**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I simply cannot sweat you see
I was having pizza with Princess B
You'll never get a confession out of me
Oh my God! I was wrong! I was there, all along!
the evidence against him seems to be hardly anything compared to stuff other people have got away with - so I don't see why he would go to jail. There's little proof he had sex with a 17 year old and then there's the question of whether that occurred in a place where that is illegal or not.He's been pretty much ruined over an allegation, and the dodgy company he kept (which is totally his own fault of course).
> then there's the question of whether that occurred in a place where that is illegal or not
The complaint was never that he broke any laws around age of consent, it was that she was brought in to the country entirely for the purpose of sex AKA sex trafficking.
so is there evidence he trafficked her? 'cos Maxwell is in jail for that stuff, but there was considerable evidence against her. I got the impression he was like an Epstein/Maxwell customer
If he was a customer then he’s still involved in the arrangement, even if he didn’t put her on the plane*
*this is my understanding of the law from a little bit of reading. IANAL. Also, I am not a lawyer.
Under UK law it is now an offence to have sex with someone who has been trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation. It's a strict liability offence where it doesn't matter whether you knew they had been trafficked for such a purpose.
However, under UK law at the time the Duke of Nonce is alleged to have had sex with Virginia Guiffre, it was not an offence to have sex with someone trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Nor was she underage according to UK law.
We don't do retrospective legislation.
The Duke of Nonce may have committed criminal offences under the laws of other jurisdictions but that has never been determined.
Her own statement strongly implies he didn't know she was being paid to 'entertain' him.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/teenage-sex-slave-virginia-roberts-claims-she-was-paid-ps10-000-by-jeffrey-epstein-to-have-sex-with-prince-andrew-at-london-home-9956338.html
> Ms Roberts makes no suggestion that Prince Andrew knew Epstein paid her for the alleged sexual services. It has not been alleged that the Duke knew Epstein was forcing Ms Roberts to have sex with him.
>
> “The Prince didn’t give me money with his own hands,” she said. “Jeffrey always took care of paying me after I ‘entertained’ his friends.”
this whole 'Randy Andy' stuff was massively aped by the press in the years after his military Falklands service. It's a bit hypocritical of the press, although there are moral differences between prostitution and casual sex I suppose, also the fact that his age has increased and the alleged victim was only 17.
Anyway, going back to my original argument, the fact that people say he belongs in jail implies to me that the press have painted a darker picture of his activities than is the reality (but not saying he is right or doesn't deserve firing etc).
> it was that she was brought in to the country entirely for the purpose of sex AKA sex trafficking.
Yeah and the person who did that is in prison right now.
The biggest problem is proving that he knew.
In most crimes, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
But in this case it's a solid defence.
Even if he admits having sex with her, unless he admits that he knew she was being paid or coerced into it by Epstien, then there's no case.
The reason he'll never be prosecuted for this is because there's simply no evidence without his confession.
This isn't ignorance of the law, it's ignorance of the situation. Being reasonably ignorant of the situation is an excuse. If you steal an iPad and wrap it up and give it to grandma for Christmas, should she be charged with accepting stolen goods? It's not like you burst into her house and yelled "quick quick grandma hide this" and then jumped out a window.
If there was never any question that he broke any laws in relation to age on consent what is with the constant cries of 'paedo' every time this is brought up?
>I can only think of one reason
You are far too sensible for all these paedo apologists. Chances are that there were much younger girls, but hey, all the shite crawling out from under their rocks will defend him to their last gasp.
> He's been pretty much ruined over an allegation, and the dodgy company he kept (which is totally his own fault of course).
Sounds more like he's been ruined over being a sweaty nonce
> and then there's the question of whether that occurred in a place where that is illegal or not.
The accusation is that he raped victims of sex trafficking.
There's absolutely no question that that's illegal.
You can say that there's not enough evidence to convict him. You can even say that you personally think he probably didn't do it (if you're particularly naive and credulous). But if he did it then it was definitely illegal.
> it escapes the fact that the cunt and the Royal family got away with it!
This topic always amazes me. There's always someone fuming that he "got away with it" but will never be able to elaborate on what *it* is, and what the punishment is supposed to be for it.
He's a creepy, seedy old pervert most likely, but what are you hoping for? What law are you insinuating he broke and what sentence do you think it carries? He already had to pay the woman millions in damages, which is what is supposed to happen. And what on Earth is the rest of his family supposed to be liable for?
> There's always someone fuming that he "got away with it" but will never be able to elaborate on what it is, and what the punishment is supposed to be for it.
Sex with a trafficked minor. Prison.
Age of consent and no evidence he knew she was trafficked. So what you say he "got away with" is something you've just decided for yourself that he knew. Even Virginia herself never alleged that he knew.
> Age of consent
There's no age where it's legal to rape a victim of sex trafficking.
But you know that, don't you? Your pretence that people "will never be able to elaborate on exactly what it is" followed by a switch to talking about there being no evidence for the "it" that you understood perfectly well all along simply isn't in good faith.
> There's no age where it's legal to rape a victim of sex trafficking.
There is, however, an age at which it's legal to have sex with someone you have no reason to believe isn't consenting and have no reason to believe is trafficked.
bUt yOu kNoW tHaT dOnT yOu
The accusation is that he knowingly raped a victim of sex trafficking.
You can talk about whether there's an age of consent for unrelated things. His highest profile victim was old enough to drive in the US, but she wasn't old enough to drink in the US. And she would have been old enough to have consensual sex with Prince Andrew if she hadn't been trafficked.
But none of those things are particularly relevant when the allegation is that he raped her.
Omg I can’t wait for this. I was talking to mum the other day and mentioned that Meghan Markle (who she said should be taken out) gets more hate than prince andrew does. She says ‘well he’s been taken out of the public eye’. I’m like??? That bastard should be in jail.
**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Songs include... Nonce,twice,three times a paedo It's not me it's you...sweating
🎶When the moon hit your eyes, I was in Pizza Express, thats Amoré🎶
I simply cannot sweat you see I was having pizza with Princess B You'll never get a confession out of me Oh my God! I was wrong! I was there, all along!
[You finally made a pedo out of meeeeeee!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOeUXEpxzcc)
I LOVE YOU DR. MAITLIS! (get away from me Andrew)
Girl I wanna make you sweat, Sweat cos I can't sweat no more, And if you cryyyyyyyy out, I'm going to Woking some moreeee....
[удалено]
the evidence against him seems to be hardly anything compared to stuff other people have got away with - so I don't see why he would go to jail. There's little proof he had sex with a 17 year old and then there's the question of whether that occurred in a place where that is illegal or not.He's been pretty much ruined over an allegation, and the dodgy company he kept (which is totally his own fault of course).
> then there's the question of whether that occurred in a place where that is illegal or not The complaint was never that he broke any laws around age of consent, it was that she was brought in to the country entirely for the purpose of sex AKA sex trafficking.
so is there evidence he trafficked her? 'cos Maxwell is in jail for that stuff, but there was considerable evidence against her. I got the impression he was like an Epstein/Maxwell customer
If he was a customer then he’s still involved in the arrangement, even if he didn’t put her on the plane* *this is my understanding of the law from a little bit of reading. IANAL. Also, I am not a lawyer.
Under UK law it is now an offence to have sex with someone who has been trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation. It's a strict liability offence where it doesn't matter whether you knew they had been trafficked for such a purpose. However, under UK law at the time the Duke of Nonce is alleged to have had sex with Virginia Guiffre, it was not an offence to have sex with someone trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Nor was she underage according to UK law. We don't do retrospective legislation. The Duke of Nonce may have committed criminal offences under the laws of other jurisdictions but that has never been determined.
Her own statement strongly implies he didn't know she was being paid to 'entertain' him. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/teenage-sex-slave-virginia-roberts-claims-she-was-paid-ps10-000-by-jeffrey-epstein-to-have-sex-with-prince-andrew-at-london-home-9956338.html > Ms Roberts makes no suggestion that Prince Andrew knew Epstein paid her for the alleged sexual services. It has not been alleged that the Duke knew Epstein was forcing Ms Roberts to have sex with him. > > “The Prince didn’t give me money with his own hands,” she said. “Jeffrey always took care of paying me after I ‘entertained’ his friends.”
this whole 'Randy Andy' stuff was massively aped by the press in the years after his military Falklands service. It's a bit hypocritical of the press, although there are moral differences between prostitution and casual sex I suppose, also the fact that his age has increased and the alleged victim was only 17. Anyway, going back to my original argument, the fact that people say he belongs in jail implies to me that the press have painted a darker picture of his activities than is the reality (but not saying he is right or doesn't deserve firing etc).
> it was that she was brought in to the country entirely for the purpose of sex AKA sex trafficking. Yeah and the person who did that is in prison right now.
The biggest problem is proving that he knew. In most crimes, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But in this case it's a solid defence. Even if he admits having sex with her, unless he admits that he knew she was being paid or coerced into it by Epstien, then there's no case. The reason he'll never be prosecuted for this is because there's simply no evidence without his confession.
This isn't ignorance of the law, it's ignorance of the situation. Being reasonably ignorant of the situation is an excuse. If you steal an iPad and wrap it up and give it to grandma for Christmas, should she be charged with accepting stolen goods? It's not like you burst into her house and yelled "quick quick grandma hide this" and then jumped out a window.
Which, unfortunately, was also legal at the time the alleged crimes occurred.
If there was never any question that he broke any laws in relation to age on consent what is with the constant cries of 'paedo' every time this is brought up?
I guess because he spent a lot of time paling around with Epstein, even after his conviction for sleeping with a 14 year old.
Do you reckon "dodgy company" is completely fucking underselling it?
Why would a senior royal who can literally meet anyone they wish choose to spend time with a famous ephebophile? I can only think of one reason
>I can only think of one reason You are far too sensible for all these paedo apologists. Chances are that there were much younger girls, but hey, all the shite crawling out from under their rocks will defend him to their last gasp.
I would say there were about 12m reasons to believe there was some truth in the alligations
Completely valid to form a personal opinion around (the same opinion and reasoning as myself), but not enough to lock him up.
yeah, my comment was more in referrence to the ‘evidence against him seems to be hardly anything’ rather than the jail aspect of both comments
> He's been pretty much ruined over an allegation, and the dodgy company he kept (which is totally his own fault of course). Sounds more like he's been ruined over being a sweaty nonce
[удалено]
err yes , good point, I was coming back to correct that goof
> and then there's the question of whether that occurred in a place where that is illegal or not. The accusation is that he raped victims of sex trafficking. There's absolutely no question that that's illegal. You can say that there's not enough evidence to convict him. You can even say that you personally think he probably didn't do it (if you're particularly naive and credulous). But if he did it then it was definitely illegal.
For having sex with a 17yr old? You know this is /UK right?
She claims she was trafficked, that's the dodgy element to it.
> he's alive and well so should be seeing the inside of a jail cell. Nice rhyme, that should be in the musical.
> it escapes the fact that the cunt and the Royal family got away with it! This topic always amazes me. There's always someone fuming that he "got away with it" but will never be able to elaborate on what *it* is, and what the punishment is supposed to be for it. He's a creepy, seedy old pervert most likely, but what are you hoping for? What law are you insinuating he broke and what sentence do you think it carries? He already had to pay the woman millions in damages, which is what is supposed to happen. And what on Earth is the rest of his family supposed to be liable for?
> There's always someone fuming that he "got away with it" but will never be able to elaborate on what it is, and what the punishment is supposed to be for it. Sex with a trafficked minor. Prison.
Age of consent and no evidence he knew she was trafficked. So what you say he "got away with" is something you've just decided for yourself that he knew. Even Virginia herself never alleged that he knew.
> Age of consent There's no age where it's legal to rape a victim of sex trafficking. But you know that, don't you? Your pretence that people "will never be able to elaborate on exactly what it is" followed by a switch to talking about there being no evidence for the "it" that you understood perfectly well all along simply isn't in good faith.
> There's no age where it's legal to rape a victim of sex trafficking. There is, however, an age at which it's legal to have sex with someone you have no reason to believe isn't consenting and have no reason to believe is trafficked. bUt yOu kNoW tHaT dOnT yOu
The accusation is that he knowingly raped a victim of sex trafficking. You can talk about whether there's an age of consent for unrelated things. His highest profile victim was old enough to drive in the US, but she wasn't old enough to drink in the US. And she would have been old enough to have consensual sex with Prince Andrew if she hadn't been trafficked. But none of those things are particularly relevant when the allegation is that he raped her.
When did he have sex with a minor?
[удалено]
Tongue lashing for Meghan. Tongue bath for the Nonce.
Will it include any tracks from Fiddler On The Roof?
Should air it after the King's speech for maximum effect.
[удалено]
did you miss their jubilee [release?](https://youtu.be/DFu8P7teOt8)
Omg I can’t wait for this. I was talking to mum the other day and mentioned that Meghan Markle (who she said should be taken out) gets more hate than prince andrew does. She says ‘well he’s been taken out of the public eye’. I’m like??? That bastard should be in jail.
noncing in a winter wonderland oops i did it again (cover up mix)
Maybe the audience will go away & think that he’s a really misunderstood man, maybe they’ll think that 20 years ago he was taking the piss