Topic: Is Bert a pervy Pedophile? This just in!
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #91,118
A woman who’s called herself Jeffrey Epstein’s “sex slave” addressed Prince Andrew directly following Tuesday hearings into the the late financier’s child sex trafficking case.
“He knows exactly what he’s done, and I hope he comes clean about it,” Virginia Roberts Giuffre told reporters when asked if she had any words for the Duke of York.
Giuffre, now 35, claims Epstein ordered her to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was just 17 years old
https://nypost.com/2019/08/27/virginia-giuffre-addresses-prince-andrew-following-jeffrey-epstein-hearing/
“He knows exactly what he’s done, and I hope he comes clean about it,” Virginia Roberts Giuffre told reporters when asked if she had any words for the Duke of York.
Giuffre, now 35, claims Epstein ordered her to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was just 17 years old
https://nypost.com/2019/08/27/virginia-giuffre-addresses-prince-andrew-following-jeffrey-epstein-hearing/
(Edited 23 hours later by a moderator.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later[^] [v] #1,036,908
What a sicko. Queen Elizabeth must be so disappoint.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,919
Prince Andrew(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,920
A 17 year old girl-(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,921
Prince Andrew who fucked a seventeen year old girl who was forced to make herself available to him for sex!Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,927
The mc Brits are strangely quiet
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
Bilbo !RwordOooFE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,930
toni !RwordOooFE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 9 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,060
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,066
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 12 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,231
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,241
@previous (E)
Prince Andrew The Duke of York did not rub his fat middle aged body all over the petite seventeen year old in the UK.
Prince Andrew The Duke of York did not rub his fat middle aged body all over the petite seventeen year old in the UK.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,242
I bet he grunted spasmodicly like the school Principal screwing Tom Hank's mother in Forrest Gump.
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
beckyderp !DONgSbOYdw joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,244
banned for a day fuckin weirdo
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,264
toni !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,369
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,371
Bilbo !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,373
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,377
@previous (Bilbo !RwordOooFE)
Becky finally acknowledges his existence and he's mad about it. What a total hypocrite.
Becky finally acknowledges his existence and he's mad about it. What a total hypocrite.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,385
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 12 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,560
beckyderp !DONgSbOYdw replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,563
Syntax joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 48 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,571
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,577
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 11 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,716
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,723
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,725
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,726
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,728
@1,037,725 (E)
That wouldn't be too bad. But he was like FORTY FOUR or FORTY FIVE when he rolled around on the bed with that 17 year old GIRL that was coerced to let him have his way with her.
That wouldn't be too bad. But he was like FORTY FOUR or FORTY FIVE when he rolled around on the bed with that 17 year old GIRL that was coerced to let him have his way with her.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,729
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,733
@1,037,725 (E)
AND at the time his marriage to Sarah was over twice as many years old as that girl he molested!!
AND at the time his marriage to Sarah was over twice as many years old as that girl he molested!!
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 11 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,734
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 3 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,735
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 26 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,736
17 according to a married Prince Andrew
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,737
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 years ago, 39 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,739
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 13 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,740
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,751
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 8 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,752
@1,037,740 (J)
The age of consent ranges between 16 and 17 in many countries around the globe. Do you also believe that nobody should be allowed to drive a car until they're 18 (or 21 in some parts of the US)?
The age of consent ranges between 16 and 17 in many countries around the globe. Do you also believe that nobody should be allowed to drive a car until they're 18 (or 21 in some parts of the US)?
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,756
@1,037,751 (C)
How can I verify that you are telling the truth about the age of consent on an island which doesn't appear on any map?
How can I verify that you are telling the truth about the age of consent on an island which doesn't appear on any map?
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,758
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,766
@previous (C)
So basically, you lied through your teeth when you claimed the age of consent was 18 on this non-existent island. Thanks.
So basically, you lied through your teeth when you claimed the age of consent was 18 on this non-existent island. Thanks.
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,768
@previous (E)
Not at all. They only do pedo stuff on pedo Island, and the Duke of York had sex with a 17 year old on pedo Island, therefore pedo Island has a aoc of 18.thanks.
Not at all. They only do pedo stuff on pedo Island, and the Duke of York had sex with a 17 year old on pedo Island, therefore pedo Island has a aoc of 18.thanks.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,769
@1,037,752 (E)
> Do you also believe that nobody should be allowed to drive a car until they're 18 (or 21 in some parts of the US)?
You can actually drive a car at any age on Pedo Island. The laws about most things in Richasfuckistan are pretty lax.
> Do you also believe that nobody should be allowed to drive a car until they're 18 (or 21 in some parts of the US)?
You can actually drive a car at any age on Pedo Island. The laws about most things in Richasfuckistan are pretty lax.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,771
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,773
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,776
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,787
@1,037,769 (L)
@previous (C)
@1,037,740 (J)
For anyone who's genuinely interested in this subject:
Virginia Giuffre alleges she had sexual relations with Andrew on three occasions - once in London, once in New York and once in the US Virgin Islands. If these encounters actually occurred, the first two would have been perfectly legal. The third would have been illegal due to local AOC laws.
Seems a little bizarre that the US doesn't have a consistent AOC around its states and territories.
@previous (C)
@1,037,740 (J)
For anyone who's genuinely interested in this subject:
Virginia Giuffre alleges she had sexual relations with Andrew on three occasions - once in London, once in New York and once in the US Virgin Islands. If these encounters actually occurred, the first two would have been perfectly legal. The third would have been illegal due to local AOC laws.
Seems a little bizarre that the US doesn't have a consistent AOC around its states and territories.
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,794
@previous (E)
Is a spouse sexing a 17 year old girl grounds for divorce for their partner in Great Britain?
Is a spouse sexing a 17 year old girl grounds for divorce for their partner in Great Britain?
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,796
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 3 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,797
@1,037,794 (J)
> Is a spouse sexing a 17 year old girl grounds for divorce for their partner in Great Britain?
I would assume so.
> Is a spouse sexing a 17 year old girl grounds for divorce for their partner in Great Britain?
I would assume so.
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 years ago, 20 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,798
@1,037,796 (M)
> Is Bert being a filthy pedo grounds for banning?
I would assume so.
> Is Bert being a filthy pedo grounds for banning?
I would assume so.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 22 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,799
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,800
@1,037,787 (E)
So was it legal to him to be a party to an act of sex where a girl was forced to participate? Hmmmm?
So was it legal to him to be a party to an act of sex where a girl was forced to participate? Hmmmm?
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,802
@previous (J)
If she was coerced, then obviously, it would have been rape. However, the matter has not gone to trial and no evidence has been offered that any kind of sexual relations took place. Allegations do not equal proof, as you're no doubt already aware.
If she was coerced, then obviously, it would have been rape. However, the matter has not gone to trial and no evidence has been offered that any kind of sexual relations took place. Allegations do not equal proof, as you're no doubt already aware.
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,805
@previous (E)
What is your feeling...that the sex took place or not?
If it took place he should be expelled from the Royal family, right?
What is your feeling...that the sex took place or not?
If it took place he should be expelled from the Royal family, right?
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 24 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,812
@previous (J)
If he has committed rape, he should be treated like any other sex offender.
Did he commit rape? I have no idea. I take the default position that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not sure what you mean by "expelled from the Royal family". If you mean stripped of his titles, I think that would be decided by Parliament, if I understand the British Constitution correctly. If you mean disowned by the Royal Family, I suppose that would be up to the Queen herself.
If he has committed rape, he should be treated like any other sex offender.
Did he commit rape? I have no idea. I take the default position that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not sure what you mean by "expelled from the Royal family". If you mean stripped of his titles, I think that would be decided by Parliament, if I understand the British Constitution correctly. If you mean disowned by the Royal Family, I suppose that would be up to the Queen herself.
Anonymous M replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,814
@previous (E)
> I take the default position that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
That sounds like some constitutional type talk...
> I take the default position that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
That sounds like some constitutional type talk...
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,816
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 59 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,817
@1,037,812 (E)
I am not even concerned about the rape aspect at this point. He was married.
Oh wait...while you liberals argued for gay marriage you just wanted them to get the benefits financially an socially...you didn't care about morality..
I'm other words infidelity is okay, right?
I am not even concerned about the rape aspect at this point. He was married.
Oh wait...while you liberals argued for gay marriage you just wanted them to get the benefits financially an socially...you didn't care about morality..
I'm other words infidelity is okay, right?
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,818
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,820
@1,037,817 (J)
> In other words infidelity is okay, right?
No, it isn't. However, adultery is not a criminal offense in most Western nations.
> In other words infidelity is okay, right?
No, it isn't. However, adultery is not a criminal offense in most Western nations.
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,822
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,823
@previous (J)
No, it should be a civil matter, which it is. Do you believe there should be prison sentences for adultery?
No, it should be a civil matter, which it is. Do you believe there should be prison sentences for adultery?
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,851
@previous (E)
No but I would not be opposed to the perpetrators of such debauchery to have their names posted in the newspapers or mentioned on the local news.
No but I would not be opposed to the perpetrators of such debauchery to have their names posted in the newspapers or mentioned on the local news.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,857
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,905
@1,037,816 (E)
> I don't assume guilt without convincing evidence.
Do you think they will release a sex tape you'll be able to watch on youtube if he's guilty or something? You seem weirdly dismissive of the whole child prostitution and sex trafficking part of this.
> I don't assume guilt without convincing evidence.
Do you think they will release a sex tape you'll be able to watch on youtube if he's guilty or something? You seem weirdly dismissive of the whole child prostitution and sex trafficking part of this.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,926
@previous (L)
I can't take your comments very seriously, as you've more or less made light of the subject in this post.
However, for anyone else who's interested: most Western legal systems work under a presumption of innocence, no matter how heinous the crime. For example, Jeffrey Epstein's status as a sex offender has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. By contrast: we don't, as yet, know whether the Duke of York committed any illegal actions.
I can't take your comments very seriously, as you've more or less made light of the subject in this post.
However, for anyone else who's interested: most Western legal systems work under a presumption of innocence, no matter how heinous the crime. For example, Jeffrey Epstein's status as a sex offender has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. By contrast: we don't, as yet, know whether the Duke of York committed any illegal actions.
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,947
@previous (E)
I believe he at age 44 or 45 had been married for decades and went for a vacation by himself and had sex with a 17 year old girl...while his wife was at home.
That right there makes him an asshat.
I believe he at age 44 or 45 had been married for decades and went for a vacation by himself and had sex with a 17 year old girl...while his wife was at home.
That right there makes him an asshat.
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,034
@1,037,926 (E)
> However, for anyone else who's interested: most Western legal systems work under a presumption of innocence, no matter how heinous the crime.
Yeah, the problem with that is that you're not a judge and no one is on trial. The presumption of innocence doesn't exist to protect fragile people on the internet who don't want to entertain accusations of child prostitution and sex trafficking made against people close to a guy involved in child prostitution and sex trafficking. You seem to be confusing skepticism with denialism.
> However, for anyone else who's interested: most Western legal systems work under a presumption of innocence, no matter how heinous the crime.
Yeah, the problem with that is that you're not a judge and no one is on trial. The presumption of innocence doesn't exist to protect fragile people on the internet who don't want to entertain accusations of child prostitution and sex trafficking made against people close to a guy involved in child prostitution and sex trafficking. You seem to be confusing skepticism with denialism.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,054
@previous (L)
Stephen Hawking also visited Little Saint James Island. Should we automatically assume he was a sex offender too?
Stephen Hawking also visited Little Saint James Island. Should we automatically assume he was a sex offender too?
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,057
@1,037,947 (J)
Why do you believe he cheated on Sarah Ferguson? They separated in 1996, and she started a relationship with her financial advisor. Their divorce came through in 1996; Virginia Giuffre claims that her encounters with Andrew took place in 2001.
Why do you believe he cheated on Sarah Ferguson? They separated in 1996, and she started a relationship with her financial advisor. Their divorce came through in 1996; Virginia Giuffre claims that her encounters with Andrew took place in 2001.
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,059
@1,038,054 (E)
In the absence of any credible claims against Stephen Hawking or victims coming forward, we probably shouldn't invent charges or assume anything automatically. Assigning blame to anyone who knew Epstein is a paranoid witch hunt. Acknowledging that the claims of victims of sex trafficking may have some basis in truth and looking for further evidence is investigating a crime.
In the absence of any credible claims against Stephen Hawking or victims coming forward, we probably shouldn't invent charges or assume anything automatically. Assigning blame to anyone who knew Epstein is a paranoid witch hunt. Acknowledging that the claims of victims of sex trafficking may have some basis in truth and looking for further evidence is investigating a crime.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 33 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,062
@previous (L)
> Acknowledging that the claims of victims of sex trafficking may have some basis in truth and looking for further evidence is investigating a crime.
Yes; I've never denied that. As I said here, if the Duke of York has committed rape, he should be treated like any other sex offender. However, there isn't much credible evidence against him at this stage.
> Acknowledging that the claims of victims of sex trafficking may have some basis in truth and looking for further evidence is investigating a crime.
Yes; I've never denied that. As I said here, if the Duke of York has committed rape, he should be treated like any other sex offender. However, there isn't much credible evidence against him at this stage.
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,068
@previous (E)
> As I said here, if the Duke of York has committed rape, he should be treated like any other sex offender.
Super! More of that attitude and fewer Stephen Hawking comparisons will be a great way to go forward.
> As I said here, if the Duke of York has committed rape, he should be treated like any other sex offender.
Super! More of that attitude and fewer Stephen Hawking comparisons will be a great way to go forward.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,116
@previous (L)
Actually, I made that particular statement more than a day ago. Evidently, you were too busy posting nonsense replies to notice.
In the meantime, Anon J said that they are "not even concerned about the rape aspect at this point". Why haven't you criticized Anon J for being "weirdly dismissive of the whole child prostitution and sex trafficking part of this"?
Actually, I made that particular statement more than a day ago. Evidently, you were too busy posting nonsense replies to notice.
In the meantime, Anon J said that they are "not even concerned about the rape aspect at this point". Why haven't you criticized Anon J for being "weirdly dismissive of the whole child prostitution and sex trafficking part of this"?
Consider this replied with this 6 years ago, 37 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,124
They cannot prove he is guilty but can they prove he is not guity?
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,125
@previous (Consider this)
Apparently, yes.
• Under US law, a defendant can be proven not guilty.
• Under UK law, a defendant can be proven innocent.
Seriously, you're unaware of this?
Apparently, yes.
• Under US law, a defendant can be proven not guilty.
• Under UK law, a defendant can be proven innocent.
Seriously, you're unaware of this?
Consider this replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,129
@previous (E)
Is not guilty really innocent though?
Was OJ Simpson innocent?
Was Michael Jackson innocent?
Is not guilty really innocent though?
Was OJ Simpson innocent?
Was Michael Jackson innocent?
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 36 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,136
@previous (Consider this)
If the evidence demonstrates that a defendant did not commit a particular crime, then they are not guilty (US) or innocent (UK).
For example, if you were accused of committing a murder ten years before you were born, the evidence would demonstrate that you are not guilty (US) or innocent (UK).
In B4 guilty by means of time travel
If the evidence demonstrates that a defendant did not commit a particular crime, then they are not guilty (US) or innocent (UK).
For example, if you were accused of committing a murder ten years before you were born, the evidence would demonstrate that you are not guilty (US) or innocent (UK).
In B4 guilty by means of time travel
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,170
@1,038,116 (E)
> Why haven't you criticized Anon J for being "weirdly dismissive of the whole child prostitution and sex trafficking part of this"?
Probably because Anon J doesn't sound as defensive and excitable as you do.
@1,037,787 (E)
Declaring things "perfectly legal" based on a google search of AoC laws is hilarious. Not only are you ignoring the child prostitution part of the claim and assuming consent was given (a baseless thing to assume) but you also seem to think that transporting children around the US for the purpose of sex is completely legal. Raising questions about adultery laws and geographical jurisdiction is a little opaque on your part, as well as the comparison to Stephen Hawking. If the thread were about Prince Andrew stabbing a girl, then I'm sure you'd be assuring us all that it was perfectly legal for him to own that knife.
You seem like you really want to be willfully ignorant of the topic at hand. That's why I say that "weirdly dismissive of the whole child prostitution and sex trafficking part of this."
> Why haven't you criticized Anon J for being "weirdly dismissive of the whole child prostitution and sex trafficking part of this"?
Probably because Anon J doesn't sound as defensive and excitable as you do.
@1,037,787 (E)
Declaring things "perfectly legal" based on a google search of AoC laws is hilarious. Not only are you ignoring the child prostitution part of the claim and assuming consent was given (a baseless thing to assume) but you also seem to think that transporting children around the US for the purpose of sex is completely legal. Raising questions about adultery laws and geographical jurisdiction is a little opaque on your part, as well as the comparison to Stephen Hawking. If the thread were about Prince Andrew stabbing a girl, then I'm sure you'd be assuring us all that it was perfectly legal for him to own that knife.
You seem like you really want to be willfully ignorant of the topic at hand. That's why I say that "weirdly dismissive of the whole child prostitution and sex trafficking part of this."
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,186
@previous (L)
So, you're OK with Anon J not caring about the sex trafficking and child prostitution angle. Very convenient.
> defensive and excitable as you do.
By contrast, you gave this nonsense reply, apparently finding humor in the idea of child rape.
> you also seem to think that transporting children around the US for the purpose of sex is completely legal.
I said nothing of the sort. As I told you right here, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted for that very reason - procuring children for sex. The evidence was overwhelming, and he admitted to the crime during his 2008 trial.
However, I have seen no evidence that the Duke of York has engaged in human trafficking, or that he committed rape, or that he ever had sex with Virginia Giuffre.
> Raising questions about adultery laws and geographical jurisdiction is a little opaque on your part
I didn't raise the question of adultery, Anon J did. Here are their exact words:
Again, you should read the thread more closely. Also, note that Anon J is more concerned about marital infidelity than about child trafficking.
> Declaring things "perfectly legal" based on a google search of AoC laws is hilarious.
That was part of a minor discussion on Age of Consent in the UK and the United States, and you seem to have missed the point of the conversation: if it is proven that Andrew had sex with Virginia Giuffre in the Virgin Islands, then he would be guilty of Statutory Rape, regardless of whether it was consensual or not.
> You seem like you really want to be willfully ignorant of the topic at hand.
And you seem to have decided that the Duke of York is guilty of rape. If that's the case, what evidence do you have to prove your accusation? Post it here for everyone to read. I for one would be very interested to see it.
So, you're OK with Anon J not caring about the sex trafficking and child prostitution angle. Very convenient.
> defensive and excitable as you do.
By contrast, you gave this nonsense reply, apparently finding humor in the idea of child rape.
> you also seem to think that transporting children around the US for the purpose of sex is completely legal.
I said nothing of the sort. As I told you right here, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted for that very reason - procuring children for sex. The evidence was overwhelming, and he admitted to the crime during his 2008 trial.
However, I have seen no evidence that the Duke of York has engaged in human trafficking, or that he committed rape, or that he ever had sex with Virginia Giuffre.
> Raising questions about adultery laws and geographical jurisdiction is a little opaque on your part
I didn't raise the question of adultery, Anon J did. Here are their exact words:
In other words infidelity is okay, right?
Again, you should read the thread more closely. Also, note that Anon J is more concerned about marital infidelity than about child trafficking.
> Declaring things "perfectly legal" based on a google search of AoC laws is hilarious.
That was part of a minor discussion on Age of Consent in the UK and the United States, and you seem to have missed the point of the conversation: if it is proven that Andrew had sex with Virginia Giuffre in the Virgin Islands, then he would be guilty of Statutory Rape, regardless of whether it was consensual or not.
> You seem like you really want to be willfully ignorant of the topic at hand.
And you seem to have decided that the Duke of York is guilty of rape. If that's the case, what evidence do you have to prove your accusation? Post it here for everyone to read. I for one would be very interested to see it.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 58 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,190
@previous (E)
> I didn't raise the question of adultery
Your post here @1,037,820 (E) is the first mention of the word in the thread. Anon J mentions infidelity and you immediately try to make some kind of legal judgment out of it. You bring up cheating before that here @1,037,737 (E) too.
> And you seem to have decided that the Duke of York is guilty of rape.
LOL Nope. It's strange that you quote previous posts so much yet you seem to have missed that I never wrote that.
Whether it's AoC laws, adultery, or inapt comparisons, you seem to be trying to address every other tangential concern except the allegation. It all seems a little desperate.
> I didn't raise the question of adultery
Your post here @1,037,820 (E) is the first mention of the word in the thread. Anon J mentions infidelity and you immediately try to make some kind of legal judgment out of it. You bring up cheating before that here @1,037,737 (E) too.
> And you seem to have decided that the Duke of York is guilty of rape.
LOL Nope. It's strange that you quote previous posts so much yet you seem to have missed that I never wrote that.
Whether it's AoC laws, adultery, or inapt comparisons, you seem to be trying to address every other tangential concern except the allegation. It all seems a little desperate.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 38 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,204
@previous (L)
> Anon J mentions infidelity and you immediately try to make some kind of legal judgment out of it.
You're splitting hairs. Anon J was talking about marital infidelity, also known as adultery.
> You bring up cheating before that
In reply to Anon J's mistaken belief that Andrew was cheating on his wife (completely untrue, they were divorced in 1996).
> > And you seem to have decided that the Duke of York is guilty of rape.
> LOL Nope.
So, neither of us believe Andrew, Duke of York is guilty of rape.
> you seem to be trying to address every other tangential concern except the allegation.
I've already stated that allegations do not equal proof, and that my default position is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Did you somehow miss that too?
> It's strange that you quote previous posts so much yet you seem to have missed that I never wrote that.
Correct. You wrote about a non-existent island where everyone is allowed to drive regardless of age. "Richasfuckistan", I think you called it. After that, I had no reason to take anything you said seriously. However, as we've both agreed that Andrew Duke of York is not a rapist, I guess we have nothing to argue about.
> Anon J mentions infidelity and you immediately try to make some kind of legal judgment out of it.
You're splitting hairs. Anon J was talking about marital infidelity, also known as adultery.
> You bring up cheating before that
In reply to Anon J's mistaken belief that Andrew was cheating on his wife (completely untrue, they were divorced in 1996).
> > And you seem to have decided that the Duke of York is guilty of rape.
> LOL Nope.
So, neither of us believe Andrew, Duke of York is guilty of rape.
> you seem to be trying to address every other tangential concern except the allegation.
I've already stated that allegations do not equal proof, and that my default position is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Did you somehow miss that too?
> It's strange that you quote previous posts so much yet you seem to have missed that I never wrote that.
Correct. You wrote about a non-existent island where everyone is allowed to drive regardless of age. "Richasfuckistan", I think you called it. After that, I had no reason to take anything you said seriously. However, as we've both agreed that Andrew Duke of York is not a rapist, I guess we have nothing to argue about.
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,205
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 20 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,038,206
@1,038,204 (E)
Wow, you seem awful touchy about that driving comment. Why do keep acting like a discussion in a thread is some kind of inquisition of Andrew's guilt or innocence on various points you bring up? Does pretending the thread is some kind of court case make you feel better? Do you feel like if you list off some stuff he hasn't been accused of that it will somehow rub off on the other accusations?
Wow, you seem awful touchy about that driving comment. Why do keep acting like a discussion in a thread is some kind of inquisition of Andrew's guilt or innocence on various points you bring up? Does pretending the thread is some kind of court case make you feel better? Do you feel like if you list off some stuff he hasn't been accused of that it will somehow rub off on the other accusations?