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?