Why is he just in a civil cause and not ALSO being investigated with criminal charges?
I want to see this rich son of a bitch pedophile behind bars.
Paying 5 mil is nothing for him, and since when a sexual offender can pay his way out and get no time?
What exactly would he be charged with ?
Battery, assault, sex with a minor, sex in exchange of money.
shareAs I understand it the age of consent in Britain is 16. Virginia Roberts was 17 when they allegedly had sex. I know nothing at all about Prince Andrew committing battery and assault.
What about the US, where this is taking place?
shareThe sex allegedly took place in London.
I'm not sure how would that go down legally.
If what matters is where the case if filed, the citizenship of the perpetrator and the victim, or where the act happened.
Do you know?
I brought this up on another thread - I still don't really understand how a US case can be raised against a British citizen for an offence which took place in Britain. Weird...
shareVery weird. American legal dude in another thread said it was because of this , "her ability to get the US courts involved hinged on her being taken out of the country unlawfully".
I still think even if this went to a criminal trial, it would be tough to charge Prince Andrew of any legal wrong-doing, since they would have to somehow prove he knew she was "kidnapped".
The law of the land is what matters here.
Generally people are only charged in a different country than where the crime happened if both perpetrator and victim are citizens of that country and only the most serious of crimes. Like let's say a man murders his wife on a trip abroad and is then arrested and charged back home.
If you don't want your teenagers to have sex or let's say buy alcohol at a younger age than is allowed in your home country then you simply don't let them travel to such places.
Sex trafficking a minor. I know the UK says you can fuck at 16... however because at the time that it happened she was a citizen of the US, resident of the US and under the age of 18 when it took place, the fact that Epstein took her out of the country whereupon she had sex with someone, it becomes sex trafficking under Federal law. Now Epstein would be the main target of such a case since he was the one that took her out of the country to fuck his friends... however because PA was one of the fuckers of her then he would also be pulled in and charged just as Epstein.
Now here is the little twisted part, if she had been in London on vacation with her parents, she could have been raped by PA in the middle of the street for all to see and the US would have no way to charge him with anything. It was becasue she was taken out of the country without her parents consent that it became sex trafficking. If Epstein hadn't had his own private plane he wouldn't have been able to even get her out of the US on a commercial flight unless he had documents showing that her parents agreed to her travel out of the country.
Having sex with teenagers (or being attracted to them) does not make one a pedophile.
shareWhatever.
Couldnt care less about semantics.
I bet you got exactly what he did when you read pedophile, even if there was no 10 y.o. involved.
Sure he slept with a young woman of legal age. Pedophiles on the other hand are attracted to prepubcent children.
shareUfff...we all know that. Who gives a fuck?
Most people, if not everybody, consider pedophile some grownup sleeping with underage girls.
I know that's a misnomer. So what? Should we distinguish with Hebephile, Ephebophile, Teleiophile, Infantophile etc so you are happy?
You can take your dictionary and cram it, man.
This guy is a pedophile, like any other 50+ years old fucking a minor.
She was of legal age which is 16 in the Uk. But even if she wasn't it still wouldn't be considered pedophilia.
sharehe's not a paedo but I would say a dirty old man. Certainly not stuff you would expect from royalty.
shareSure its fine for people to be morally against it because of the age difference but it's also important to use the correct terms.
Also if the teenage girl was underage it would be considered child abuse, just not pedophilia.
What royalty would we be talking about here? If you know anything about the history of kings and princes down through the centuries, you'll know that some of them were pretty awful people, and used their power and position to get away with things ordinary people never could.
shareI guess you're right. In modern times I would expect better from someone who grew up privileged, wanted for nothing and had the best of everything.
share^^This
shareHe's not a pedophile. Yes, we should distinguish with the terms Hebephile, Ephebophile, Teleiophile, Infantophile, etc. because those terms were invented to denote the very specific characteristics they encompass. Words mean things. Specific things. Pedophile is objectively the wrong word here, and I don't care if most people would use the term. Popular usage does not define grammatical correctness. Muddling definitions leads to muddled, sloppy, imprecise, and therefore often incorrect thinking.
Prince Andrew's behavior is creepy enough as it is when you use the correct terms to define it; it doesn't need to be embellished by using the emotionally loaded wrong word.
Does he have 5 mil?
shareHe's selling his chalet for 17 mil. His mom is a multi billionaire.
Does that sound like a guy who cannot get 5 mil like we would get 5k?
FYI, QE is not a "multi billionaire", she is not even a billionaire. Most of her assets belong to the crown estate which belongs to the government, although still quite rich without being a billionaire.
shareThe internet says $530 million
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_royalty_by_net_worth
Yeah sounds about right. Many people think that the crown estate which is worth $30B belongs to her which isn´t true.
shareSure, and if you believe that bullshit I have some xray goggles here for just 19,95 only available for you....
shareI forgot you are never wrong. lol
shareSo you want to tell me you believe that the richest womn in the world and one of the richest persons in England is worth half a billion only?
You should quit lolling and begin thinking, dude.
https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/
Here you go. Learn something.
I already knew all that doublespeak.
It is there to fool english slaves that might oherwise want to revolt against that ridiculous, ludicrous, outdated monarchy.
If you want to belive that, good for you.
But if you understand reality, and how this world works, you know all that shit is indeed hers, and that the half a billion only she supposedly officially owns is just her pocket money, declared only to make her servants happy, believing that she is not that rich.
"I already knew all that doublespeak."
I forgot you know everything.
This is the second time in three posts you "ironically" attack me personally rather than respond to my reply.
Typical troll is using typical troll tactics.
I think attack should have been in quotation marks. If you can show me a post where you admitted you were wrong, I´ll retract my "attack".
shareAgain, you talk about me, not about the topic.
I admit of being wrong anytime that happens.
No idea who the fuck you think you are that you believe you know anything about me. Just a shitty troll that attacks the poster rather than respond to the posts.
But what crime did he commit?
shareread the 7th post
shareAnd the evidence for that? Does it actually exist? Or is this yet again another case of someone looking to cash in? Seems like the latter.
shareThat is what TRIALS are for.
shareWhy do you keep answering your own posts? What a vain s.o.b. you are. In love with the sound of your own thought.
In answer to your ORIGINAL post, nobody is charging him because it's not worth the risk since nobody cares about the 16yr old slut and the problems she fkd her way into. No more than they care about any crocodile tears from the pampered prince. And certainly no more than your repeated attempts to make this the the concern of nations during a pandemic with global insurection.
Id tell you to save us all by pulling your head out of your ass but quite frankly you look and sound better with it in there.
If you look carefully, I replied to you. Are you always this unbalanced?
shareIt is YOU who shows an unbalanced attraction to something that happened decades ago by people you've never met and has no effect on your finances or the food on your table. You come on here with the EXPECTAION of preaching to some imaginary choir you have fixated in your mind.
This is a MOVIE CHAT site and you want to discuss royalty and whores so, yeah, I'm gonna call you and everyone else out on this.
Well, have a good life.
shareYou are correct.
I replied to the wrong person. My response was directed at Hberg.
Another problem with this shitty site is the notice comes up under the original posters name, not the responder. I promise I will look closer at the names if I choose to remain on here.
My apologies.
For what they're worth.
I suspect that prosecutors chose not to proceed with criminal charges because they doubt the veracity of the accuser and question her true motive$.
shareI suspect some of that, but mostly the criminal case is more difficult to win, as he needs to be judged guilty beyond any doubt, and, even if all true, the evidence is not enough for that. So they just pussied out.
shareThe standard of proof for determining guilt in criminal cases in the United States is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is somewhat less difficult to accomplish than proving it "beyond any doubt".
It is still quite a high bar, as it should be.