Net closing in.

Civil case accuser seeks UK witness testimony

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60005128

Chances of anyone stepping forward to testify, and having their name and life plastered all over the daily mail i reckon is pretty slim.

Scotland has something akin to your sliding scale – it’s a defence to statutory rape if you are <24 and had a genuine belief that the “victim” was 16 or over, as long as they are over 13 (from memory, details may be a little out).

There was a defence to the previous Scottish legislation around underage sex which took account of the suspects age. It wasn’t a defence to rape. That legislation has all been superseded by the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 anyway.

Sex with an ‘older child’ (13/14/15 years of age) is illegal, but not automatically rape. In simple terms, if it is consensual, it isn’t rape but it is USI, however if it’s non-consensual, it is rape.

Sex with a younger child (12 or less) is rape, because the law says they cannot consent. End of story.

Technically, the “age of consent” is 13, as only someone under that age can never consent (in legal terms). A 13/14/15 year old can consent, so it is not automatically rape, but it is still against the law. So while the term “age of consent” is generally used to indicate the age at which it is not an offence to have consensual sex, it’s actually a bit incorrect.

But the underlying principle remains. Don’t have sex with children.

Anyone near Green Park opposite Buck Pal with some plant killer (or anything else that will kill the grass) to hand?

Fancy a late night stroll whilst emptying the contents to spell out in big letters “NONCE PRINCE” or something similar?

Could always add “**** OFF BORIS” is there is space.

I’m guessing you haven’t read the thread Cougar. The allegations cover being forced to have sex after being trafficked to multiple territories, where different laws apply. The UK age of consent isn’t the key issue at all.

I said exactly this a few posts previous, didn’t I? Far as I knew, the whole thing revolves around her being moved between US states which have different laws.

The BBC link is interesting. According to that she’s accusing him of three counts of sexual abuse when she was 17. The trafficking was Epstein, not Andrew.

Yes. You may think you’re playing Devil’s Advocate but you’re just coming across to me as a bit of a tool.

Yet for all your assuredness, you (nor no-one else) seemingly still can’t tell me which law you’re referring to or otherwise evidence what you’re claiming is fact.

Again: screaming “nonce” because someone allegedly slept with a 17-year old isn’t helpful. A 17-year old could – legally in the UK – be a wife and a mother (or of course, husband and father). Personally I find that a bit uncomfortable, and I’ve long thought that it’s weird that you can lawfully have sex at 16 but can’t watch someone else doing it for another two years, but here we are.

I read up really briefly on the ‘abuse of power’ thing we touched on yesterday and it seems I was right about it being tightly defined, to a point where the NSPCC are campaigning to have this revised because the law isn’t good enough. Ie, the way it reads to me is that Andrew should legally be considered to be in a position of power / authority but “prince” currently isn’t on the list so he isn’t.

It’s all a bit of a minefield.

The trafficking was Epstein, not Andrew.

Doesn’t matter. He’s not being sued for trafficking her. He’s being sued for sexually assaulting/abusing her on the basis that, having been trafficked, she didn’t consent. If it can be shown that he knew or suspected that he’s culpable.

Yet for all your assuredness, you (nor no-one else) seemingly still can’t tell me which law you’re referring to or otherwise evidence what you’re claiming is fact.

I’ve really no idea what you’re on about. You were making unevidenced claims about the age of children on the basis of biology, which is not relevant to this case. It’s been pointed out in this thread more than once that people under 18 are considered, in UK law, to be children. If you won’t accept that, it would seem to be more about your refusal to back down than anything else. You’re free to do so of course.

Again: screaming “nonce” because someone allegedly slept with a 17-year old isn’t helpful

Take it up with whomever is doing that, then. Perhaps you could list the acceptable adjectives to describe a powerful, middle aged man sleeping with a child who was trafficked for the purpose. Because that’s what this case is starting to look like.

You were making unevidenced claims about the age of children on the basis of biology

No, I’m making well evidenced claims about the definition of the word “child” on the basis of biology and I cited several sources for that evidence which you’re free to go and read.

which is not relevant to this case. It’s been pointed out in this thread more than once that people under 18 are considered, in UK law, to be children.

It has. Yet (again) no-one has been able to say which law this, or given any indication as to where this may be legally defined beyond “it just is, are you daft?”

Also, on a point of pedantry there is no such thing as “UK law.”

Take it up with whomever is doing that, then.

I was, until you waded in to call me names. Most recently, Alpin’s post three previous to yours.

Perhaps you could list the acceptable adjectives to describe a powerful, middle aged man sleeping with a child who was trafficked for the purpose. Because that’s what this case is starting to look like.

I’m sure you can come up with plenty without my help. But again this is disingenuous: “a child who was trafficked” in isolation sounds like he was stealing 11-year olds from third-world countries when in fact a 17-year old woman was taken across a US state border (by someone else) and as above the charges levelled against him by the victim are sexual abuse not child trafficking. What form that alleged abuse took, I don’t know. Do you?

This is the point I’m getting at, just stick to the facts as we know them. Using (presumably) deliberately emotive language is the work of tabloid headlines and we’re better than that. From the sounds of things it’s wholly unnecessary anyway as he’s been sufficient a shitbag to hang himself.

which is not relevant to this case. It’s been pointed out in this thread more than once that people under 18 are considered, in UK law, to be children.

It has. Yet (again) no-one has been able to say which law this, or given any indication as to where this may be legally defined beyond “it just is, are you daft?”

From https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07032/SN07032.pdf It’s not primary legislation but is authoritive enough to be distributed to inform MPs for considering relevant legislation.

1 Definition of a child
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK government in 1991, states that a child:
means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law
applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
1 The Children Act 1989, which makes provision for a number of orders relating to the welfare of children, defines a child as follows:
“child” means,(subject to paragraph 16 of section 1), a person under the age of 18.2

Not relevant to the Andrew case but this definition of “child” gives rise to some probably unintended consequences. Two 17 year olds can legally have consensual sex, but if they send each other nudes they’re guilty of an offence and can potentially end up on a sex offenders register.

Age of consent does not equal the age you are legally an adult.

Yes we are at a 17 year old but in order to get her coerced into servicing these men would have started before that and a “weakness” noticed and worked on by adults.
It does seem that people knew that these young girls/women were there and probably not of there own free will.

But this is what makes it such a difficult situation. The “women” are perhaps willing to have sex in order to not lose a bit of stability and niceness in their lives. If you, as a teen, live on the street then being offered a nice warm room and meet princes what would you give up. And not on day one but groomed into it.

. But again this is disingenuous: “a child who was trafficked” in isolation sounds like he was stealing 11-year olds from third-world countries when in fact a 17-year old woman was taken across a US state border (by someone else) and as above the charges levelled against him by the victim are sexual abuse not child trafficking. What form that alleged abuse took, I don’t know. Do you?

You’re doing it again. A 17 year old is not a woman, however inconvenient that may be to your argument. Try taking your own advice and stick to the facts.

As for how it sounds, that’s your interpretation: others are available.

What form that alleged abuse took, I don’t know. Do you?

Having sex with her, she’s been quite clear on that. After she’d been trafficked, so without true consent. It’s fairly straightforward.

It’s been pointed out in this thread more than once that people under 18 are considered, in UK law, to be children

Here are a couple of examples of how the law uses the word “child”. It uses it loosely.

16Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child
[F1(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)A is in a position of trust in relation to B,
(d)where subsection (2) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B, and
(e)either—
(i)B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.
(2)This subsection applies where A—
(a)is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 21(2), (3), (4) or (5), and
(b)is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances.
…

and

9Sexual activity with a child
(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual, and
(c)either—
(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.
…

Child is not a defined term, note how the actual offences talk about “another person” and give an actual age requirement, the word “child” only appears in the heading. You can conclude that a 17 year old is properly referred to as a child from this, but you cannot conclude that an 18 or 19 year old isn’t also a child. I might add that for the purposes of inheritance, you are a child (of your parents) for the whole of your life.

So, as always, meaning is dependent on context.

Edited to get the numbers right

It’s not primary legislation but is authoritive enough to be distributed to inform MPs for considering relevant legislation.

Now we’re getting somewhere. The link there suggests The Children Act 1989 with a disclaimer regarding paragraph 16 of section one. I looked at this legislation and couldn’t find this definition, and section 1 only has 7 numbered paragraphs. But, OK, whatever, we’ll roll with it, I don’t understand legislation language sufficiently to argue.

Biologically a “child” is defined as a prepubescent. For the purposes of most child protection laws in English Law however, this is apparently extended to cover all under-18s. Both of these scenarios make sense; legalese deals in absolutes like road speed limits, but you don’t suddenly get hit with magic Maturity Fairy Dust on your 18th birthday. Someone who is 17 years and 364 days old is likely to be no more mature in two days’ time.

You’re doing it again. A 17 year old is not a woman, however inconvenient that may be to your argument. Try taking your own advice and stick to the facts.

I’m not sure what “it” is here but I deliberately chose those words to prove a point – that it is easy to be potentially misleading. Shall we go with “17-year old female” instead of “child” or “woman” then? Or perhaps, “adolescent”?

If a 17-year old female (or male) is not to be considered a woman (or man) then what you’re suggesting is that in the UK it’s perfectly legal for children to marry and reproduce. Is that not concerning? Or icky?

What form that alleged abuse took, I don’t know. Do you?

Having sex with her, she’s been quite clear on that. After she’d been trafficked, so without true consent. It’s fairly straightforward.

The article linked above claims three counts of sexual abuse.

“Ms Giuffre says in the court documents that she was forced into sex by explicit or implicit threats and because she feared the powerful connections, wealth and authority of Epstein, Ms Maxwell and Prince Andrew.

She says the duke knew her age and that she was a sex-trafficking victim.”

The issue is seemingly force and coercion, not directly her age. Did I read somewhere as well that he’d knocked her about, of have I made that up? She could legitimately be making the same claims against him (aside than trafficking which, again, was Epstein) if she were 30.

Having sex with someone against their will is wholly illegal. In US law, dragging people across state borders to dodge local consent limits is wholly illegal. From the sounds of things it sounds like he was if not complicit then (excuse me) balls deep in the whole affair and needs to go to jail for a long time. But that doesn’t make him a paedo.

And the reason I’m banging this drum is because if we start conflating paedophilia with shagging a 17-year old then we risk diluting the impact of that word. If people start to hear news reports about someone being arrested for kiddie fiddling and the listener has been conditioned into concluding “well, she was probably 17” rather than “well she was probably 6” then we’re potentially entering into very dangerous territory.

If he’s a nonce, call him a nonce. If he isn’t then don’t, because that helps excuse actual nonces.

Sorry – I haven’t really been paying attention to this at all, and I’ve only read the last couple of pages.

From what I understand, Maxwell’s guilty verdicts (re: trafficking) mentioned Virginia Giuffre several times – but her’s wasn’t one of the cases that she’s specifically been found guilty of. So aren’t there three points to prove here?

a) Virginia Giuffre was trafficked
b) Prince Andrew knew Virginia Giuffre was trafficked
c) Prince Andrew had sex with Virginia Giuffre

Anything less than proving all three things is going to get Andrew off the hook, isn’t it? Genuine question – not trying to start an argument.
I suppose if A, and B are proven….. even if they can’t prove C, Andrew could be done on the basis of B – that he was complicit in trafficking.

From that, I see B as being Andrew’s chief defense – that he did have sex with her, but he didn’t know that she was trafficked. He could just claim that he thought she was a member of his staff/entourage, and that he made a (arguably) reasonable assumption that she was above the legal age of consent.

What I’d really like to know here is: what’s the bigger picture?

Epstein hosted parties with all kinds of rich/powerful people – at which there were often young girls (who had been trafficked) who were then abused by the guests.
But is that (horrendous as it is) the limit of it? Were Epstein/Maxwell just glorified pimps – hosting sex-parties? So did people pay to be at these events? Or was there some other quid-pro-quo? What was the benefit in this endeavor for Epstein/Maxwell?

And what was in it for Andrew? Was he just there to have sex with young women? Or did he have another role in this whole awful thing?

It’s annoying – there seems to be so much here just under the surface. I don’t want to go full “jive” here, but this all feels like a bit of a sideshow

@thegreatape thanks for the update – 20 years since I studied criminal law. Seems to me that what I said WAS a defence to statutory rape tho.

I’ll see if I can find it when I’m in later. I take the term ‘statutory rape’ to mean that, regardless of the willingness of the victim, they cannot in law consent on account of their age. I’m pretty sure the defence wasn’t available in that situation. But I’d need to check to be 100% – if the old law did not have the distinction between older child and younger child like the current legislation does then ‘statutory rape’ would have a different context.

@cycnic-al

I misread your original post, apologies – we are in agreement!

What I’d really like to know here is: what’s the bigger picture?

Epstein hosted parties with all kinds of rich/powerful people – at which there were often young girls (who had been trafficked) who were then abused by the guests.
But is that (horrendous as it is) the limit of it? Were Epstein/Maxwell just glorified pimps – hosting sex-parties? So did people pay to be at these events? Or was there some other quid-pro-quo? What was the benefit in this endeavor for Epstein/Maxwell?

This is the thing that’s conveniently being overlooked by all the (entirely justified!) anti-Andrew focus. There’s a lot of rich and/or powerful and/or high profile people linked to Epstein and his parties. Were they just networking events? Were they honey traps? Who paid or gave what to who to gain access or to keep their presence quiet? Were people blackmailed?

Fwiw, Cougar is trying to make a valid point. Paedophilia is a specific “thing” which is not always the same as under age sex. Using terms like nonce may not be appropriate in discussing cases around this as it conflates the two. And if you take a step back and look at it objectively, as Cougar has tried to, there are clear contradictions in our laws regarding age of consent, age of majority, and requirements to be in education, plus others.

So aren’t there three points to prove here?

Given this is a civil case, and like in the UK, the trial proceeds on a lesser burden of proof. Probabilities rather than certainties. So not necessarily did he know, but would it be reasonable that he could have known, or should have made himself aware.

So not necessarily did he know, but would it be reasonable that he could have known, or should have made himself aware.

I doubt it, that sort of thing would be how it would go in a negligence claim. Assuming US law is similar to UK law in this respect, “reasonableness” is not part of the test for a “deliberate tort” such as assault. The question will be is it more likely than not that he knew? Of course, considerations of what it would be reasonable for a person to have done in such circumstances are relevant to his credibility.

ETA the text of Guiffre’s court document is here, if all she needed to show was that it was reasonable for him to have known, that would be alleged, it isn’t.

If he’s a nonce, call him a nonce.

She says the duke knew her age and that she was a sex-trafficking victim.”

Yep, that’s a nonce, abusing a seventeen year old trafficked female gets you over the nonce line.

Paedophilia is a specific “thing” which is not always the same as under age sex.

It’s a sexual interest in prepubescent children so it’s pretty close to under age sex. Next is hebephilia, pubescent, and had to look this one up next is Ephebophilia. These various, little used, terms are why it’s much better to just refer to men with dodgy sexual interests as nonces – keeps it simple. IANAL

It’s a sexual interest in prepubescent children so it’s pretty close to under age sex.

Paedophilia in the sense described here is not something people have control over, it appears to be something people are born with. Unfortunately for those so afflicted, the word, in common usage, has come to mean people who have sex with children.

are relevant to his credibility.

Better put that me.

aren’t there three points to prove here?

a) Virginia Giuffre was trafficked
b) Prince Andrew knew Virginia Giuffre was trafficked
c) Prince Andrew had sex with Virginia Giuffre

We’re speculating of course, but it doesn’t look good.

I don’t think a) is in doubt. She was moved across a border by Epstein, I don’t think anyone is denying this are they? (Aside from anything else, even if it’s untrue dead men make useful scapegoats so why not?)

b) Is trickier. I want to say that he was aware simply because of scale, if she was a one-off then claiming ignorance would have been more plausible. As it is it’s surely highly unlikely that he was unaware of Epstein’s practises. Plus, for all that she claims to have been scared of Epstein et al, wouldn’t she have said something to Andy at some point? If the royal member was genuinely oblivious I can only conclude that she was a willing participant. Proving that either way is going to be hard, we’re presumably going to need corroborating witnesses.

c) Total pants-on-fire here. Claiming not to remember a girl that he’s photographed with his arm around is at best highly unlikely. If he had sex with her – three times – and genuinely doesn’t remember her then, well, that might not be illegal but it certainly gives us a measure of the man. The only other explanation I can see here is if he was absolutely ripped off his tits. Which isn’t implausible.

What worries me about all this is actually pinning the blame on the donkey. He’s innocent of a) if we’re convinced that Epstein did it. He’s innocent of b) if he pleads ignorance, she was “just visiting from California”. He’s innocent of c) because people have sex all the time and if it was illegal to sleep with an under-18 it would’ve rendered b) pointless.

What was the benefit in this endeavor for Epstein/Maxwell?

And what was in it for Andrew?

In both cases, “they could”?

I suspect Epstein’s motivations were fairly clear and not a world apart from Savile, Harris, Hall et al. They had money and privilege combined with questionable sexual proclivities, it’s never a great combination. Why do rich people throw parties? To show off how rich and powerful they are.

Why do people throw parties at all? Why do people attend parties? To spend time with like-minded individuals.

To spend time with like-minded individuals.

Is this not the biggest red flag of them all? Even if we (ho ho) believe everything Andrew claims, he went back to see his buddy Epstein after all the news broke publicly. Maybe it’s just me, but the only way I’d have done that is if I’d taken a cricket bat with me.

abusing a seventeen year old trafficked female gets you over the nonce line.

Paedophilia is a specific “thing” which is not always the same as under age sex.
…
It’s a sexual interest in prepubescent children

Well, which is it then? 17 (ironically) pages in, we’re now potentially arguing about a legal definition of “nonce”?

I mean, correct me if I’m wrong here please, but I was labouring under the supposition that nonce was slang for paedophile, rather than a generic term for a sex pest?

I mean, correct me if I’m wrong here please, but I was labouring under the supposition that nonce was slang for paedophile, rather than a generic term for a sex pest?

Seems to be the point at issue. I’m with you on the understanding, and as MrsMC has spent 25 years at the nasty pointy end of child protection and we both volunteer with youth organisations, if the term has changed I’d like to know because it’s a very emotive term and I don’t it to be used to stir up any hard of thinking pitchfork welding mobs in the wider community

Based on my experience, sex with trafficked minors would cross the nonce threshold. (that sounds a bit weird!!. I have never trafficked anyone!)

A pedo (in its looser pitchforks meaning) can be a nonce but a nonce isn’t always a pedo.

I don’t recall either of the terms in SOA 2003 so I don’t think there’s a legal criteria 😉

 I want to say that he was aware simply because of scale

Isn’t there a witness statement from another guest saying that he saw Andrew getting a foot massage from another girl? A young Russain this time I think, so there’s other times, fo’shure.

I always thought it’s meaning in this context came from Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise being added to their notes/file in prison, to stop them getting a shoeing from the general prison population. If that’s true, then logically a nonce would be anyone on the protected wing or whatever it’s called. So not defined by the age of the victim.

Could be an urban myth or total bollocks though! Esselgruntfuttock might know.

I always thought it’s meaning in this context came from Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise being added to their notes/file in prison, to stop them getting a shoeing from the general prison population. If that’s true, then logically a nonce would be anyone on the protected wing or whatever it’s called. So not defined by the age of the victim.

Could be an urban myth or total bollocks though! Esselgruntfuttock might know.

That would make sense! So as you say, a nonce may not be a paedophile, or even in for a sex offence (assuming any former police officers go on the protected wing regardless of offence)

I always thought it’s meaning in this context came from Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise

Could be, but that sounds to me a lot like “posh” (port out, starboard home) and many, many other backronyms.

In any case, I’ve never heard it to mean anything other than a child molester and that’s certainly the implication.

‘The acronym N.O.N.C.E. comes from HMP Wakefield at the turn of the century and was marked on the cell card of any prisoner who may have been in danger of violence from other prisoners – it means ‘Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise’. So that staff would not open their doors when other prisoners were out.’ (Wiki)

if the term has changed I’d like to know because it’s a very emotive term and I don’t it to be used to stir up any hard of thinking pitchfork welding mobs in the wider community

Bearing in mind that the wider community has been known for attacking people whom they’ve discovered were pediatricians, that’s probably wise.

Could be, but that sounds to me a lot like “posh” (port out, starboard home) and many, many other backronyms.

That’s not a backronym.

That comes from the P&O liners running to India, before air conditioning was common place.

The portside cabins were cooler on the way out and stbd cooler on the way back to the UK. You paid more for them.

‘The acronym N.O.N.C.E. comes from HMP Wakefield at the turn of the century and was marked on the cell card of any prisoner who may have been in danger of violence from other prisoners – it means ‘Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise’. So that staff would not open their doors when other prisoners were out.’ (Wiki)

Really?

That comes from the P&O liners running to India, before air conditioning was common place.

No it doesn’t.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonce

1975. Unknown, derived from British criminal slang. Several origins have been proposed; possibly derived from dialectal nonce, nonse (“stupid, worthless individual”) (but this cannot be shown to predate nonce “child-molester” and is likely a toned-down usage of the same insult), or Nance, nance (“effeminate man, homosexual”), from nancy or nancyboy. The rhyme with ponce has also been noted.

As prison slang also said to be an acronym for “Not On Normal Communal Exercise” (Stevens 2012), but this is likely a backronym.

I feel a bit sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie.
Imagine if your dad was outed like theirs has been and it was all over the front pages of the newspapers for months! I wonder if they’re still talking to him. Virginia Giuffre is only 5 years older than Beatrice.