The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2381  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:23 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,832
This was a sex trafficking crime going on. These girls weren’t casually having sex with these powerful men. This wasn’t a prostitution business. It was sex trafficking.
__________________

__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #2382  
Old 09-24-2019, 02:13 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
We know that now-but what was actually known 15-20 years ago?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2383  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:12 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,548
You make a very good point. If I were 20 years younger I would probably be of the "shame, shame, shame, brigade and thinking a low(very low) profile would be good for all concerned.

But, I am not and I like to think I consider and weigh the facts between before being led by the nose by the media. I have seen tragedy as a result of unsubstantiated gossip. Fearless warriors with no integrity.

A family torn apart, children hurt and harassed, broken people who should never have been hurt. A father committing suicide after his ownly daughter turned to drugs to dull the pain.

None of it was true, but the heroic vigilantes sticking paedophile photos on lamp posts got off Scot free.

I will never join lynching party and will leave it to a court to assign guilt or innocence. But if you think anyone charged by an uncorrupted system gets away with it, think again.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2384  
Old 09-24-2019, 12:30 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 5,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Age of consent in New York is 17 not 18.

https://www.ageofconsent.net/states/new-york
Yes, you are right. However the webpage cited gives a color coded map of the USA on the home page with NY coded as 18. They don't have a "close in age" exemption" either as Florida does.

I am not familiar with the laws regarding a sex trafficked individual.
Reply With Quote
  #2385  
Old 09-24-2019, 12:42 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,407
One thing I think we can be pretty sure of is that there is a world of difference between those that were "serviced" by these girls and those that procured and groomed and controlled just what these girls were to do and where.

Right now it doesn't look like they'll have anyone to pin sex trafficking charges on with the only exception *maybe* being Ghislaine Maxwell as the "madam" that aided and abetted Epstein in this operation. We may see that happen but then again, we may not.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2386  
Old 09-26-2019, 11:50 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: L'angolo, Vatican City
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
One thing I think we can be pretty sure of is that there is a world of difference between those that were "serviced" by these girls and those that procured and groomed and controlled just what these girls were to do and where.

Right now it doesn't look like they'll have anyone to pin sex trafficking charges on with the only exception *maybe* being Ghislaine Maxwell as the "madam" that aided and abetted Epstein in this operation. We may see that happen but then again, we may not.
As a member of the upper classes, I don't imagine Ghislaine would have that sort of organising role in such a supply chain.
Reply With Quote
  #2387  
Old 09-27-2019, 07:59 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Monsey, United States
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
Yes, you are right. However the webpage cited gives a color coded map of the USA on the home page with NY coded as 18. They don't have a "close in age" exemption" either as Florida does.

I am not familiar with the laws regarding a sex trafficked individual.
And regardless of age of consent, if Epstein was trafficking these girls, then even if they were 40 years old, that is still a crime. If Andrew engaged in sex with any of them (even those of age) it is still a crime because no one is really consenting if they are being sex trafficked. So when you bring that same girl down to the age of 17, where it might be legally of age in NY, it is still disgusting and questionable and Andrew should not have been anywhere near that situation!
Reply With Quote
  #2388  
Old 09-27-2019, 09:50 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
And regardless of age of consent, if Epstein was trafficking these girls, then even if they were 40 years old, that is still a crime. If Andrew engaged in sex with any of them (even those of age) it is still a crime because no one is really consenting if they are being sex trafficked. So when you bring that same girl down to the age of 17, where it might be legally of age in NY, it is still disgusting and questionable and Andrew should not have been anywhere near that situation!
I am not legally schooled but shouldn't someone at least be somehow knowledgeable (or should be reasonably expected to be able to figure out) that certain behavior was completely different than it looked like for it to be considered a crime? Specifically, if Andrew had no way of knowing (I don't know whether that was the case; we don't even know what happened) that she was not free to say 'no', I don't think it can be held against him nor considered committing a crime; or can it?
Reply With Quote
  #2389  
Old 09-27-2019, 09:57 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
And regardless of age of consent, if Epstein was trafficking these girls, then even if they were 40 years old, that is still a crime. If Andrew engaged in sex with any of them (even those of age) it is still a crime because no one is really consenting if they are being sex trafficked. So when you bring that same girl down to the age of 17, where it might be legally of age in NY, it is still disgusting and questionable and Andrew should not have been anywhere near that situation!
Yes, we know now that the girls were allegedly not willing participants.

But 15-20 years ago, many people probably assumed the girls were willing and getting money or other benefits/advantages from prostitution. Really, there is not any difference between a 17 year old or an 18 year old in looks. And while prostitution is not legal in many places, it is perfectly legal in others.
Reply With Quote
  #2390  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:03 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,407
I would possibly equate it to someone that has bought a stolen diamond ring from a pawnshop. The person that bought the ring had no idea it was stolen and the purchase was made "in good faith". With discovery that the ring was stolen and then pawned, the legal owner of the ring recovers it, the person that bought it from the pawnshop is out the money he spent on it and its pawnshop owner that sold the ring that is indicted with the crime of selling stolen goods.

It would be a different kettle of fish for Andrew if it could be proven that he specifically *asked* Epstein to "please bring Ms. X" with him to London as that implicates him in the act of sex trafficking. If Andrew just took advantage of what was "available" to him at the time, he's like the guy that bought the stolen diamond ring.

I'm no legal expert at all either but just offering an opinion.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2391  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:29 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,469
Yes, Osipi, but if the pawnshop owner brought those practices into his private life, and over a drink in the evening with a customer said 'I have this terrific ring in my pocket' wink, wink, and offered it for a certain price, that would be different, wouldn't it?

And IMO it all really comes down to what Andrew knew about his friend Epstein's views on sex, women, girls etc; what he knew about his friend's morals and ethics and way of life.

I've just got a feeling from what I have read, that Epstein was not coy about his views, that he enjoyed talking sexual matters. If you have known someone like that for a number of years and that person is not shy with their opinions then I would say you have a good idea about them as people.

In other words, maybe things didn't really have to be spelled out with Epstein. They were there on the table, so to speak!
Reply With Quote
  #2392  
Old 09-27-2019, 11:14 PM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 2,958
To add to Curryong's points, all you have to do is read the accounts of the decor in Epstein's house, the recounting of conversations others had with him, and the descriptions of the lifestyle from the victimized women to know that he was not someone who was reticent about sexual matters. Add to that the plethora of very young girls who surrounded him, traveled with him, and were made available to Epstein's friends, and I believe it would be an astonishingly stupid or naive person to have been completely unaware that there was something seriously off kilter about Epstein's lifestyle. So which is Andrew? And if he is neither naive nor stupid, then it opens up some very concerning questions about his judgment and his ethics.
Reply With Quote
  #2393  
Old 09-27-2019, 11:27 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, Osipi, but if the pawnshop owner brought those practices into his private life, and over a drink in the evening with a customer said 'I have this terrific ring in my pocket' wink, wink, and offered it for a certain price, that would be different, wouldn't it?
Actually, I think it would be a similar situation to selling it in a store to a stranger. Unless the guy with the ring in his pocket has told the friend or the friend knew that he's a fence and is dealing in stolen goods. So basically, it boils down to what knowledge anyone had of the pawnshop owner being a fence for stolen goods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
And IMO it all really comes down to what Andrew knew about his friend Epstein's views on sex, women, girls etc; what he knew about his friend's morals and ethics and way of life.
This is it in a nutshell. Its been obvious that the York/Epstein friendship was good enough that it wasn't a problem to attain an extensive loan from Epstein when Sarah needed it. How much Sarah, or even Andrew knew of Epstein's sex ring though is still up in the air.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I've just got a feeling from what I have read, that Epstein was not coy about his views, that he enjoyed talking sexual matters. If you have known someone like that for a number of years and that person is not shy with their opinions then I would say you had a good idea about them as people.

In other words, that things didn't really have to be spelled out with Epstein. They were there on the table, so to speak!
His views, his opinions and his salacious lifestyle and what he preferred was totally in the open and we even have Trump quoted as saying "I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." Yes, what Epstein liked and preferred in his lifestyle was very well known *but* the kicker is how many friends were actually aware of the actual sex trafficking and grooming and controlling of these girls?

We realize too that the charges that Epstein was indicted for and found guilty of and sentenced for, even if a sweetheart deal, had no implications or references to actual criminal sex trafficking of women. Epstein was not a man that was "teched in the head" or stupid and probably kept the "ring" part of his lifestyle close to the vest which only a few knew about. Maxwell would be one of them.

OF course, this is all my opinion and we'll probably never know all the answers. Epstein took a lot of those to the grave with him.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2394  
Old 09-28-2019, 12:08 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,469
Yes, but Andrew certainly knew about the charges on which his friend Epstein was found guilty. He knew about the lifestyle and had for years. Yet he continued to be his friend.

Andrew went to New York and stayed with him. So if Andrew was so blind and naive as to what all these young girls without having their parents were doing around this single middleaged man before the conviction, afterwards it didn't mean a loss of his friendship.

And it's debatable as to whether, if that photo of Epstein and himself strolling in Central Park had not been published, whether the friendly visits and contacts would have continued on. IMO they would.
Reply With Quote
  #2395  
Old 09-28-2019, 12:30 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,407
One thing I imagine attracted Andrew to Epstein in the first place is that he would be running in the circle with the "big dogs" who had clout, wealth and influence. It could very well have been that Andrew "needed" Epstein more than Epstein needed him. In fact, there are few people that I'd put claim to Epstein needing at all. Egocentric people are like that and they flock together.

There's no doubts in my mind that Andrew's ethics and morals are deeply called into question over all of this but to hang anything "criminal" on Andrew is stretching the rope at this point until we have proof and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is something to prosecute Andrew for.

His reputation from his association with Epstein has gone down the toilet and will be with him for the rest of his life and most likely be the thing he's most remembered for regardless if he committed a crime at any point or not.

I also remember how shocked and disgusted people were once the "dark side" of Bill Cosby's life came out to the public. Not many people had any kind of a clue what his inclinations were towards women and it was like the man was a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Cosby has been indicted, found guilty of three counts of aggravated indecent assault and sentenced to prison. Even after release, there is no way he'll regain his good name ever again.

To me, the loss of respect and reputation by any kind of Andrew's involvement with Epstein is even a worse punishment than an actual criminal conviction. Its something he'll never, ever recover from in the public eye. But then again, to an egocentric type of person, which I am wont to believe that Andrew is in his character makeup, it probably doesn't make a dent in his own opinion of himself. I don't know Andrew at all but he comes across that way to me.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #2396  
Old 09-28-2019, 07:34 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Monsey, United States
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I am not legally schooled but shouldn't someone at least be somehow knowledgeable (or should be reasonably expected to be able to figure out) that certain behavior was completely different than it looked like for it to be considered a crime? Specifically, if Andrew had no way of knowing (I don't know whether that was the case; we don't even know what happened) that she was not free to say 'no', I don't think it can be held against him nor considered committing a crime; or can it?
Well...none of us know at this point what exactly happened, or what Andrew knew or did not know, but Epstein was a shady character and had already been accused of things like this in Florida, which he ultimately and unfortunately got away with, so Andrew couldn't be that "not in the know" as to what Epstein was up to. I truly can't believe that Andrew had no clue. All the men who's names have come up in connection to this whole thing were smart men, and people knew what Epstein was doing, and that he was disgusting.

In America, it is the same thing that happened with Harvey Weinstein. Maybe the general public had no idea, but as soon as the story broke about Harvey, everyone and their mother in Hollywood started coming forward saying that it either happened to him, or they had heard the stories for years.
Reply With Quote
  #2397  
Old 09-28-2019, 08:38 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,213
Again, to me the claim Andrew didn't know only goes up until epstein was convicted, even though Andrew had been around him and his seedy sounding houses long enough to see plenty IMO up until Epstein was convicted he could say he didn't know the girls were underage, forced etc. Having a seedy art collection isn't an actual crime even if it sounds like a crime against art. However, Andrew knew about Epsteins conviction when he was pictured with him again in 2010 and that shows IMO he wasn’t that bothered about it. There was no excuse then for meeting him and Andrew’s claims of not knowing anything fall down at that point.
Reply With Quote
  #2398  
Old 09-28-2019, 08:48 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Monsey, United States
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Again, to me the claim Andrew didn't know only goes up until epstein was convicted, even though Andrew had been around him and his seedy sounding houses long enough to see plenty IMO up until Epstein was convicted he could say he didn't know the girls were underage, forced etc. Having a seedy art collection isn't an actual crime even if it sounds like a crime against art. However, Andrew knew about Epsteins conviction when he was pictured with him again in 2010 and that shows IMO he wasn’t that bothered about it. There was no excuse then for meeting him and Andrew’s claims of not knowing anything fall down at that point.
I agree with you 100%. Even if there had been no photos of Andrew with his arm around the waist of one of the girls who came forward, and even if Andrew didn't engage in relations with any of these girls (which I think most of us believe he did), after Espstein was convicted in Florida the first time, Andrew should have known better than to keep associating with a registered sex offender. What was he thinking? And walking through NYC's Central Park with him after the fact? Doesn't make me think he is the sharpest tool in the shed.

I've heard that Andrew is more concerned with not being able to come back to the United States because he had planned to open businesses here, and let's be honest...it doesn't fare well for any person in power and celebrity to not be able to come here. I don't think he is legally not allowed here, but he certainly wouldn't be able to hide behind mummy's skirt if he came here.
Reply With Quote
  #2399  
Old 09-28-2019, 08:53 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Yes, we know now that the girls were allegedly not willing participants.

But 15-20 years ago, many people probably assumed the girls were willing and getting money or other benefits/advantages from prostitution. Really, there is not any difference between a 17 year old or an 18 year old in looks. And while prostitution is not legal in many places, it is perfectly legal in others.
This was a sex trafficking activity. Not prostitution. These girls were trafficked to wealthy and famous men. The youngest was said to be at least 14 years old.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #2400  
Old 09-28-2019, 12:08 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissPeach77 View Post
I agree with you 100%. Even if there had been no photos of Andrew with his arm around the waist of one of the girls who came forward, and even if Andrew didn't engage in relations with any of these girls (which I think most of us believe he did), after Espstein was convicted in Florida the first time, Andrew should have known better than to keep associating with a registered sex offender. What was he thinking? And walking through NYC's Central Park with him after the fact? Doesn't make me think he is the sharpest tool in the shed.
In your previous post you seemed to imply that Andrew committed a crime - what's the evidence for that? Because in that case it needs to be proven that Andrew knew or should have known (in a legal way) that the girls were sex-trafficked. If it was widely known, why wasn't his friend persecuted for that years ago?!

Suggesting he committed a crime is completely different than stating that 'Andrew should have known better'. That's something I fully agree with (and I assume that sentiment is shared widely - if all that is said is true, it's disgusting that it happened and that Epstein and Maxwell got away with it for so long). I would also add that everyone involved should have known better - it's not just princes that should know how to behave and treat others.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baby names bangladesh baptism biography bridal gown brownbitcoinqueen canada carolin chittagong clarence house coronavirus cover-up dna dubai duke of sussex dutch royal family earl of snowdon emperor facts fantasy movie general news thread george vi heraldry hill historical drama history hochberg introduction jumma kent languages list of rulers luxembourg mail mary: crown princess of denmark northern ireland norway history palestine pless popularity prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess of orange queen consort queen mathilde royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown settings startling new evidence stuart swedish queen thailand tips tracts uae customs united kingdom united states of america von hofmannsthal


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:28 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×