Forum menu
Soo, how’s he going to pay for this big legal bill, never mind damages ?
I think it is naive to believe that any of the queens direct descendants doesn't have access to 10 of millions in investments,
Why not tell us how much he receives from the sovereign grant fund as you have read it?
He gets £250k plus all his travel costs and expenses are covered. It doesn’t detail how much that costs us because they aren’t broken down that much for the public version of the accounts but I don’t suppose it’s like you or I claiming expenses from work
Soo, how’s he going to pay for this big legal bill, never mind damages ?
Thats a dilemma facing anyone pursuing another through the legal system. If I win can the otherside actually afford to pay up? And, similarly for a legal firm representing you - are we likely to get paid...
Many of us will admit to having been naive and foolish on occasions but that’s far removed from being an abuser of children.
A middle-aged bloke boinking a 17-year old is far removed from being an abuser of children.
He's surely a sleaze and I'm not excusing anything he may have done, but let's not go all Daily Mail.
Grooming and moving around kids as young as 14 and pimping them out is abuse in my book. If it wasn't abuse, she wouldn't have a case.
A middle-aged bloke boinking a 17-year old is far removed from being an abuser of children.
i work in Children's Services, with what we know about this case it is agreed unanimously that this is very much abuse of a child.
A middle-aged bloke in position of considerable power, who was best mates with a sex trafficker, bonking a 17-year old victim of sex trafficking in the home of a paedophile
is far removed from being an abuser of children.
FIFY
To be clear, you can be legally considered an abuser of children, even if that child is older than the age of consent, if the abuser is in a position of authority (such as teacher / child)
I was reading this opinion piece in the Guardian and was struck by the photo
The Andrew formerly known as Prince marching along yet completely out of step with everyone else. Metaphor overload.
My point is, deliberately emotive language and hyperbole doesn't help clarify things but rather the opposite. It's unhelpful.
You may have different legal definitions that I can't be bothered to look up, but biologically a child is someone who is prepubescent. Similarly a paedophile is one attracted to prepubescent children. For all his alleged transgressions, the Fresh Prince of Bell End wasn't shagging a 9-year old.
To be clear, you can be legally considered an abuser of children, even if that child is older than the age of consent, if the abuser is in a position of authority (such as teacher / child)
Yes, it effectively shifts the age of consent to 18. The term is "abuse of trust" and it's fairly tightly defined (really, it's too tightly defined). Teacher is on that list but I don't think prince is.
The charge, is it not, is one of trafficking. He (/someone) had a young woman moved from a state where the age of consent was 18 to a neighbouring one where it was 16. My understanding is that this is directly illegal under US law.
Here's a question, what happens to Beatrice and Eugenie's titles now?
I assume they retain their Princessly status and stay part of the royal household, would any crown assets previously held by Andrew, potentially be gifted to them, or indeed any other royals?
And for that matter what about Fergie?
As I understood it she still retained her title as 'Duchess of York' after the Divorce, what about now, does she still keep her title? (she might actually want shot of it TBH)...
I do wonder if part of the reason for removing his titles and official status as a member of the Royal household to insulate Crown assets from the US civil case?
As of today He's just the black-sheep of a wealthy British family, living in his Nan's old cottage, with whatever is in his current account (presumably a couple of quid) and no job or other source of income to his name...
and no job or other source of income to his name…
Navy pension, JSA....
It's come at a bad time for him, Charles is wanting the monarchy streamlined for the future and rumours were that Andrew was trying to get his daughters to take up some of the roles that Harry was doing to get them into the inner circle, which was a few years of charming with weddings, births, etc, all knackered by this.
I doubt Andrew will struggle with the bill, he has resources and the Queen will always help out, she has access to the Privy Purse and her own funds squirrelled away, so easy to fund without any issues.
It's going to be a long year for him, and the actual trial still isn't set in stone, and causing this much hassle already!
You may have different legal definitions that I can’t be bothered to look up, but biologically a child is someone who is prepubescent
Legally, a child is someone under 18. So the sentence you dismissed as "emotive" may literally be true.
Legally, a child is someone under 18.
Not in the UK - age of consent is 16.
Not in the UK – age of consent is 16.
Doesn't matter, you're still a child. Look it up.
Our crazy laws. You are a minor till 18, but age of consent is 16. Though I genuinely don't know how that circle gets squared.
Read the other day that it was only raised to 16 in the Victorian era, previously it was 12. Which is sickening.
Which is sickening.
Only to us now. Back then it wasn't.
Edit. And if anyone thinks I agree with it be assured I think the likes of Jimmy Page and Boll Wyman should be hauled through the courts.
The only reason David Bowie and John Peel aren't on the list is because of their deaths. Maybe the details of their lives should more emphasised.
Legally, a child is someone under 18. So the sentence you dismissed as “emotive” may literally be true.
It may be (does "child" even have a legalese definition? "Minor" maybe, or something to do with ages of consent). But however you slice it, calling him a nonce is misleading. You hear that someone is a kiddie fiddler, do you think "well, she was probably 17" or do you immediately conclude that they were hanging out outside primary schools armed with puppies and Haribo?
Doesn’t matter, you’re still a child. Look it up.
"Do your own research"? Come now. You look it up and then give us a link.
I looked it up on Google, Wikipedia and several online dictionaries including the OED and they all agreed with my biological definition. It could easily exist but as yet I haven't found a definition in English Law.
Every day is a school day
Id like to see a sliding scale for cosent depending on age gap. Some countries do that
I looked it up on Google, Wikipedia and several online dictionaries including the OED and they all agreed with my biological definition
I really don't know why you're pursuing matters of biology when we're talking about legal proceedings. The law is clear.
You said
A middle-aged bloke boinking a 17-year old is far removed from being an abuser of children.
You are incorrect.
Edit, deleted as I don’t want to make flippant silly comments on a thread about sexual abuse
According to United Nations Convention on the Human Rights of the Child, a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18. The Department of Education define a child as anyone yet to have their 18th birthday.
And in other news a rat is awarded a medal for finding mines.
One rat gains awards, another loses them.
dyna-ti
Free Member
And in other news a rat is awarded a medal for finding mines.One rat gains awards, another loses them.
The rat actually passed away recently, was awarded the medal a few years back.
RIP Magawa :o(
A middle-aged bloke boinking a 17-year old is far removed from being an abuser of children.
You are incorrect.
How about an 18 year old guy (or a 25/30/35 yr old guy) and a 17 year old girl? Just curious where the LAW draws the line at "middle aged"...
Id like to see a sliding scale for consent depending on age gap. Some countries do that
This has definite merit.
How about an 18 year old guy (or a 25/30/35 yr old guy) and a 17 year old girl? Just curious where the LAW draws the line at “middle aged”…
Depends on the context, doesn't it. A 25 year old teacher having sex with a 17 year old student would be in serious trouble.
That's why it's wrong to say that Andrew is "far away" from being a child abuser. The child protection officer on this thread thinks so, anyway.
Rule of thumb, dont sleep with anyone younger than half your age plus 7. It kinda works, you are 18, dont sleep with a 16 year old, you are forty the minimum is 27, 60 is 37. Discuss.
And yet when my 19 year old friend got together with her 31 year old former teacher, that was absolutely fine - married for 30 years now.
Yes the law rightly has set "limits", but the moral frothing around the subject is interesting.
Rule of thumb, dont sleep with anyone younger than half your age plus 7. It kinda works, you are 18, dont sleep with a 16 year old, you are forty the minimum is 27, 60 is 37. Discuss.
I'm 52, the chances of me finding a desperate 33 year old with low enough self esteem isn't great.
Really tough one this. Would Andrew have known she was 17 and not 18. If they met in a club would not the natural instinct be that she is 18 and thus considered an adult?
Or if it was 3 months before her 18th, is she really considered a child on here?
When I was 40 my girlfriend was 27 when we met. When does age gap become appropriate?
So an 18 year old and a 30 year old, is that wrong? Is a girl over 18 allowed to choose a boyfriend of any age, but a few months earlier and her boyfriend could be considered a nonse?(based on the same man now being 29 yr okd and 17 year old girl)
Whilst I don’t think he’s a typical “nonse”, I’m confused at to what bracket he would be in.
Lots of historic pop stars seem to get a free pass. Elvis met Priscilla when she was 14, after his marriage ended he had a relationship with another 14 year old, very little is mentioned about Elvis but obviously a nonse yet we still refer to him as the King. Steven Tyler who got a 16 year old pregnant when he was 27….lots lots more including those previously mentioned….
Can you tell I’ve had a few beers? Absolutely not sticking up for Andrew, I think he was aware that she was a young exploited teenager. But I can see how he could say he had no idea. She was just a girl introduced to him in a club.
All the examples being given just now are those involving willing partners, exchange that for a vulnerable 17 year old and redo the examples.
Just noticed me and my ex just got into Stumpyjons calculation….phew I’m not a nonse!!!
Argee, would he have known she was vulnerable?
Yes I think he did know personally. But I can see how he can see he had no idea.
If he thought it was all above board why is he lying about ever even meeting her?
The 90’s for me were a drug and alcohol fuelled blur. Lots of sex happened. I could be shown a photo and quite honestly would not recognise some of the people I slept with.
He’s a lying turd, and I’m just
playing devils advocate.
. She was just a girl introduced to him in a club.
When I’ve met women in clubs they’ve been equals (ish), roughly in age, maturity, life experience, etc. If someone introduced a 17 year old to me when I’d been in my 30s I figure it would be quite noticeable that this was a bit off (IANAPrince)
It's not the claim he slept with a 17 year old that's got him into bother, he has been known as randy andy, airmiles andy, playboy prince, etc, etc his whole life, the press and country played up his whole lifestyle.
Sleeping with a 17 year old as a one off wouldn't be great for his image, but it wouldn't ruin him, it's the entire story surrounding it that's bringing him down, the constant links with Epstein, even after his earlier convictions, his relationship with Maxwell, now also convicted, that horrific interview which even had the interviewer looking embarrassed at his answers.
It's been a perfect storm, and i dare say that it's also a bit of revenge for some in terms of adding fuel, or giving it press, it's all coming home to roost for him, but definitely not just him sleeping with a 17 year old, that wouldn't have even made much press in this day and age!
Wasn't he (allegedly) f++king her at 17 in New York where the age of consent is 18?
So that's slam-drunk illegal, leaving aside "morality"/vulnerability/trafficking....
When I’ve met women in clubs they’ve been equals (ish), roughly in age, maturity, life experience, etc.
You obviously haven't been to grab-a-grannie night at the Grafton club in Liverpool 😉
Im 60. Me bonking a 37yr old would be well weird
Im 60. Me bonking a 37yr old would be well weird
Let's just enjoy the new Shand for now....
MoreCash - is that Scottish slang? I don’t want to imagine TJ with a 37 year old never mind a hand shandy!
Yes I know it’s his new bike!
I don’t want to imagine TJ with a 37 year old
A whole day of STW waiting for him to go and meet her by train, demanding pics when he gets her home.....
As always, age isn't the biggest issue, look at Leonardo DiCaprio, he started dating a 19 year old when he was 43 or so, it's a running joke he's never dated a woman over 25, but it's not mentioned or offensive to anyone, because he is chased by women of all ages and is seen as a playboy, which Andy was as well back in the day.
For me it's all the other circumstances that are the issue, if he'd slept with a 17 year old who was one of his horse riding mates daughters or sister it wouldn't have caused a huge fuss, he'd have been out front of the castle looking sad and talking about letting everyone down, the press would have the stories of him being depressed or whatever, and a few months later he'd be back, but this isn't that story.