Forum menu
“Child” has a specific meaning in English law
That's as maybe but the case is concerned with US law where child is defined differently. As is their law on consent.
Literally the first two google hits are a dictionary definition and the Wikipedia entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child#Biological,_legal_and_social_definitions
If you read the next section it answers another of your questions too.
Which context?
You still haven't said what claim you are making and which of the definitions you are relying on to support that claim. I note also that the link you've provided doesn't have any sources for its claims about the developmental stages of childhood.
Oh I give up.
Ransos - will you give up on this. You have shown to be wrong so you keep on moving the goalposts and your position is absurd
Biologically a child becomes an adult at puberty
legally it varies depending on jurisdiction and context. Even in England it depends on context.
Oh I give up.
Despite not trying very hard at all. Oh well.
Ransos – will you give up on this. You have shown to be wrong so you keep on moving the goalposts and your position is absurd
No, I don't think I will. My point was substantiated some time ago. If the best you can manage is "you're wrong because I say so" then you don't have much in your locker.
Now I really get an insight into how annoying I used to be ( and maybe sometimes are still 🙂 )
One last go then I really am leaving it because this is daft.
I was saying that the term "child" is ambiguous without further context. You've agreed with this - you've made the same statement several times over.
You've then said that it's clear in "this" context (and that I'm incorrect - how?) without saying what "this" context is that you're referring to, despite me asking you twice. So I don't know what else you think I can do with this.
Why is so important to you that we have to be able to call Andrew a child abuser, do you have some ulterior motive here or do you just need to 'win'? It may be technically correct in terms of UNICEF's definition but no layperson would read that statement and even consider that it was referring to a 17-year old. Before this thread I had no idea about that definition, even.
If you heard that someone you knew had been having sex with children, what sort of age range would initially jump to your mind? Bullshit would it be 17.
If that's not clear then I have nothing else, so I'm done with this argument.
Now I really get an insight into how annoying I used to be ( and maybe sometimes are still 🙂 )
Heh. I very nearly wrote "I think I've just discovered what it must be like for folk when they're debating with me..."
🙂
If you heard that someone you knew had been having sex with children, what sort of age range would initially jump to your mind? Bullshit would it be 17.
Did they travel to a private island, to have sex with someone trafficked there, who was under the age of consent there? Was the accuser using the "New York Child Victims' Act", under which she is considered to have been a minor at the time of the abuse, to pursue her case in court?
And that would be your first thought, would it?
In threads like this I sometimes wonder how the partners of some people are treated. Just from a statistical point of view there ther is a hogh probability of ther being both victims and abusers.
Some of the attitudes here stink.
And that would be your first thought, would it?
🤣
Nice.
I just looked it up, the age of consent in New York is 17 (though raised to 18 just recently).
And that would be your first thought, would it?
I admire your tenacity in having a pointless argument. I intend to keep commenting on the case against Andrew, not a hypothetical person where we don't know... the accusations, the jurisdiction, the previous case history for those connected to case... etc. Your "someone you knew"... were they travelling around the world to be with their convicted sex offender and trafficking mates to have sex with their victim?
I just looked it up, the age of consent in New York is 17
Now look up the “New York Child Victims’ Act” and who it considers a minor when it comes to sex abuse claims.
I just looked it up, the age of consent in New York is 17 (though raised to 18 just recently).
Pretty sure it's 11 under some circumstances. 😱
I reckon even Fred West might find that a bit low.
Now I really get an insight into how annoying I used to be ( and maybe sometimes are still 🙂 )
Heh. I very nearly wrote “I think I’ve just discovered what it must be like for folk when they’re debating with me…”
It's like overhearing the confessional......🤣
I intend to keep commenting on the case against Andrew, not a hypothetical person where we don’t know…
That wasn't clear to me, because you replied to a post where I wasn't. Sorry.
Now look up the “New York Child Victims’ Act” and who it considers a minor when it comes to sex abuse claims.
I did, albeit briefly. It appears to mostly revolve around extending the statute of limitations regarding how long a victim has to claim, rather than defining consensual ages, so I didn't think it relevant. Could be wrong, it's the first I've heard of it and I didn't go into it in depth.
That wasn’t clear to me, because you replied to a post where I wasn’t. Sorry.
🤣
Back of the net.
Strangely, I'm not remotely interested in the "term child in context" aspect of this either, but it has prompted two absolute zingers IMHO.
That wasn’t clear to me, because you replied to a post where I wasn’t.
Well, you could just read the title of the thread.
Your hypothetical is pointless and unanswerable, because you need to know the details of the case... the locations, jurisdictions, laws, accusations, history, and surrounding offences. Every case should be looked at on its merit.
Is two consenting 17 year olds having sex, in England, anything to do with child abuse? No.
Is someone in a position of power, taking advantage of a trafficked 17 year old, trapped on a remote island, where the age of consent is 18, anything to with child abuse? Not sure, but I wouldn't be haranguing someone for posting that they thought it was.
Well, you could just read the title of the thread.
Because one of this forum's defining features is its unwavering dedication to staying on topic?
Your hypothetical is pointless and unanswerable, because you need to know the details of the case…
Which is what I've been saying all along. Without those details, just going "hey, did you hear that Brian sleeps with children" is the sort of economy of facts that makes for a good Daily Express headline* and stirs up lynch mobs outside the house of a Pediatrician. You can't just throw it around in isolation unless of course that's what you want people to think.
In your example, "Is two consenting 17 year olds having sex, in England, anything to do with child abuse? No." Replace "17-year olds" with "children" and read that back. It's not enough information, is it.
Would it not be fair to suggest that as a result of this discussion we are a little more knowledgeable than we were at the start? I for one have learned a deal.
Anyway. Let's follow your advice. I didn't leave an argument just to pick the same one up with someone else!
(* - in so far as they have any interest in facts, anyway)
If you heard that someone you knew had been having sex with children, what sort of age range would initially jump to your mind? Bullshit would it be 17.
You sound a little like Andrew's cousin or whoever it was that was on the telly defending him recently saying "its not right to call him a paedophile, that term means pre-pubescent"
Its possible to be technically accurate and ridiculously out of touch at the same time.
Make no mistake, I'm not defending him.
I said this at the start, you might've missed it. The problem with calling people paedophiles when they aren't - aside from the obvious damage done if they're later found innocent - is that it devalues the word, it dilutes it. If people start reading that someone has been outed as a paedo and then it turns out that the victim was 17, it could condition them into making that same assumption in future cases involving actual paedos.
Words have power.
Its funny that America tries 'children' as adults under criminal law when the 'child' has committed something like a murder. Their own laws state a child as someone being under 18, yet can try,convict and imprison someone who is well below that age.
I'm guessing he believes his royal charm can sway the jury?
How deluded is he?
Man, didn't see that coming.
I bet the palace aren't happy!
Hope this goes as well his the Maitliss interview decision. 👍
I’m guessing he believes his royal charm can sway the jury?
I'm guessing that he won't go any where near the courtroom. But that his expensive lawyers can outmuscle and outspend her lawyers, and therefore create enough confusion and doubt for him to get away with it.
All that money on lawyers and he goes and does this. He'll be slopping out with Maxwell next. Did he misinterpret 'doing bird'?
I imagine his lawyers think they can con a jury more easily than a judge.
I'd expect that he would have had to tratify in either case.
I’m guessing that he won’t go any where near the courtroom. But that his expensive lawyers can outmuscle and outspend her lawyers, and therefore create enough confusion and doubt for him to get away with it.
That worked well for Maxwell.........
I’d have thought trial by jury, after you’ve basically filmed quite possibly the worst interview in history wouldn’t be a good idea, it reminds me of that Simpsons trial with Bart and mr burns!
I think this is the poker equivalent of 'All In' .
They're going to be arguing on minor technicalities. I even suspect the jury is going to be hit with, Americas long standing ally references
Looks like an aggressive move intended to put pressure on Giuffre.
I don't think she'll back off but...if she does and accepts an out of court settlement, if offered, she'll be criticised but andrew is stuffed whatever he does.
Out of court settlement - he's succeeded in buying her off; she was pressured into settling; everyone has their price.
In court - embarrassing personal details about him are disclosed/proven; irrespective of jury verdict, he further damages royal family. He's clearly incapable of thinking on his feet and that, combined with his inbred arrogance, will look terrible and appearances/perceptions will matter in this.
I think that this is another moment of "maitliss interview" delusion from Andrew - or potentially he's doubling-down to try to scare the royal family into their (financial?) support.
Personally, after watching his interview, I was left with the impression that he's under the delusion that people would just unquestioningly accept whatever bullshit he came up with, tug their forelock, and be on their way. The fact that he did an interview that was so obviously going to be a car-crash, against the advice of his PR/press teams, demonstrates this. I think he believed he could just brass-it-out.... and this latest decision feels just like that.
Personally, after watching his interview, I was left with the impression that he’s under the delusion that people would just unquestioningly accept whatever bullshit he came up with, tug their forelock, and be on their way.
Same. His arrogance is staggering
Same. His arrogance is staggering
He's being poorly advised as the lawyers are claiming he never had a friendship with Ms Maxwell, despite several papers stating that they dated in the past! It can only be a money thing now and he loses either way.
As much as I'd like to think it's due to his hubris I reckon his lawyers just reckon they use obfuscation and technical legal doohickory to confuse a jury to return an inconclusive verdict
Should up the ante now and say for a jury trial, instead of civil, its made criminal.
I can see where his legal team is coming from on this. Technicalities indeed. She is going have an impossible time of knowing who exactly the photographer is and thats just a single point.
Also he's saying this happened here, here and here , but NOT here, where you say the 'abuse' took place
Or the denial of events ever taking place, but in the clear due to the previous payout which included anyone else who did have sex with her, and although he denies he was one of them, that waiver includes him.
Whatever happens, the chances of him ever being asked to be patronage of the Girl Guides is absolutely zero.
I’m guessing that he won’t go any where near the courtroom. But that his expensive lawyers can outmuscle and outspend her lawyers, and therefore create enough confusion and doubt for him to get away with it.
Keep in mind that its a civil case - tested on the balance of probabilities and not every part of her action needs to succeed for her to "win", its not like a criminal case where reasonable doubt or some critical point of the case could scupper everything else.
All that money on lawyers and he goes and does this. He’ll be slopping out with Maxwell next. Did he misinterpret ‘doing bird’?
Have you misunderstood what it means to ask for a jury in a US civil court case? I think she may also have suggested it should be a jury?
I don’t think she’ll back off but…if she does and accepts an out of court settlement, if offered, she’ll be criticised but andrew is stuffed whatever he does.
I'd be amazed if she backs down without at least a public admission that she was telling the truth (or at least that large parts of her account are accurate) and that there was some element of wrong doing on his part. I'd think its better for her to lose a jury case than settle for an undisclosed sum and no admission of wrong doing.
thestabiliser
Free MemberAs much as I’d like to think it’s due to his hubris I reckon his lawyers just reckon they use obfuscation and technical legal doohickory to confuse a jury to return an inconclusive verdict
But it’s a civil case, it’s going to be theatrics and a lot of hearsay, and if Andrew does his honourable stuff again he’s going to look bad to the jury, confusing them will also just make the jury side with the American girl who’s on the other side