nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Andrew formally known as Prince in jep?

Hitchens

"Suggestion of impropriety with minors untrue," says Buckingham Palace after Prince Andrew named in US sex lawsuit

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30659629

this is surprising if it's true

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

IAMAMORON

It is not on. They are going for some anti-China propaganda instead.:rolleyes:

Pity .

podgeandrodge

Sorry if asked already but long thread:

1) In the Prince Andrew interview, he was asked had he recently met Ghislaine Maxwell, and he said that he had earlier this year. He was asked whether he had discussed Epstein, but said no, as it hadn't been in the news at the time.

But given all the questions relating to whether the famous photo with him, the accuser, and Maxwell is fake or not, and given the fact that the photo has been in the public domain since 2011 I think, why would he say he thinks the photo might be fake, or doesn't recall being upstairs, when all he had to do was ask Maxwell earlier this year if she recalls the photo? (I know that if he had and she said yes, it wouldn't help him, but I am surprised the BBC interviewer didn't ask this specific question).

2) If in Pizza express, which was a rare thing to do as he says himself, surely there are loads of ex. pizza express staff that will recall the day Prince Andrew strolled in with his kids. And presumably a few photos as well. Where are they?

IAMAMORON

DrPhilG wrote: »

That's an episode about Chinese camps. The Virginia Roberts one is next Monday.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10407993/virginia-roberts-bbc-andrew-epstein/

We will find out in 10 minutes, I am pretty sure it is on tonight.

DrPhilG

IAMAMORON wrote: »

It is not advertised in BBCNI, but I checked listings, it is on. If you have satellite you should get it on the BBC general broadcast.

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/tv-listings/

That's an episode about Chinese camps. The Virginia Roberts one is next Monday.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10407993/virginia-roberts-bbc-andrew-epstein/

Berserker5

Emily Maitlis will drag every last detail out to leave no doubt he was lying

Poetic justice

IAMAMORON

DrPhilG wrote: »

Not on the BBC as far as I can see.

It is not advertised on BBCNI, but I checked listings, it is on. If you have satellite you should get it on the BBC general broadcast.

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/tv-listings/

DrPhilG

Found it, Monday December 2nd at 8:30, BBC 1.

DrPhilG

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I read on the other thread that there is a Panorama interview at 8.30 tonight on BBC ? It was recorded weeks ago seemingly.

Not on the BBC as far as I can see.

IAMAMORON

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You are encouraging people to break a law that is there to protect minors. And before you go on about German or french law ..that is only for two minors ...its not legal for anyone over 21 to have sex with a minor. That can be prosecuted even in Germany.

Secondly get some sense have you seen the state of Prince Andrew?

Be sensible. Have you seen the scum he hung with ..he was a mate of Jimmy Saville and Epstein ...and others.

I am not encouraging anyone, I am only stating facts. It is unfair for you to say that also.

The fact remains that consent laws differ across the world. I am merely pointing this out. I am not condoning people abusing those laws either.

ILoveYourVibes

IAMAMORON wrote: »

How bad is it ? I mean at least elaborate why ?

You are encouraging people to break a law that is there to protect minors. And before you go on about German or french law ..that is only for two minors ...its not legal for anyone over 21 to have sex with a minor. That can be prosecuted even in Germany.

Secondly get some sense have you seen the state of Prince Andrew?

Be sensible. Have you seen the scum he hung with ..he was a mate of Jimmy Saville and Epstein ...and others.

Berserker5

IAMAMORON wrote: »

How bad is it ? I mean at least elaborate why ?

No thanks

IAMAMORON

Candie wrote: »

Age of consent laws are lower in some countries but usually there are laws regarding the age gap, this is so teenagers having sex with each other are fine, but older adults having sex with teens is recognised as probably exploitative. Young adults are easy to manipulate by predators, which is what I'd describe a middle aged man or woman targeting teenagers for sex.

You might feel that a person of 18 is over the age of consent and therefore there is nothing wrong with them having sex with a rich, more powerful, person in their 50's, but I don't agree. Sure it's not illegal, but the power and experience of the older person means the younger one is at an immediate disadvantage and is vulnerable to exploitation, usually without realising it.

There is a universe of difference between two 16 year olds having sex, and a 16 year old in a sexual relationship with a person decades older where they are at a major disadvantage in terms of age, experience and wealth, and lacking the options those things confer on the other person.

Noting those things doesn't make someone a prude or anti-sex.

I agree with you on the ages of consent. But I also feel that it is what it is. Saying someone is not old enough to have sex at 18 is nonsense. That is the law. If they want to have sex with 50 year olds that is their body and their business. Repulsive and mancky yes, but not illegal.

There are strict guidelines around age of consent laws which should not be confused. for example in Portugal, Italy and Germany the age of consent is 13. However this does not permit an adult to indulge in sexual activity with a 13 year old, but it does decriminalise it. If it can be proven that the adult was in a position of authority then it is illegal. For example a teacher or scout leader.

I can't agree with any "moral" arguments around an 18 year old and an older adult. At some point in needs to be recognised that an 18 year old is an adult. They can vote, drink, have sex, get a job and go to prison if necessary.

[Deleted User]

Age of consent laws are lower in some countries but usually there are laws regarding the age gap, this is so teenagers having sex with each other are fine, but older adults having sex with teens is recognised as probably exploitative. Young adults are easy to manipulate by predators, which is what I'd describe a middle aged man or woman targeting teenagers for sex.

You might feel that a person of 18 is over the age of consent and therefore there is nothing wrong with them having sex with a rich, more powerful, person in their 50's, but I don't agree. Sure it's not illegal, but the power and experience of the older person means the younger one is at an immediate disadvantage and is vulnerable to exploitation, usually without realising it.

There is a universe of difference between two 16 year olds having sex, and a 16 year old in a sexual relationship with a person decades older where they are at a major disadvantage in terms of age, experience and wealth, and lacking the options those things confer on the other person.

Noting those things doesn't make someone a prude or anti-sex.

IAMAMORON

Berserker5 wrote: »

Prob a bit of trollbait thrown in but one of the worst things I've ever read here

How bad is it ? I mean at least elaborate why ?

IAMAMORON

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Some teenagers are precocious but most 14-17 year olds are no match for grown adults and are a lot easier to manipulate than say 24-27 year olds. That's why we have laws to protect them and it's also why most people will automatically have issues with adults having sexual relationships with them. Especially if there's money and sex parties involved. It's just wrong.

These were wealthy, high profile guys who could have had any woman they wanted but instead their preference was for teenage girls. You can't tell me there is an abundance of sexually mature and willing teenagers who know exactly what they are doing and the long term consequences out there. At that age you are just starting to experiment. That's what makes it so shady and morally repulsive.

I am not disagreeing with you. But it is worth adding that a teenager turning 17/18 is a different person to a teenager turning 14/15.

I think in Ireland we have quite conservative age of consent laws. When you compare them to other EU countries such as Italy, Germany, Spain and Portugal. In those countries such a scandal would probably be met with a shoulder shrug and a snigger ( look at Italy and the Bunga Bunga parties).

I massively think there is a moral responsibility for adults to protect the rights of teenagers. I also think that a 17 year old girl is capable of making bad decisions. This needs to be understood, but at the same time there are a lot of women having children from the age of 16. There lies the grey area for me.

I couldn't condone any adult abusing a teenager and I never will. But what age is too young for someone to be having sex? The answer is not a straightforward one.

Berserker5

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I am not defending anyone here. But I am a big believer in the truth.

I do think some people are not into sex and find it quite an evil thing. They are always trying to give sex a limit and control it. I quite like sex and I have been having it since I was a teenager. I just think it depends on what type of moral " whip " you are using.

A lot of people think it is abhorrent and disgusting that teenage girls are involved here. But for me it isn't. I don't think that it is fair that anyone is coerced into anything, but there is a definite tone from some posters that you are automatically being coerced if you are a certain age. That is not necessarily the case.

Prob a bit of trollbait thrown in but one of the worst things I've ever read here

IAMAMORON

ceadaoin. wrote: »

A rich middle aged man offering teenagers as young as 13 money and shopping trips in exchange for sexual favours is the very definition of coercion. "Loaning" those girls out to his rich and powerful friends for sex is also the definition of exploitation and trafficking. What he was doing is exactly the same as the grooming gangs in the UK, except they use alcohol and drugs to groom and control the victims. Just because you think these girls were benefitting from the arrangement, doesn't make it ok.

Age of consent laws exist for a reason, it's not about "controlling" sexuality but about protecting children from exploitation. And no, I dont think sex is "evil". Teenagers having sex with people of a similar age to them, grand, whatever. Teenagers having sex with people with a huge age and power imbalance, not so much

I really can't disagree Ceadoin. I can't. But what I am trying to emphasise here is that there is a 5 year difference between a girl of 13 and 17 years 11 months and 30 days old?. I think that needs to recognised.

Is there any evidence of Epstein being involved with a 13 year old? It is my understanding that the youngest age of his accusers was 14 years old, he already admitted to this and plea bargained.

Where did you see that Epstein was involved with a 13 year old?

fryup

i wonder does someone somewhere have photos or video footage of all these VIP's and their kinky activities??

Miss Maxwell perhaps? using it as a bargaining chip me wonders:cool:

ceadaoin.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I am not defending anyone here. But I am a big believer in the truth.

I do think some people are not into sex and find it quite an evil thing. They are always trying to give sex a limit and control it. I quite like sex and I have been having it since I was a teenager. I just think it depends on what type of moral " whip " you are using.

A lot of people think it is abhorrent and disgusting that teenage girls are involved here. But for me it isn't. I don't think that it is fair that anyone is coerced into anything, but there is a definite tone from some posters that you are automatically being coerced if you are a certain age. That is not necessarily the case.

A rich middle aged man offering teenagers as young as 13 money and shopping trips in exchange for sexual favours is the very definition of coercion. "Loaning" those girls out to his rich and powerful friends for sex is also the definition of exploitation and trafficking. What he was doing is exactly the same as the grooming gangs in the UK, except they use alcohol and drugs to groom and control the victims. Just because you think these girls were benefitting from the arrangement, doesn't make it ok.

Age of consent laws exist for a reason, it's not about "controlling" sexuality but about protecting children from exploitation. And no, I dont think sex is "evil". Teenagers having sex with people of a similar age to them, grand, whatever. Teenagers having sex with people with a huge age and power imbalance, not so much

Paddy Cow

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I agree. I don't think it's pedofilia but it is definetly 'dirty' and 'immoral' if that makes any sense. If they knew their age, they should be punished.

It makes total sense. 17 might be the legal age but it doesn't make it morally right for people double or triple their age to be having sex with them.

Paddy Cow

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I agree and I really do, but I think there is alot more moral high ground been exercised in this instance. The media seem alot more interested in the scoop than the victins imo. That is sad.

Who let her into the nightclub that night ?

I get where you are coming from but all that goes beyond the scope of this thread. This is specifically about Andrew and by association Epstein. The wider implications you are talking about would need a thread just for them.

And the media is always going to follow the scandal. That's just how the media works and I agree that it is sad. The victims are just an after thought.

Reviews and Books Galore

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Some teenagers are precocious but most 14-17 year olds are no match for grown adults and are a lot easier to manipulate than say 24-27 year olds. That's why we have laws to protect them and it's also why most people will automatically have issues with adults having sexual relationships with them. Especially if there's money and sex parties involved. It's just wrong.

These were wealthy, high profile guys who could have had any woman they wanted but instead their preference was for teenage girls. You can't tell me there is an abundance of sexually mature and willing teenagers who know exactly what they are doing and the long term consequences out there. At that age you are just starting to experiment. That's what makes it so shady and morally repulsive.

I agree. I don't think it's pedofilia but it is definetly 'dirty' and 'immoral' if that makes any sense. If they knew their age, they should be punished.

IAMAMORON

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you lost your virginity to another teenager and not a man in his 40's/50's/60's who paid you for a massage which turned into something more.

I agree and I really do, but I think there is alot more moral high ground been exercised in this instance. The media seem alot more interested in the scoop than the victins imo. That is sad.

Who let her into the nightclub that night ?

Paddy Cow

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I scanned through it and I have never seen such an innefective interview in my life :P

It was effective in getting him kicked out of his cushy lifestyle!

Paddy Cow

IAMAMORON wrote: »

A lot of people think it is abhorrent and disgusting that teenage girls are involved here. But for me it isn't. I don't think that it is fair that anyone is coerced into anything, but there is a definite tone from some posters that you are automatically being coerced if you are a certain age. That is not necessarily the case.

Some teenagers are precocious but most 14-17 year olds are no match for grown adults and are a lot easier to manipulate than say 24-27 year olds. That's why we have laws to protect them and it's also why most people will automatically have issues with adults having sexual relationships with them. Especially if there's money and sex parties involved. It's just wrong.

These were wealthy, high profile guys who could have had any woman they wanted but instead their preference was for teenage girls. You can't tell me there is an abundance of sexually mature and willing teenagers who know exactly what they are doing and the long term consequences out there. At that age you are just starting to experiment. That's what makes it so shady and morally repulsive.

Reviews and Books Galore

I scanned through it and I have never seen such an innefective interview in my life :P

Paddy Cow

IAMAMORON wrote: »

The difference between a 17 girl and an 18 year old woman can be as little as 1 second. I think that needs to be recognised. I lost my virginity as a teenager and I know of thousands of girls who did the same. It does not mean I am a victim or anything like it. Sex as a rule is not a crime, although a lot of people like to criminalise it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you lost your virginity to another teenager and not a man in his 40's/50's/60's who paid you for a massage which turned into something more.

4068ac1elhodqr

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I read on the other thread that there is a Panorama interview at 8.30 tonight on BBC ?

Monday 2nd December BBC1 at 20:30, 30mins.
This interview may spill more beans about the mad orgies etc.

Read somewhere the “madame” Maxwell will also come out of the woodwork soon to shed some darkness, opps, sorry light - on the story.

IAMAMORON

Muahahaha wrote: »

Is the interview being screened tonight or this day week? Cant see anything in the BBC listings for tonight

I read on the other thread that there is a Panorama interview at 8.30 tonight on BBC ? It was recorded weeks ago seemingly.

Paddy Cow

blinding wrote: »

I believe that does make him a Paedophile .

I'm not defending him but if you get technical (which his lawyers would) it goes like this :

Pedophilia: attraction to prepubescent children 11 and under

Hebephilia: attraction to pubescent children 11-14

Ephebophilia: attraction to adolescents 15-19

Pedophile is the most widely used term and it's what I usually use as well but in the post I was responding to, the poster was right. Technically Epstein wasn't a pedo but he did belong in jail for what he did.