Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jusme]

A woman has alleged that she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew as part of a lawsuit that claims an American investment banker passed her around rich and powerful friends as a “sex slave” while she was still underage.

The accusation was made in a lawsuit brought by women who say they were exploited by Jeffrey Epstein, an American multi-millionaire who was convicted of soliciting sex with an underage girl in 2008, reports the Guardian.

The woman filed the case anonymously, and is understood to have been 17 at the time, which is considered a minor under Florida law.

[biggriffin]

Just been on the news, she said it happened on a Caribbean island, whoops my dear, that be a British territory(British law).,think legal age be 16.
 Also said she has form for this type of jackanory.

[SteveAvfc.]

By Royal appointment no doubt, wonder if he left her with the royal seal of approval 

[05omegav6]

Just been on the news, she said it happened on a Caribbean island, whoops my dear, that be a British territory(British law).,think legal age be 16.
 Also said she has form for this type of jackanory.

The age of consent in Spain is 14, just watch what happens if you go and take advantage of that...

[05omegav6]

Just been on the news, she said it happened on a Caribbean island, whoops my dear, that be a British territory(British law).,think legal age be 16.
 Also said she has form for this type of jackanory.

The age of consent in Spain is 14, just watch what happens if you go and try to take advantage of that...

Actually the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is 18...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

So, if the alledged events happened,  then only in the UK might it have technically been legal, but even then Federal law would apply as it protects US citizens, regardless of State of residence...

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a)} forbids transporting a minor (defined as under 18) in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in criminal sexual acts in which a person can be charged. This subsection is ambiguous on its face and seems to apply only when the minor is transported across state or international lines to a place where the conduct is already illegal to begin with. The United States Department of Justice seems to agree with this interpretation.

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as far as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)} . 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-to-15-year-old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if one is within 4 years of the 12-to-15-year-old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to U.S. Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States.

Regardless of whether the allegations are true or not, the implications for Prince Andrew are not good if only by association. And if he is found to have been complicit in any way then that will seriously damage the credibility of the Royal Family as a brand and completely undermine their role as ambassadors for the UK and Commonwealth on a global scale.

[biggriffin]

Like to see the spanks extradite prince Andrew.
There be another war,dam spanks.

Watch it all disappear.

[Gaffers]

Just been on the news, she said it happened on a Caribbean island, whoops my dear, that be a British territory(British law).,think legal age be 16.
 Also said she has form for this type of jackanory.

The age of consent in Spain is 14, just watch what happens if you go and try to take advantage of that...

Actually the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is 18...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

So, if the alledged events happened,  then only in the UK might it have technically been legal, but even then Federal law would apply as it protects US citizens, regardless of State of residence...

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a)} forbids transporting a minor (defined as under 18) in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in criminal sexual acts in which a person can be charged. This subsection is ambiguous on its face and seems to apply only when the minor is transported across state or international lines to a place where the conduct is already illegal to begin with. The United States Department of Justice seems to agree with this interpretation.

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as far as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)} . 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-to-15-year-old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if one is within 4 years of the 12-to-15-year-old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to U.S. Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States.

Regardless of whether the allegations are true or not, the implications for Prince Andrew are not good if only by association. And if he is found to have been complicit in any way then that will seriously damage the credibility of the Royal Family as a brand and completely undermine their role as ambassadors for the UK and Commonwealth on a global scale.

Yes but he is not a US citizen so the law only applies while he is on US territory.  If it happened in the BVI then UK law applies.

[05omegav6]

That was my point, the girl is protected internationally by US law, and the Carribean location was in the US Virgin Islands not BVI

[Jusme]

Watch it all disappear.

Just like the driver of the refuse lorry in Glasgow..?

[05omegav6]

Watch it all disappear.

Just like the driver of the refuse lorry in Glasgow..?

Think you'll find he is still in hospital. Won't be criminally charged until the docs have discharged him...

[ffcgary1]

How can the driver be charged with a criminal offence, he had a heart attack, is it now a criminal offence to become ill at the wheel.?

[ffcgary1]

As for randy Andy, a payment will be made to help the said woman forget it happened (even if it did not) and all will be well to maintain the special relationshp between these two great nations.

[henryd]

How can the driver be charged with a criminal offence, he had a heart attack, is it now a criminal offence to become ill at the wheel.?

I agree,can't see him being charged with anything, he'll have to live with the consequences though which will be far worse than anything the judicial system can throw at him

[The Sheriff]

Nah. The establishment will dig the dirt on her, her mother, father, cousin twice removed and use it for leverage. If that fails, she'll just have to suddenly be insane.

[Jusme]

THE identity of the driver of the bin lorry that killed six people when it crashed in Glasgow city centre will be protected indefinitely, the local authority has said.


A spokesman for Glasgow City Council, which owns the bin lorry involved in the George Square tragedy, said it would “never release the names” of the driver or other two individuals who were in the cabin when it crashed.

I couldn't understand when watching on the news, how it was that the driver was helped from the cab and then walked off with a couple of coppers??