The disgusting witch hunt against Prince Andrew - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15050783
Virginia Giuffre accuses Prince Andrew of having sex with her at the age of 17.

Yeah and?

How is this even a scandal? 17 is totally legal in Britain. As far as I can make out it was legal in the location(s) where this sex took place. She claims she was a sex slave. How? Why? It sounds like patent nonsense to me. She was a legal citizen. How could Epstein possibly keep her as a sex slave? Even of we accepted her unlikely claim to be a sex slave, how was Prince Andrew to know? What possible reason should he have for thinking that she wasn't just another dumb struck teenage looking to be a Royal celebrity?
#15050786
To be fair, what My Honourable Friend is asking has a precondition that the person in concern must be very upright in both ethics and intelligence, while both Prince Charles and Prince Andrew do not give people very much confidence in either.

Of course, this does not mean I am going to join the accusation.
#15050855
I think the official story is the abusive behavior. Behind the scenes, he exposed the royal family to blackmail by falling for a honey trap--something he should have been well aware of given his position. I find the sudden horror by the establishment over human trafficking to be a bit much, given their constant defense of it for decades now. So I take the moral drama with a grain of salt.
#15050856
Have you been smoking crack again Rich?

I suspect he raped the 17 year old due to grooming. Although association with Epstein is in itself worthy of punishment or at the very least questions to be raised.

How many scandal are needed until we get rid of those money grabbing bastards?
#15050876
I'm no fan of prince Andrew, but I have to agree with Rich. Having sex with a 17 year old is not illegal.
It was extremely stupid of him to hang out with such a sleazy toe rag as Epstein, but the prince is hardly known for his outstanding intellect.

I don't see any reason to believe he groomed anyone or that the girl was unwilling.

I don't have a grudge against the monarchy at all. I did when I was young, but I've learned to appreciate them as I've grown older.

Not sure what makes them money grubbing.

They're a wealthy family, and they get paid good money for doing their job, but so do the kids of politicians and their cronies.

I'd rather have the Queen as head of state, than President Johnson, any day of the bloody week.
#15050886
Rich wrote: As far as I can make out it was legal in the location(s) where this sex took place.

She has claimed she was forced to have sex with him in the London home of Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of disgraced tycoon Robert Maxwell. The pair were pictured together there on that night.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/p ... ve-5020094

That would be illegal.

In the original lawsuit filed by Roberts on December 28 her lawyers state she was under the age of consent when she claims she had sex with Andrew while on Epstein’s 78-acre Caribbean bolthole in the US Virgin Islands, where the legal age of consent is 18.

That would be illegal.

In the papers lodged in Florida, she says: “The second time I had sex with Prince Andrew was in Epstein’s New York mansion in spring 2001.

“I was 17 at time. Epstein was there, along with Maxwell and Andy. Epstein and Maxwell were making lewd jokes about ‘Randy Andy’.

“I had the impression Andy had come there to have sex with me. There was no other apparent purpose for him to be there.

“I was told to go upstairs with Andy and to go to the room I thought of as the dungeon. I had sex with Andy there. I was only paid $400 from Epstein for servicing Andy.

While 17 appears to be the age of consent in New York, patronizing a prostitute is against the law:
A “john” commits the crime of patronizing prostitution by:

paying a fee with an understanding that it is compensation for sexual conduct
paying (or agreeing to pay) a fee with an understanding that, in return, the person (or a third person) will engage in sexual conduct with the defendant, or
soliciting or requesting that another engage in sexual conduct for a fee.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/r ... w-york.htm
#15050893
“I had the impression Andy had come there to have sex with me. There was no other apparent purpose for him to be there.

“I was told to go upstairs with Andy and to go to the room I thought of as the dungeon. I had sex with Andy there. I was only paid $400 from Epstein for servicing Andy.


Prostitution is a thriving business in Britain and meeting up with a prostitute is not a punishable offence. The penal code only prohibits brothels and pimping. In phone booths in Central London, I have seen advertisements related to the world's oldest profession.

In Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is legal, but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes.
#15050897
@ThirdTerm , the first sentence of the excerpt you quoted was "The second time I had sex with Prince Andrew was in Epstein’s New York mansion". That was why I talked about New York laws.

And, I now find out,

In the UK, people are legally allowed to pay for sex if the person is over 18 and hasn’t been forced into prostitution.

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2017/03/20/what-are ... to=cbshare
#15050943
Sorry, a 17 year old hanging around Epstein, a convicted sex offender I might add, and people think this sexual relationship was consent. Andrew would have knew the score. If there were sexual relations it was grooming and solicitating which he would have been part of. The fact he is lying through his teeth saying he doesn't remember her says it all. The photo has shown he lied when he said he never met her. Now he changes the story again but people don't buy it.

There is a reason Epstein is dead and it wasn't sucide unless you are gullible as fuck.

And geeze, while you at it Snapdragon you might as well say the rape victims in Rotherham asked for it as well. :roll:
#15050946
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:That would be illegal.

Yes, but it's well passed the statute of limitations. I mean, Prince Andrew seems rather stupid to have taken the interview without a hell of a lot more prepping. Hopefully, he's been boxed around the ears enough to have a lawyer present for an FBI interview, for which he should also be thoroughly prepped as they like to prosecute people for lying to them.

B0ycey wrote:Sorry, a 17 year old hanging around Epstein, a convicted sex offender I might add, and people think this sexual relationship was consent.

Well, she was apparently compensated. That suggests the elements of a contract--performance for consideration. When people think of rape, they tend to think of forcible sexual acts.

B0ycey wrote:There is a reason Epstein is dead and it wasn't sucide unless you are gullible as fuck.

No. "Epstein didn't commit suicide" is pretty much a meme everywhere in the states now. But you don't think the royals killed Epstein do you? The Clinton/DNC types are a much better bet, as they are pretty polished in wet work. When I heard names like Bill Gates and George Mitchell, it became clear that he wasn't going to live long.
#15050956
Come off it, Boycey. What the hell does prince Andrew have to do with a paedophile ring?
Nobody can say for sure whether he even had sex with that girl when she was 17, let alone whether he paid for it.

He's had girlfriends, but was never really known for dipping his wick into all and sundry.

If he wasn't a prince of the realm, nobody would give a toss.

The man is an idiot and that's all there is to i.
#15050960
blackjack21 wrote:
Yes, but it's well passed the statute of limitations.

Well, she was apparently compensated. That suggests the elements of a contract--performance for consideration. When people think of rape, they tend to think of forcible sexual acts.






That has not a thing to do with this. The Brit Royals are a tourist attraction. There is always a large bloc of voters that would like to bring an end to paying public money for the dubious privilege of having them.

So having a Royal consort with a pedophile pimp could restart a bitter fight they've had before.

Your comments on rape were astonishing. You just implied the victims of those sex crimes were partly to blame. I have been trying to think of a polite way to characterise that. I have not been successful.
#15050963
late wrote:Your comments on rape were astonishing. You just implied the victims of those sex crimes were partly to blame. I have been trying to think of a polite way to characterise that. I have not been successful.


There are probably two kinds of rape we are talking here.

One is pure violence, that means the rapist uses brutal force or physical means (like rape drug) to render the victim unable to resist. This kind of rape is always the fault of the rapist.

The second kind is that the rapist uses some kind of manipulation to have sex with the victim, with some related thinking process on the victim's side. Rich or influential rapists are often of this second kind. I would say the manipulation itself is entirely the rapist's fault, and the criminal proceedings should exclusively focus on this, but sometimes the event would imply the victim had a lapse of judgement or something like that.
#15050970
Patrickov wrote:There are probably two kinds of rape we are talking here.

One is pure violence, that means the rapist uses brutal force or physical means (like rape drug) to render the victim unable to resist. This kind of rape is always the fault of the rapist.

The second kind is that the rapist uses some kind of manipulation to have sex with the victim, with some related thinking process on the victim's side. Rich or influential rapists are often of this second kind. I would say the manipulation itself is entirely the rapist's fault, and the criminal proceedings should exclusively focus on this, but sometimes the event would imply the victim had a lapse of judgement or something like that.


I'd put Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, and Matt Lauer in this category.
#15050985
@blackjack21. I don't think Epstein was murdered by the British Royal family. Although I suspect they were glad his death happened. This reminds me of "Who Shot Mr Burns" where it could have been fucking anyone. So we don't know who silenced him, but it was obviously someone well connected and someone who knew how to grease some palms. Although fair play at acting obtuse as if he was suicidal and his death wasn't fucking convenient.



@snapdragon

I see no difference here to Weinstein or Saville when comparing them to Prince Andrew. Are we seriously to believe all this happened and he hadn't a clue. He just met Epstein coincidentally after meeting Maxwells daughter. Epstein at the time happened to set up a pedo ring with some very young adults, convicted of it but this has nothing to do Prince Andrew right? He just met a girl associated with Epstein and walked in Maxwells house to have sex with her, she said she was coerced and he forgot all about it and to you his story is more believable. Andrew must be in a witch hunt you claim. Fuck off. He is as dirty as he thinks he can get away with it like any fucker with a little bit of power. And perhaps he would have got away with it if he didn't execute the worse excuse on television history and never covered up his stories holes.

Maxwells daughter is going to tell all to the FBI apparently, perhaps under a plea deal. And if she dies spontaneously that must be coincidental too right. :lol:
#15050990
Just so as no one is in any doubt where I am coming from. I support

1 A minimum age of consent of 16 for full vaginal sexual intercourse with girls, regardless of the age of the male. This would be statuary rape.

2 A minimum age of consent of 18 for full vaginal sexual intercourse with girls, regardless of the age of the male, where the girl / young women is under the influence of mind altering drugs or alcohol. This would be statuary rape.

3 A minimum age of consent of 18 for full receptive anal intercourse. This would be statuary rape.

4 A minimum age of consent of 18 for full insertive anal intercourse, however this is voided as an issue where 3 has taken place.

5 A minimum age of consent for marriage of 18.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:That would be illegal. (referencing the US Virgin islands)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify the exact allegations for us.

However in accordance with the principles laid out above I hold US Virgin Islands laws on sexual consent in utter contempt, at the time in question girls could be married at 14. If Pince Andrew did break the Virgin Island law, which is far from proven, he should be praised for striking a blow for freedom, as Alan Turing should be praised for breaking the law and being a sexual offender (as long as the sexual partner was over 18).
#15051010
late wrote:That has not a thing to do with this. The Brit Royals are a tourist attraction. There is always a large bloc of voters that would like to bring an end to paying public money for the dubious privilege of having them.

The Queen is still sovereign. Legally, she's more than just a tourist attraction.

late wrote:So having a Royal consort with a pedophile pimp could restart a bitter fight they've had before.

Prince Andrew isn't a royal consort. He's a prince royal with virtually zero chance of becoming king.

late wrote:Your comments on rape were astonishing.

I'm not a socialist or a progressive. There has been no allegation of forcible rape. If Epstein paid a young woman to have sex with Prince Andrew and didn't tell him that 1) Epstein had paid her and that 2) she was underage, it cannot be construed as forcible rape. It's certainly poor judgement on his part. It's also passed the statute of limitations, so criminally he gets off scot free as they say in the UK--unless, of course, he does something stupid like lie to the FBI--and he is apparently quite stupid.

late wrote:You just implied the victims of those sex crimes were partly to blame.

They don't look like they were physically forced to do anything. Rather, they look like underage prostitutes who were making great money to fuck very rich and powerful people and live a partying lifestyle, and now have decided they have a change of heart about it. Sorry if in the post-Obergefell world my inability to see the state as having the moral standing to make a moral argument about much of anything offends your sensibilities. For those of us who believe in something greater than ourselves, the state is just a corporation like McDonalds or Microsoft albeit with guns, courts and prisons. Whereas, for people like you, the state is morality; it is God.

Patrickov wrote:The second kind is that the rapist uses some kind of manipulation to have sex with the victim, with some related thinking process on the victim's side. Rich or influential rapists are often of this second kind. I would say the manipulation itself is entirely the rapist's fault, and the criminal proceedings should exclusively focus on this, but sometimes the event would imply the victim had a lapse of judgement or something like that.

The legal age of consent is what would be operative here, and if the "victim" is below the legal age of consent it is considered "statutory rape." So anyone under the age of 18 on paedophile island would be under the age of consent, because that is the US Virgin Islands. Some states have age of consent as 16 years of age. Keep in mind, the age of consent used to be 10 years old until the beginning of the 20th Century when the progressives pushed against child labor, etc.

Finfinder wrote:I'd put Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, and Matt Lauer in this category.

At least Bill Clinton has actually been accused of forcible rape, and Harvey Weinstein of forcible sexual assault. I'm not sure about Lauer, but media people should be presumed guilty since they're generally scumbags anyway.

B0ycey wrote:@blackjack21. I don't think Epstein was murdered by the British Royal family. Although I suspect they were glad his death happened. This reminds me of "Who Shot Mr Burns" where it could have been fucking anyone. So we don't know who silenced him, but it was obviously someone well connected and someone who knew how to grease some palms. Although fair play at acting obtuse as if he was suicidal and his death wasn't fucking convenient.

Yeah, I don't think anyone particularly misses him personally. My pet theory is that Trump might have been interested in the case as payback to the Clintons for Russiagate.

Rich wrote:I support

But what penalty? Where is the fun in any of this if you can't hang someone?
#15051016
blackjack21 wrote:But what penalty? Where is the fun in any of this if you can't hang someone?

Ah that support business was in part a prelude to saying that, desiring or even having sex with a 15 year old girl is not paedophilia. Its not paedophilia in Thailand where its legal and it doesn't magically become paedophilia in Britain where it is illegal. It was not paedophilia when it was done legally with one's 14 or 15 year old wife in the US Virgin Islands before the recent change in the law. And it did not magically become paedophilia if the girl in question was not one's wife.
#15051017
Rich wrote:Just so as no one is in any doubt where I am coming from. I support

1 A minimum age of consent of 16 for full vaginal sexual intercourse with girls, regardless of the age of the male. This would be statuary rape.

2 A minimum age of consent of 18 for full vaginal sexual intercourse with girls, regardless of the age of the male, where the girl / young women is under the influence of mind altering drugs or alcohol. This would be statuary rape.

3 A minimum age of consent of 18 for full receptive anal intercourse. This would be statuary rape.

4 A minimum age of consent of 18 for full insertive anal intercourse, however this is voided as an issue where 3 has taken place.

5 A minimum age of consent for marriage of 18.


Thanks for taking the time to clarify the exact allegations for us.

However in accordance with the principles laid out above I hold US Virgin Islands laws on sexual consent in utter contempt, at the time in question girls could be married at 14. If Pince Andrew did break the Virgin Island law, which is far from proven, he should be praised for striking a blow for freedom, as Alan Turing should be praised for breaking the law and being a sexual offender (as long as the sexual partner was over 18).


Thanks for clarity Rich, but your thread accused Giuffre of lying whilst claiming Prince Andrew of ignorance. This isn't about age but consent. In other words Rape. Is 17 an age that is appropriate for that? :roll:

He was trying to build his party and gain politic[…]

I have a suggestion to anyone reading that who is[…]

And that only makes sense if they had a common […]

A common misconception is that the president can o[…]