Prince Andrew Accused of Underage Sex Acts

Somewhere along the way I have forgotten. Out of all the targets of high profile people in this, why did she select Andrew? Is it because he is not American? Likely to settle out of court? May not result in his accuser being suicided? If they do go to court will she have to answer other questions such as "so Andrew was the only one there that you had sex with?" or "who else was there and why have you picked on my client?". If I did know I have forgotten. But why him?
 
Open ended question.

I could say the Empire of Japan on 7-12-41.

Or I could say Germany 1-9-1939 in their invasion of Poland.

Of course one might also want to look at why WW2 begun in the first place, and then we have to look at what happened at the end of WW1.
I used to tease my US friends in Baghdad with the observation that they were even late for the war in the Pacific in December 1941. Pearl Harbor was attacked early on 7 December, local time. Malaya was invaded just after midnight on 8 December, local time. However, due to the joys of time zones and international date lines, the invasion of Malaya was actually an hour or thereabouts before the strike on PH.
 
The legal age originally was 21 because there is some evidence the brain doesn't fully develop until early 20s.

When and where was it 21? Most western countries have raised their age of consent.
 
Out of curiosity - I wonder if it would also open the way for Charles to stand aside on grounds of age and ill health and of course saving the cost of a 2nd coronaion in a short time frame.

I can see Edward and Anne (having some self and social awareness ) agreeing to Charles standing aside and HRH in effect passing the baton to William, Andy on the other hand I could see as being the one to say if Charles doesnt take it then its mine.

*Im aware it would cause constitutional issues but not insurmountable and possibly considered for the better by much of the CW as well
I just can't see it. Charles has been waiting his whole life to be King. I don't see him stepping aside after all that time.
 
When and where was it 21? Most western countries have raised their age of consent.
do you really expect oops no facts though to give a coherent response


Yes i know 'funny' name changes are Bugsys much derided speciality - but i thought this one worth the effort (opinions may vary)
 
Last edited:
Which is not what you originally said:

"at 17 she was not legally competent to consent."

Nice attempt at shifting the goalposts.
But according to Californian law, legally competent to marry at 14. US law is not enforceable for an act (allegedly) that was conducted in the UK. Unless of course you are a US spooket driving on the wrong side of the road in the UK, which would appear to be OK with the US authorities.
 
But according to Californian law, legally competent to marry at 14. US law is not enforceable for an act (allegedly) that was conducted in the UK. Unless of course you are a US spooket driving on the wrong side of the road in the UK, which would appear to be OK with the US authorities.

It is or can be** - however whether its enforcable for non nationals would open up a can of worms

**UK plays that game as well - take part in certain activities abroad that are illigal in the UK (eg kiddy fiddling) and the UK will prosecute back home.
 
I just can't see it. Charles has been waiting his whole life to be King. I don't see him stepping aside after all that time.

Charles wants what’s best for Charles, the country having the stability that a monarch with a good few decades left him like William is so far down his list it’s nonexistent.

I think most people wouldn’t mind if the firm is wound up once the current queen goes.
 
It is or can be** - however whether its enforcable for non nationals would open up a can of worms

**UK plays that game as well - take part in certain activities abroad that are illigal in the UK (eg kiddy fiddling) and the UK will prosecute back home.
Unless I am mistaken, no kiddy fiddling in this case.
 
You're casting a general assumptions of public opinion there. I'd go the other way and say all I hear from people on the subject is that they were right to ditch Harry and his toxic wife and they were right to strip Andrew of titles.

Andrew has simply had too much attention on himself, all of it negative..the public doesn't like or forget that kind of stuff.

Harry has shown himself to be a snivelling, whining little bitch and Meghan's various games (racists, Lilibet, etc) all serving to piss people off.

The core firm of HM, Charles and Wills and Kate will do fine going forward I suspect. The quicker the other shit magnets are binned, the better.
It certainly doesn't mean the much-touted "end of the monarchy" that we regularly hear about, but it is another knock to the Windsor brand. The old-world automatic deference to the royal family has gone, and they'll have to earn not only the support of the public but a public willingness to keep them in existence.

They may "do fine", but that is not a foregone conclusion.
 

Endoscope

LE
Book Reviewer
Charles wants what’s best for Charles, the country having the stability that a monarch with a good few decades left him like William is so far down his list it’s nonexistent.

I think most people wouldn’t mind if the firm is wound up once the current queen goes.
Stop talking for most people you nutter, get back to your Daily Mail and worrying about how much Jordons house is worth
 
Charles wants what’s best for Charles, the country having the stability that a monarch with a good few decades left him like William is so far down his list it’s nonexistent.

I think most people wouldn’t mind if the firm is wound up once the current queen goes.
I'm pretty sure that those who want royalty abolished are still a minority, and will be after HM's gone, but that minority is gradually growing, and this sort of bullshit makes excellent fertilizer.
 
Unless I am mistaken, no kiddy fiddling in this case.
There isnt and for clarity any and all inferance that there was in my post was inadvertant

It was used simply as an expedient and well known example of how the UK will apply home laws to British nationals activities abroad.
 
Rather think the citizens of York want him gone, but not sure a Local Council can overturn the heavy hand of a Longshanks from way back!
I have doubts as to whether pre-judgement of any issue on the part of local councillors is legally viable.
 

Truxx

LE
I'm pretty sure that those who want royalty abolished are still a minority, and will be after HM's gone, but that minority is gradually growing, and this sort of bullshit makes excellent fertilizer.
Rather oddly I was surprised whilst hob-nobbing with the upper echelons of the Civil service during the latter stages of what I laughingly call my career just how many senior folk were republican in outlook. Some overt, some covert, but quite different to the upper levels of the uniformed services.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top