Prince Andrew

[maryportfuncity 10,017]

31 minutes ago, polar duck said:

A Snopes article explaining the list.

 

Another article explaining Stephen Hawking's appearance.

 

Second article quotes them at the time saying "there is no agenda except fun and physics, and that's fun with a capital "F"" - so, basically at best it's science washing in the great tradition that sees Saudi money involved in sports washing and at worst it's a chance to snag some great minds into the Epstein orbit and check out how many of them he could snag for the dodgy inner circle. 

[Toast 14,847]

1 hour ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Aye, so take your point above and having Googled the US legal definition the watershed age below which paedophilia kicks in is 14 (Epstein's youngest victims were 14, so it likely made sense to him to argue he wasn't any kind of pervert legally speaking). That said, we're in self-regulating territory of a very dodgy nature, Gary Glitter - for example - thought his prosecutions in Asia an affront to justice because he was prepared to pay damages to the families of the very young kids involved. Put it this way, I'm not sure I'd strike up any pub conversation defending Epstein on the grounds he was only attracted to sexually mature females. And, where the hangers onto Epstein are concerned the court of public opinion will likely make harsh judgements for anyone provably indulging the way Epstein himself did. Ghislaine Maxwell had great lawyers and still got 20 years, 'nuff said.

 

I'm not defending anyone.  I'm trying to preserve the meaning of the word.

The "watershed age", really?  It shouldn't be defined by age.  The difference is physical.  Either a child is pre-pubescent or it's not.  It varies with the individual. 

 

1 hour ago, Tango854 said:

I don't give a shit about the differences between Ephebophilia and pedophilia, and anyone who does that is not say a prosecutor or a judge is a little bit sus in my opinion. 

 

Really?  I think there's a huge gulf between the two.

Being sexually attracted to physically mature teenagers is natural.  It's not an abnormal desire.  That's not to say it should be acted upon. 

Being sexually attracted to babies and pre-pubescent children is an abhorrent perversion.

We need to retain words that distinguish between them.

[maryportfuncity 10,017]

2 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

I'm not defending anyone.  I'm trying to preserve the meaning of the word.

The "watershed age", really?  It shouldn't be defined by age.  The difference is physical.  Either a child is pre-pubescent or it's not.  It varies with the individual. 

 

 

Really?  I think there's a huge gulf between the two.

Being sexually attracted to physically mature teenagers is natural.  It's not an abnormal desire.  That's not to say it should be acted upon. 

Being sexually attracted to babies and pre-pubescent children is an abhorrent perversion.

We need to retain words that distinguish between them.

 

 

This is getting lively

 

Never seen a potential paedo conviction in court complicated when the defendent dragged in a lexicographer to argue the definition of the word. I'd say it's an impossibility to sort out the physical and emotional boundaries so everyone defaults to the law. The other way madness lurks.

[Tango854 207]

3 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

I'm not defending anyone.  I'm trying to preserve the meaning of the word.

The "watershed age", really?  It shouldn't be defined by age.  The difference is physical.  Either a child is pre-pubescent or it's not.  It varies with the individual. 

 

 

Really?  I think there's a huge gulf between the two.

Being sexually attracted to physically mature teenagers is natural.  It's not an abnormal desire.  That's not to say it should be acted upon. 

Being sexually attracted to babies and pre-pubescent children is an abhorrent perversion.

We need to retain words that distinguish between them.

I think the bobbies should check your hard drive after I read that.

[TQR 12,186]

18 minutes ago, Toast said:

Being sexually attracted to physically mature teenagers is natural.  It's not an abnormal desire.

 

Maybe, if you're also of that age, or in the absence of any kind of moral compass or sound judgement (which would be abnormal, let's face it).

 

Please stop pretending semantics are the most important issue here.

[Phantom 2,469]

23 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

I'm not defending anyone.  I'm trying to preserve the meaning of the word.

The "watershed age", really?  It shouldn't be defined by age.  The difference is physical.  Either a child is pre-pubescent or it's not.  It varies with the individual. 

 

 

Really?  I think there's a huge gulf between the two.

Being sexually attracted to physically mature teenagers is natural.  It's not an abnormal desire.  That's not to say it should be acted upon. 

Being sexually attracted to babies and pre-pubescent children is an abhorrent perversion.

We need to retain words that distinguish between them.

I think to a certain degree it should be defined by age. Since puberty can begin as early as 8 or 9 in girls, they're still essentially a child. 

[Windsor 2,143]

Just now, Phantom said:

I think to a certain degree it should be defined by age. Since puberty can begin as early as 8 or 9 in girls, they're still essentially a child. 

I think the law, which says your an arsehole if you are sniffing about anyone under the age of 16, does the trick.

 

Of course that doesn’t stop the creeps i5”thinking that 16 is fair game when they are in their mid-30s. 
 

I think if we start sub-categorising it starts to give predators an excuse because ‘it’s no so bad’…’grass on the pitch’. The reality is, they are all scumbags who get off on it. 

[Phantom 2,469]

Just now, Windsor said:

I think the law, which says your an arsehole if you are sniffing about anyone under the age of 16, does the trick.

 

Of course that doesn’t stop the creeps i5”thinking that 16 is fair game when they are in their mid-30s. 
 

I think if we start sub-categorising it starts to give predators an excuse because ‘it’s no so bad’…’grass on the pitch’. The reality is, they are all scumbags who get off on it. 

Obviously if you're much older and in a position of authority, then yes. But if you're closer in age say for example 18 or 19 and you're dating someone who is 16.. 

[Salmon Mousse 466]

1 hour ago, Phantom said:

What are you on about? 

The only thing mentioned was that Clinton liked his women young. Lewinsky was 22 when she was involved with Clinton who was 27 years older than her. 

 

Saw an opportunity to quote Godfather and I took it.

[Toast 14,847]

59 minutes ago, TQR said:

Please stop pretending semantics are the most important issue here.

 

I never said it was. That doesn't mean it's not important.

 

Because of the misuse of a word, I still don't know if Epstein was trafficking CHILDREN as opposed to teenagers, because that would make it all EVEN WORSE.

 

 

[Toast 14,847]

1 hour ago, Tango854 said:

I think the bobbies should check your hard drive after I read that.

 

Don't be so fucking ridiculous.

[arrowsmith 334]

3 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

Don't be so fucking ridiculous.

C’mon, Toast. Don’t feed the troll. 

[The Old Crem 3,181]

52 minutes ago, Windsor said:

I think the law, which says your an arsehole if you are sniffing about anyone under the age of 16, does the trick.

 

Of course that doesn’t stop the creeps i5”thinking that 16 is fair game when they are in their mid-30s. 
 

I think if we start sub-categorising it starts to give predators an excuse because ‘it’s no so bad’…’grass on the pitch’. The reality is, they are all scumbags who get off on it. 

The law does sub categorise through. The definitions, defences and Sentences are longer for under 13’s compared to 13 to 15. 

[Tango854 207]

2 minutes ago, arrowsmith said:

C’mon, Toast. Don’t feed the troll. 

Why are you defending the guy who really wants us to know the difference between a pedophile and an Ephebophile? 

[arrowsmith 334]

1 minute ago, The Old Crem said:

The law does sub categorise through. The definitions, defences and Sentences are longer for under 13’s compared to 13 to 15. 

It does in the US as well. Most (all?) jurisdictions recognize sexual acts with a minor under the age of 14 as a separate offense. 

[TQR 12,186]

2 minutes ago, Tango854 said:

Why are you defending the guy who really wants us to know the difference between a pedophile and an Ephebophile? 

 

It's important to distinguish between the two. It's also very important, mind, to recognise that ephebophilia is in no way a defence when adults have sexual contact with people under the country's age of consent.

[Tango854 207]

5 minutes ago, TQR said:

 

It's important to distinguish between the two. It's also very important, mind, to recognise that ephebophilia is in no way a defence when adults have sexual contact with people under the country's age of consent.

is it really that important? When someone brings it up and they are not a professional scholar or prosecutor it's always fucking suspicious, especially when they keep bringing it up when someone calls a guy who sexually abused minors a pedophile. So excuse me if I don't fucking trust toast and think his hard drive should be searched by law enforcement.

[Commtech Sio Bibble 1,368]

@Tango854 if you don't care about the difference, stop replying.

[arrowsmith 334]

6 minutes ago, Tango854 said:

is it really that important? When someone brings it up and they are not a professional scholar or prosecutor it's always fucking suspicious, especially when they keep bringing it up when someone calls a guy who sexually abused minors a pedophile. So excuse me if I don't fucking trust toast and think his hard drive should be searched by law enforcement.

This is incredibly inappropriate and you should seriously rethink your use of this site to only level ad hominem attacks on its members

 

@Death Impends @Paul Bearer Are we really fine with this guy not really contributing but merely insulting members?

[TQR 12,186]

8 minutes ago, Tango854 said:

is it really that important? When someone brings it up and they are not a professional scholar or prosecutor it's always fucking suspicious, especially when they keep bringing it up when someone calls a guy who sexually abused minors a pedophile. So excuse me if I don't fucking trust toast and think his hard drive should be searched by law enforcement.

 

*Her, and go and take a few deep lungfuls of fresh air. All that needs to be said is ephebophilia is not a defence. We've covered that, now move on.

[Phantom 2,469]

8 minutes ago, Tango854 said:

is it really that important? When someone brings it up and they are not a professional scholar or prosecutor it's always fucking suspicious, especially when they keep bringing it up when someone calls a guy who sexually abused minors a pedophile. So excuse me if I don't fucking trust toast and think his hard drive should be searched by law enforcement.

 A minor is someone defined as someone under the age of 18. However in the US, the age of consent in many States is 16 with no limitations on the age of the person they're involved with. 

But there is a clear scientific and legal difference between a pedophile, hebephile, and ephebephile.

Toast is in no way condoning the behaviour, they are merely pointing out the difference. 

[maryportfuncity 10,017]

Most of the front pages in the UK today are on it - more court of public opinion than Toast's nuanced consideration. 

 

[maryportfuncity 10,017]

And just like that the Met Police say nowt to see here - or however that translates into cockney. That said, the latest allegations concern events in New York. Republic (anti-monarchist pressure group) are already all over this and it's clearly going to keep dragging politicians out to make comments they'd rather not have to make. Can't see this ending any way other than he hides away on royal estates for the foreseeable, no evidence he's wracked with suicidal shame. That said, an ageing chubster with frustration driving his blood pressure probably isn't going to last as long as his mum.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67893392

 

 

[The Watcher 294]

Vicki Hodge (now 77) should have some interesting comments if she wished to voice them. Apparently she 'initiated' Andrew when 14 years older on the Island of Mustique - he had no staying power apparently although was very eager. Princess Margaret was present at the time - presumably on the island rather than virtually a threesome?

[Windsor 2,143]

6 hours ago, maryportfuncity said:

Republic (anti-monarchist pressure group)

Did anyone here vote for them? 
 

The BBC and other media ought to know that other brands for Republicism are available for comment. Their leaders has been enthroned even longer than The King…