]

If your only example is one woman who had mental health issues, then you have no evidence.

Well, there's no specific evidence she has mental health issues. We can only assume she must have some issues because she apparently did this 15 times.

They only finally caught her on the fifteenth time after they checked a video surveillance camera and realized that this woman's story didn't quite add up.
At that point someone realized this woman had previously filed rape reports against 14 other men and had them sent off to prison, and it doesn't take an intelligent person to realise there was something very wrong.

[colliric]

You should be using the three times lower conviction rate @Pufferfish, it's the best argument in your favour rather than one or two rogue examples where there was specific evidence it was a fake accusation. Not that I agree with you, but I'm allowed to play Devils Advocate dammit.

[ingliz]

if he transported a minor internationally out of the US in order to have sex with them...

As far as I know, from reading the newspapers, there is no evidence he did that.

he broke US laws

Why isn't he being extradited and tried in a criminal court then? Trafficking is a serious offense.

Should obtain the Queen's consent

Why? The personal immunity of the monarch under English law does not extend to her children; in 2002, for example, Princess Anne was convicted of failing to control her dogs in Windsor Great Park when they bit two children.

[Rich]

There is a very nasty little stitch up going on here between the Liberal establishment and Prince Charles and Prince William. Basically the deal is that Charles and William get to keep their wealth, power and privilege in return Charles and William sign up to the Woke agenda and the so called great "Green" reset. "You will own nothing and be happy!". Of course under this great reset Charles and William won't own nothing nor will they have to be happy. No they will be free to whine on and morally lecture us. it is us that will own nothing and will be under warning to be happy about it.

Anyway part of the deal, or part of the strategy is that Andrew and Harry get thrown to the wolves. Yes I'm sure that's a great sacrifice for Charles, throwing his beloved brother Andrew overboard. Its all rather neat, the left / liberal press get to go after Andrew and the right wing press get to go after Harry and Meghan.

I'm not sure many people have really sat down and thought about marketing the British Royal Family. its a tricky albeit interesting problem. The Queen and possibly her predecessor, her father have been marketed on the image of duty. Of commitment, of conscientiousness, even sacrifice. There may be even some merit behind these images in the case of the current monarchical incumbent. But regardless of the truth of the image, Duty, commitment and consciousness don't sell newspapers. They're entertainment value is strictly limited. So the dull grey figure of the monarch only works if they are set against the back ground of much more colourful characters, of rogues, traitors and narcissists.

Anyway I will not remain silent against this disgusting slandering of our war hero Prince, by this unholy alliance of the Royalists and the Liberal establishment. there is no case to answer here. I very much doubt that Prince Andrew paid for sex. Epstein may have paid girls to have sex, or they may have had sex with him for free. But even if Epstein did pay them to have sex with Andrew, I very much doubt that Prince Andrew was aware of that.

[Potemkin]

You're one of PoFo's gems, @Rich. Your posts are just sane enough to be intriguing and thought-provoking, and just crazy enough to be entertaining. Keep 'em coming!

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, there's no specific evidence she has mental health issues. We can only assume she must have some issues because she apparently did this 15 times.

They only finally caught her on the fifteenth time after they checked a video surveillance camera and realized that this woman's story didn't quite add up.
At that point someone realized this woman had previously filed rape reports against 14 other men and had them sent off to prison, and it doesn't take an intelligent person to realise there was something very wrong.

And this does not even support your claim, since money was not the motive.

You have zero evidence so far.

[Patrickov]

Most people in Britain have never had much respect for him.

I suspect neither of the four children of HM the Queen got much respect from anyone, just that HRH Duke of York was particularly messy.

[Patrickov]

Why?

Let's give some respect to this long-suffering mother who is going to expire soon.

[noemon]

I'll let other readers here use their brains and come to their own opinions on that.

The only thing that 'other readers' are getting from your cheap apologetics of blaming-the-victim, in this case a 17-year-old girl, is disgust.

Epstein and Maxwell are now convicted sex traffickers of underage girls. Prince Andrew is part of their group, inviting them to the Palace several times and even inside Balmoral(the Queen's most private holiday home), where even the British PM can only be invited once per year. He maintained contact with both Epstein and Maxwell up until Maxwell's arrest in 2019, despite the fact that Epstein got convicted of this 15 years ago.

He's going down, the only question that remains is whether he will take the Monarchy down with him.

[ingliz]

He's going down

I doubt it.

The Met dropped the case after interviewing Guiffre and a review of the facts.

The US has shown no interest in extraditing him.

Any judgment of a US civil court he can ignore.

And the Queen has signaled he will keep his royal titles, honours, and military appointments even if found guilty.

[noemon]

The Queen has signaled that he loses everything when his conviction is done: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-famil ... -virginia/

His conviction is simply a matter of time. His defense is ridiculous and already rejected by the court. His line of defense is that Virginia does not have the right to sue in US courts because she has been domiciled in Australia since 2019.

The Court rejected his nonsense as well as the attempts of his lawyers to procrastinate by demanding thousands of inquiries days before the deadline. The other side's inquiries have already proven that he lied about claiming that he "cannot sweat due to a medical problem" and his inability to provide witnesses for his alibi(his own daughters). His 2 arguments(calling her a liar, and claiming an alibi the night in question) have been proven already at the inquiry stage to be false. The Court is just a matter of rubber-stamping his conviction.

It's only a matter of time and the right-wing press in the UK is already preparing the ground for this as it is a given.

[ingliz]

@noemon

The Express disagrees.

Insiders believe it would be difficult to persuade the Queen, 95, to take away the title of Duke of York as "it was held by her father before he became King, and she bestowed it on her favourite son.

[noemon]

Okay, some author in the Express disagrees and...that matters because...?

----

edit:

Also you have a bad habit of misquoting and nitpicking whatever suits your own interpretation of things.

Your article:

Courtiers are thought to be discussing plans that include stopping him using his title and forcing him to relinquish his charity links.

....

The [Maxwell] case has prompted senior Buckingham Palace courtiers to consider plans to protect the royal household from a potentially calamitous fall-out should the Duke of York lose his case.

The Express does not "disagree", it is merely laying the groundwork for his eventual conviction.