What do you mean by “biologically”? The ability to have children? If so, we’re potentially talking some ten year olds in that category. Do you say they’re women?

You know Ranos, you could’ve saved me a hell of a lot of typing across multiple threads over the last couple of days if you just used google occasionally.

I don’t know how often I can say the same thing in slightly different ways, this is getting tedious now. “Child” has a specific meaning in English law. Outside of that, it is ambiguous and potentially misleading. That is all.

But she’s said that it wasn’t “fun for her at the time” repeatedly in court and in public

When has she said it in court?

But she’s said that it wasn’t “fun for her at the time” repeatedly in court and in public. So, in order to make this claim, you’ve got to assume that that’s a lie.

Did she say that to Andrew if they did in fact have sex? If she did and then again nail him to the wall.

You’re assuming that she’s just cynically trying to make a buck. That’s she’ splaying at being a victim, just for the pay-out.

I am assuming nothing, I am saying its possible. Are you assuming it’s impossible?

I am assuming nothing, I am saying its possible. Are you assuming it’s impossible?

You can create any number of alternate possibilities. Given that Maxwell’s and Epstein’s sex trafficking of young women and girls in order to satisfy themselves is now public knowledge through the courts, and one of those women is undoubtedly Giuffre; neither of us have to assume anything.

Edit: In order to say what you’ve said, you got to make the assumption that although Epstein and Maxwell clearly did what they did, and were guilty, that uniquely amongst all their countless victims, Giuffre was aware, complicit, and manipulative enough to wait decades to miss her chance at a criminal case, in order to go therough the trauma of a civil case…just for the pay out..

Like I said, that level of disassociation is weird.

You can create any number of alternate possibilities. Given that Maxwell’s and Epstein’s sex trafficking of young women and girls in order to satisfy themselves is now public knowledge through the courts, and one of those women is undoubtedly Giuffre; neither of us have to assume anything.

You are though, you are assuming she actually had sex with Prince Andrew and that it was in some way illegal. You are assuming that Prince Andrew knew she was illegally brought to the UK. You are assuming she made it clear to him that she didn’t want sex with him and he ignored it.

If you are not assuming that and can point to some evidence other than she’s said so 20years later, when he’s equally saying he didn’t 20 years later then I am all ears.

You know Ranos, you could’ve saved me a hell of a lot of typing across multiple threads over the last couple of days if you just used google occasionally.

I’m not clear on what claim you’re making or what evidence you’re relying on. It’s up to you to clarify and substantiate, not me.

I don’t know how often I can say the same thing in slightly different ways, this is getting tedious now. “Child” has a specific meaning in English law. Outside of that, it is ambiguous and potentially misleading. That is all.

No, “child” has different meanings depending on the context. In this context, you were using it incorrectly.

Are we talking about “unacceptable” (ie, morally bankrupt) or illegal?

I don’t think something has the illegal for you to be sued (INAL – and the US is weird so who knows). Clearly if I do commit a crime against you I might have a civil liability for the damage too, but I can be sued for damages if I flood a neighbours house, no crime has been committed but my actions, or inactions have caused a loss to someone else and the civil courts will look to remedy that. I can’t see a fundamental reason why if I participate in a legal but sleezy scheme which causes damage to someone else who wasn’t a fully willing participant in that scheme (and it is of course for the court to determine that), that I shouldn’t be liable to remedy that damage. (In the US they also have the concept of punitive damages which goes beyond just making good the damage, and with Juries able to set damages can result in figures far beyond we would see in the UK).

Again: the charges against Andrew is that he had sex with her against her will because she was scared of repercussions if she didn’t. There’s also a count of battery which it also explains as having non-consensual sex with her, which I don’t fully understand unless they’re using coy language to refer to a BDSM session.

I don’t think he’s charged with anything (unless the US use that term differently to here). The wording from the court papers is: “Prince Andrew committed sexual assault and battery upon Plaintiff when she was 17 years old. As such, Prince Andrew is responsible for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to New York common law. The damage to Plaintiff has been severe and lasting.”. I wouldn’t infer much about the battery wording – its lawyer speak for doing it repeatedly, it doesn’t mean there was significant violence involved.

To be honest, it’s not wholly clear to me either as why they’re not calling it rape, unless that’s a harder charge to get to stick?

There may be many reasons, once you start labelling it with specific offences like that you run into different legal definitions and e.g. in the UK would require some evidence of penetration, arguments about reasonably inferred consent etc.

Morally, yes of course, it’s horrific from beginning to end. But people don’t go to jail for being immoral.

And Andrew can’t go to jail for a civil case either.

I guess it hinges on how much he knew about her situation, he could have been oblivious to the entire thing but given the sheer scale of Epstein’s operation that seems vanishingly unlikely to me.

To some extent, the case should probably hinge around the question of his intent to cause distress. However his outright denials that he even met her would somewhat undermine his credibility if the Jury accept that he did, so make it hard to turn to a “something happened, but I meant no harm” line. In fact I suspect she may even argue that those denials continue to cause her distress!

Surely no-one is that naive by the age of 40?

Smart lawyers might even have tried to argue that as a Prince he is incredibly naive and other people normally shield him from the horrors and risks in the world to an extent normally people don’t experience!

PS. I’m all for the man being allowed to test the case in court, and to attempt the arguments before the case gets that far that the case is not valid; I’m astounded at some of the comments here from people who seem to suggest that if her allegations are all (or even mostly) accurate that Andrew might have done nothing wrong?

Poly – I think some of the more confusedfolk on here are forgetting several importnat factors

Its a civil case not criminal

Its US law notUK

civil standard of proof is lower

for what its worth I do not see Andrew as committing a crime in the UK.  However thats not the question  here

Morally Andrew is contemptible

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?

for what its worth I do not see Andrew as committing a crime in the UK. However thats not the question here

Possibly if he knew she’d been trafficked?

Morally Andrew is contemptible

Think we’re all agreed on that.

I can be sued for damages if I flood a neighbours house, no crime has been committed but my actions, or inactions have caused a loss to someone else and the civil courts will look to remedy that.

That’s a good point actually, I hadn’t thought of that. There is, presumably, some legalise somewhere which defines this or sets precedence? I don’t know how that works.

I don’t think he’s charged with anything (unless the US use that term differently to here).

The wording was mine, if it’s incorrect than I apologise, as I said I’m still trying to work all this out.

And Andrew can’t go to jail for a civil case either.

Again, I didn’t know that. Thanks.

Smart lawyers might even have tried to argue that as a Prince he is incredibly naive and other people normally shield him from the horrors and risks in the world to an extent normally people don’t experience!

I was going with “it’s a bad idea when cousins marry” but that works too. 😁

“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.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020

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.

Oh hello…
https://apple.news/AEzCdk5ZVTyS5NyBEnFgZYA

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!