Prince Andrew

[slowmotion]

Were a person (let's call him 'Andrew') to pay or agree to pay another person (let's call him 'Jeffrey') for the sexual services of a third person who has been induced to provide the service by means of exploitative conduct on the part of 'Jeffrey', the first person would have committed an offence. It would be irrelevant whether he knew (or ought to have known) that the second person was subjecting the third to exploitation. It's a strict liability offence, in other words. The loophole you are looking for is not ignorance but wealth and status, as some people never offer to pay for anything, because they are so used to to the rest of us paying for everything they want.

I'm not "looking for a loophole". I was asking a simple question.

 

[theclaud]

I'm not "looking for a loophole". I was asking a simple question.

Sorry! Me and my choice of words, eh? Do you have the answer to your simple question?

 

[slowmotion]

Sorry! Me and my choice of words, eh? Do you have the answer to your simple question?

If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Unless they get Ghislaine Maxwell to testify I suspect this will go on and on without resolution. The problem with that is she is unlikely to say anything that will further incriminate her.

Andrew is finished but I cannot see him being convicted of anything. I doubt whether he will visit the US again and I cannot see him being extradited. At best he will agree to being interviewed by US officials in the UK.

 

[theclaud]

If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked it.

After I replied, I meant. I was intending to answer it, and throw in a few extras gratis. So to speak.

 

[slowmotion]

After I replied, I meant. I was intending to answer it, and throw in a few extras gratis. So to speak.

While I'm about it, I've got another question. What exactly is being "trafficked"? I reluctantly went to visit some relatives last weekend. My wife drove. Was I being trafficked to East Dulwich?

 

[theclaud]

While I'm about it, I've got another question. What exactly is being "trafficked"? I reluctantly went to visit some relatives last weekend. My wife drove. Was I being trafficked to East Dulwich?

Good to know you're not trivializing offences which are mainly about rape, slavery and organ-selling, then.

 

[slowmotion]

Good to know you're not trivializing offences which are mainly about rape, slavery and organ-selling, then.

I was asking what trafficking is. Please stop pretending to know what I think.

 

[mudsticks]

I was asking what trafficking is. Please stop pretending to know what I think.

Sex trafficking is the illegal transport of persons from one country to another for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

It's all part of the commodification of peoples bodies, exploitation of power imbalances, coercion, control, intimidation, that kind of thing.

I have a lawyer friend who works on programmes for the UN trying to prevent it.

It's a global problem apparently.

 

[slowmotion]

Sex trafficking is the illegal transport of persons from one country to another for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

It's all part of the commodification of peoples bodies, exploitation of power imbalances, coercion, control, intimidation, that kind of thing.

I have a lawyer friend who works on programmes for the UN trying to prevent it.

It's a global problem apparently.

Thank you.

 

[Pale Rider]

While I'm about it, I've got another question. What exactly is being "trafficked"?

Trafficking in America is covered by the Mann Act which is the same one that captured Chuck Berry.

Including the third party - the person to whom the woman is trafficked - is difficult legislation to draw.

As this article observes, the Mann Act could be interpreted as criminalising consensual sex.

You are therefore relying on prosecutors using the legislation responsibly.

If Andrew did as alleged - had apparently consensual sex with a trafficked woman - he must be in the frame for a Mann Act offence.

You can see why he is less than eager to cross the Atlantic to speak to American prosecutors.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-passes-mann-act

 

[slowmotion]

Trafficking in America is covered by the Mann Act which is the same one that captured Chuck Berry.

Including the third party - the person to whom the woman is trafficked - is difficult legislation to draw.

As this article observes, the Mann Act could be interpreted as criminalising consensual sex.

You are therefore relying on prosecutors using the legislation responsibly.

If Andrew did as alleged - had apparently consensual sex with a trafficked woman - he must be in the frame for a Mann Act offence.

You can see why he is less than eager to cross the Atlantic to speak to American prosecutors.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-passes-mann-act

Thank you. A very grey area indeed...………..and no, before somebody accuses me of it, I'm not looking for a "loophole".

 

[mudsticks]

Thank you. A very grey area indeed...………..and no, before somebody accuses me of it, I'm not looking for a "loophole".

Of course there is all the legal wrangling, and I'm sure the best lawyer could find some loophole for Andrew, even if this came to court.

I think this is all unlikely to be brought to trial.

But there's also the possibility of looking at all of this from a 'decent human being' pov.

You turn up at the house of a middle aged rich mate, who tells you that this young 'friend' of his, is totes up for having some 'fun' with you.

There are still some men in this world who would argue that engaging in sexual activity with this young person would be acceptable in some way.

Whether its legal or not.

That's a pretty shocking reality imo.

 

[slowmotion]

Of course there is all the legal wrangling, and I'm sure the best lawyer could find some loophole for Andrew, even if this came to court.

I think this is all unlikely to be brought to trial.

But there's also the possibility of looking at all of this from a 'decent human being' pov.

You turn up at the house of a middle aged rich mate, who tells you that this young 'friend' of his, is totes up for having some 'fun' with you.

There are still some men in this world who would argue that engaging in sexual activity with this young person would be acceptable in some way.

Whether its legal or not.

That's a pretty shocking reality imo.

I don't think anybody is denying that some people might find the idea of a powerful 43 year old man and a seventeen year old shagging utterly distasteful, but it's probably not that uncommon, and it is certainly legal in the UK (I think). Anyway, nothing has been proven in that regard. I have not been following all the stuff in the media about it. What interests me really is the reaction to it, and how people seem to be quite willing to get their pitchforks out because of their wish to bundle up their dislike of royalty with an accusation of a sex crime, and have little regard for solid evidence.
I think Epstein left about $500 million. US lawyers must be wetting themselves in anticipation of getting their snuffling snouts in that particular greasy trough.

 

[theclaud]

I was asking what trafficking is. Please stop pretending to know what I think.

Stop being obtuse, slowmo. I don't claim to know what you think, but I can see what you write, and as the idea that being pissed off about a visit to the in-laws amounts to being trafficked is patently absurd, I can only assume that it was an extremely lame joke. And is Google broken where you are or something?