As a teenager in the 80s, I’m not admitting whether Dire Straits contributed to my sexual experiences.

Possibly contributed to it not happening while I was underage though. Possibly a lesson to be learnt.

Blimey, sorry TJ I had no idea.

Then again, I’m not ashamed that I don’t know too much about Dire Straits…

As I said, to prove a point. Seems to have been effective, n’est-ce pas?

Yes, the point you’ve proved is that you expect standards of others that you don’t apply to yourself.

You aren’t concerned about marrying off children? OK.

Why would I be? All sorts of rights and responsibilities are given to children at specific ages. For example, a ten year old can be charged with a crime, but a nine year old cannot. So there is a question about what rights should be conferred at a given age, but I see no reason to object to the principle.

Not a fan of Tunnel of Love then?

when first out it was fresh and exciting but now just feels old and doesn’t interest me any more.

I am prince andrew and I claim my £5

In theory under the Children Act 2003 (I think) that would still be illegal. I think a 15 yr old can’t consent in any way to sex (according to law)

Which was part of what I was saying. It would be illegal yes, but that isn’t going to prevent two 15-year olds getting jiggy together.

Perhaps I misunderstand here; are you suggesting that girls of varying ages being recruited by questionable means into a life of international trafficking and sex slavery involving Politicians and Royalty leading to police investigations being shut down bears no similarity to the Epstein case simply because it was a long time ago?

No, I’m saying that it’s irrelevant. Which is why you didn’t understand, it doesn’t appear that this is a concept you’re familiar with.

Yes, the point you’ve proved is that you expect standards of others that you don’t apply to yourself.

Oh give over.

Why would I be? All sorts of rights and responsibilities are given to children at specific ages.

A logic which renders the “but she was a child!!” argument rather pointless. The law may define “a child” as someone under the age of 18 but as you’ve just said, specific ages is more relevant when considering a given situation.

Ok – back on track.  There is now a witness to Andrew being in Tramps nightclub with a younglady!¬  so thats a direct witness to discredit one of his lies

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/18/prince-andrew-shukri-walker-witness-testify-london-nightclub

Ooh, an on-topic post. That’s killed it.

I know it’s 20 years ago and being specific about dates and times and who he was with must be incredibly difficult. But I do find it odd that a member of the royal family went clubbing (or more recently to a Pizza Express) and almost no-one seems to remember these events?

Either he was such a regular that it became routine and no-one cared, or it was a one-off which is likely something you’d be talking about for years. Were they private affairs? Then, where are all the staff? Hell, why wasn’t it headline news at the time?

I know there have been plenty of cover-ups over the years but this one must be a doozy. Even Savile had the sense to do it mostly behind closed doors rather than dancing on tables at the Ritzy with a blonde in one hand and a slice of ham & pineapple in the other.

Is this entire thing from beginning to end not just weird? There’s something not quite right with that boy.

There’s something not quite right with that boy.

A mix of dimness and entitlement.  a rather toxic mix

Oh give over.

Convincing riposte

A logic which renders the “but she was a child!!” argument rather pointless. The law may define “a child” as someone under the age of 18 but as you’ve just said, specific ages is more relevant when considering a given situation.

No, it’s a statement of fact, which for reasons unknown you seem to have a problem with.

It is a statement of fact by one definition amongst several and I don’t “have a problem with it” but rather I feel that it is potentially misleading and there is more accurate terminology available. So why be intentionally and unnecessarily vague unless your motive is simply to intend to colour opinion (or sell newspapers)?

I’ve been explaining my apparent “problem” for several pages now. If you still don’t get it then I don’t know what else I can add.

Weirdly there’s lots of news reports about Harry and Meghan wanting security, and willing to pay for it when they visit the UK, no actual interview or statement from them, but it’s good timing!

Actually, one more thing.

Referring to her as a child during a legal case makes sense because there is (at least in both the UK and the EU) a legal definition and the fact that it’s part of legal proceedings gives it context.

Referring to a child across the front of a newspaper, “PRINCE ANDREW IN CHILD SEX ALLEGATIONS” is simply wrong. Not least because, having now done a lot of reading since we started discussing this, that is not what he is being charged for. He’s being charged with several counts of alleged sexual assault and battery for having sex with her against her will, as far as I can tell her age is not relevant to this case. (It is of course highly relevant in the Epstein / Maxwell ones).

But I do find it odd that a member of the royal family went clubbing (or more recently to a Pizza Express) and almost no-one seems to remember these events?

I’ve been thinking exactly the same. I’m not the least bit “star struck” but on the odd occasion I’ve seen a comedian/news reader/TV show host/motorcycle racer I do still remember where i saw them just because it’s not the norm. I may not recall the date but I reckon I could make a rough guess at the year.
I’m staggered that no one has come forward (or maybe I’m not!)

the [pizza express story is an obvious lie which is why no witnesses

Andrews whereabouts can be easily proved – he has a security detail

And you don’t think his previous security details and medical records won’t be fabricated to back up his story?

I would be suprised if his security detail would lie on oath

And you don’t think his previous security details and medical records won’t be fabricated to back up his story?

Or disposed of after 5/7/10 years like most routine offical records?

It is a statement of fact by one definition amongst several and I don’t “have a problem with it” but rather I feel that it is potentially misleading and there is more accurate terminology available.

It’s not misleading, it’s a statement of fact. You calling her a woman was misleading.

It is a statement of fact by one definition amongst several and I don’t “have a problem with it” but rather I feel that it is potentially misleading and there is more accurate terminology available.

You seem to be very exercised, but I’m not at all sure why.

Referring to a child across the front of a newspaper, “PRINCE ANDREW IN CHILD SEX ALLEGATIONS” is simply wrong. Not least because, having now done a lot of reading since we started discussing this, that is not what he is being charged for.

Are you saying that it’s not alleged that he had sex with a child? It seems to me that the headline is accurate.

I would be suprised if his security detail would lie on oath

I’d tend to agree, but “unlikely” does not mean “impossible.” Do you think they’d be accepted as impartial witnesses?

Ransos – If you are claiming Andrew had sex with a child so did many of us – quite legally given the age of consent in the UK is 16

Your harking on on this is crackers – it really is.  You do not suddenly become an adult at 18 and only at 18.  there are lods of different ages for different things and different definitions and different countries  vary

I certainly do not recognize having to be 18 to be an adult given you can marry, join the army, buy cigarettes, have sex, go to university, have a job and be tried as an adult in a court at a younger age

You can even give consent to medical procedures without your parents knowledge before 16

In scotlandyou can get married  without your parents consent at 16 and vote in scottish elections at 16.

In england you can be tried as an adult in court at any age.

Tjagain, you seem to be refuting arguments I haven’t made, and in fact are reiterating points I made upthread, today. I am simply saying that it is accurate to describe her as a child in this context.

And i am saying thats utter nonsense given that the age of consent in the UK is 16.  By your weird definitions most of us are guilty of having sex with children legally – its bonkers

You calling her a woman was misleading.

She was a woman, biologically. (I think I actually said “young woman,” didn’t I?) It is possible I suppose that she hadn’t cleared puberty by the age of 17 but it’s highly unlikely.

Referring to her as a woman with no further qualification is potentially misleading, correct. Referring to her as a child with no further qualification is also potentially misleading, which is what I was trying to shine a light onto in my example. I wasn’t trying to mislead, rather I was trying to demonstrate how easy it is to mislead when using cherry-picked words. The more you argue about me being misleading, the more you prove this point.

She was a 17-year old. Why not just call her that? It’s clear, unambiguous and accurate, no-one’s going to be thinking you’re working in Mercury years. Readers can then decide for themselves whether they consider her a child or an adult or an adolescent or a cheese sandwich for the difference it makes, she was still immutably and unquestionably 17.

Why do you insist on banging this drum when it has absolutely no bearing on the case and you’ve already said yourself that different rules apply to different ages of “children” as legally-defined? In case you missed it: THE LADY’S AGE IS NOT LISTED AS A FACTOR IN THE CHARGES FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE DEFENDENT. I read the initial charge sheet, it was linked here earlier (on, gods help us, the Daily Mail’s website). Fixating on “yes but she was a child” suggests either a misunderstanding or a desire to mislead.

Do you want to just make it sound worse than it already is? Because christ knows it’s not bad enough already. Or are you just trying to make me look bad? Cos again, I’m good enough at doing that myself also and I don’t need your help. (-:

Ransos – how old was the first woman you shagged? Under or over 18?  I bet half of us it was under 18

I am simply saying that it is accurate to describe her as a child in this context.

1) What is “this” context to which you refer? It is accurate to describe her as such during the proceedings of a UK or EU legal case, this was highlighted by someone pages back and we all agreed. Correct me if I’m wrong but this is the first time you’ve mentioned context at all yet it’s a word I’ve used repeatedly for exactly this reason; you were asserting it was unequivocal fact half a dozen posts ago and now suddenly it turns out that you agree that it’s contextual after all?

2) So what if it’s legally accurate, what’s that gain us? Are we going to get bent out of shape if they fail to mention her eye colour?

Ransos – how old was the first woman you shagged? Under or over 18?

Irrelevant either way, he’s already said he’s fine with children getting married. Which is why it confuses me so as to why the definition is so important to him.

It’s apparently fine for children to have sex because we apply different rules and responsibilities to different ages of children; yet it’s critically important that we stress that Andrew was having sex with children.

I think this conversation has gone beyond my comprehension, I cannot square this circle. All I was trying to say all along was “be descriptive rather than emotive,” I couldn’t really care less about the rat bastard.

Over 18 for me. However my mate got his girlfriend pregnant at 15, she was the youngest mum at school. They’re still married and happily so after 45 years with grandchildren older than my son.

The age difference thing is law here in France. Sex between two 14-year-olds is fine. It’s also OK betwwen a 14 and 18 year old but at 19 it’s up to a judge to decide.

But all of that really isn’t the issue here, it’s the trafficking and abuse of position issues that make it unacceptable.

I just thought I would check – In Scotland the age of majority IE when you are considered an adult appears to be  16.

Edit – looked at it further its 16 or 18 depending on the legal context.  It is certainly not a blanket 18

But all of that really isn’t the issue here, it’s the trafficking and abuse of position issues that make it unacceptable.

Is it trafficking if done it willingly and then tell their mates how much fun they are having. Don’t you need to be tricked or coerced for it to be trafficking? When does a young person having a good time turn into trafficking? Did they take her passport away and refuse to give it back until she had paid off the debt with sex?

If you were really trafficked and were living in fear I think you might have a different view on this.

Is it trafficking if done it willingly and then tell their mates how much fun they are having. Don’t you need to be tricked or coerced for it to be trafficking?

Being gaslight, being groomed etc can make it appear to be a persons own decision but its been made in a context of coercion

Being gaslight, being groomed etc can make it appear to be a persons own decision but its been made in a context of coercion

Or she could have been a young party girl that loved the lifestyle and had a blast. Now she sees an opportunity to make a few bucks out of it. Is that another possibility?

I think I will sue Thomas Cook for Trafficking me to Benidorm when I was 17 !!!

And, of course, the only reason we’re even using the term trafficing is because in the US there’s no statute of limitations on trafficing as a federal crime.

If they hadn’t needed to desperately hunt for a law they could fit Maxwell’s actions into none of us would even be mentioning trafficing as an issue here.

Is that another possibility?

You can invent all sorts of fantasy scenarios to justify all sorts of horrors, but defences such as “the murder victim was unhappy and is better off dead” don’t do very well in court, and won’t here.

Besides, Maxwell was found guilty.

Or she could have been a young party girl that loved the lifestyle and had a blast. Now she sees an opportunity to make a few bucks out of it. Is that another possibility?

No – given that Maxwell was found guilty in court and given what we know

Or maybe there’s a law there specifically to prevent people doing what Maxwell was convicted of?

Or she could have been a young party girl that loved the lifestyle and had a blast.

I’m not sure it applies to the victim in this case, but yes, that’s a theoretical possibility.

Someone I know through cycling is quite open that she went from party girl to adult worker, and has made a very comfortable life for herself and her other half from it. BUT she will also say that had she had a “normal” childhood and not been in and out of the care system, she wouldn’t have taken that route. So whether she was able to make properly informed choices as an adult due to her chaotic childhood is very much open for debate.

Or she could have been a young party girl that loved the lifestyle and had a blast. Now she sees an opportunity to make a few bucks out of it.

Genuine wow, I can’t begin to imagine the level of dissociation it must take to bring everyone else down to one’s own level of cynicism and distrust, given what’s already in the public domain about this case.

No – given that Maxwell was found guilty in court and given what we know

Are the two mutually exclusive? Is it not possible that legally a court found Maxwell guilty, but also that the statement “Or she could have been a young party girl that loved the lifestyle and had a blast. Now she sees an opportunity to make a few bucks out of it.” is true?

The whole trial was finely based on technicalities rather than any massively moral standpoint. Trafficking was chosen because they could not pin anything else on her, because in general they were very careful not to have underage girls hanging around. Those that were admitted to having fake ID’s etc. A party environment that young women willingly wanted to be part of.

Also evidence was given by friends of Roberts who at the time actually were underage, said that she recruited them but told them under no circumstances should that say how old they were. Yet all the moral outrage is aimed at Andrew. Where is the thread on Roberts declaring she’s is a money grabbing monster that pimped out her under aged friends?

Andrew is a victim of the Zeitgeist.