Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested...

[P.J. Denyer]

I guess you will have heard the expression "the oldest profession"? I wonder which accredited university is handing out degrees in that profession?

Sounds like an memorable place to be a TA at least.

 

[smartcooky]

I feel slightly sorry for him that when he left the navy, there was no easy option for him. Many options open to us normal people weren't open to him.

He was a career officer - spent 22 years in the Royal Navy. That's two more years than I did in our Air force. I had less options than he did when I retired - so I have no sympathy for him on that count.
Also, he retired at 41, but could have served to age 55 if he had taken "age-for-rank".

there is no suggestion that AM-W is a rapist. Giuffre did not claim AM-W forced her to have sex.

Nonetheless, if Giuffre was trafficked, and AM-W knew that, then its automatically rape. I find it hard to believe that he didn't know she was trafficked to him by Epstein and Maxwell

Epstein may have 'encouraged' young women have sex with various persons including AM-W, but that does not mean that those who were sex partners were rapists.

Again, if Epstein and Maxwell trafficked those girls, anyone who had sex with them knowing they had been trafficked, is automatically considered to have raped them, even if the girls consented at the time.

 

[angrysoba]

Nonetheless, if Giuffre was trafficked, and AM-W knew that, then its automatically rape. I find it hard to believe that he didn't know she was trafficked to him by Epstein and Maxwell

Again, if Epstein and Maxwell trafficked those girls, anyone who had sex with them knowing they had been trafficked, is automatically considered to have raped them, even if the girls consented at the time.

Hey, remember this?

Its not the only baseline I use.
As I said about 2% of rape and sexual assault allegations are false. It doesn't sound like much, until you present it as actual numbers with real people's lives impacted.

I am an ardent believer in Sir William Blackstone's principles as outlined the 18th century..."all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously: for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than one innocent suffer"

This is a core principle of skepticism in relation to the law and determination of guilt or innocence. @Safe-Keeper -
you might want to keep Blackstone's principle in mind when you start having a swipe at me about skepticism.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I'm listening to the audio book of Entitled by Andrew Lownie, he mentions that Andrew was passing classified information to Epstein almost in passing and claims it was passed on to Israel.

 

[Planigale]

He was a career officer - spent 22 years in the Royal Navy. That's two more years than I did in our Air force. I had less options than he did when I retired - so I have no sympathy for him on that count.
Also, he retired at 41, but could have served to age 55 if he had taken "age-for-rank".


Nonetheless, if Giuffre was trafficked, and AM-W knew that, then its automatically rape. I find it hard to believe that he didn't know she was trafficked to him by Epstein and Maxwell


Again, if Epstein and Maxwell trafficked those girls, anyone who had sex with them knowing they had been trafficked, is automatically considered to have raped them, even if the girls consented at the time.

Not in the UK where prostitution is legal. Paying for a US citizen to fly into the UK to have sex would not be illegal in the UK. It might be illegal in the US to pay for sex, and a federal crime to pay for them to travel across state lines.

 

[smartcooky]

Not in the UK where prostitution is legal. Paying for a US citizen to fly into the UK to have sex would not be illegal in the UK. It might be illegal in the US to pay for sex, and a federal crime to pay for them to travel across state lines.

Wrong - its not about prostitution, its about human trafficking. Prostitution may be legal but Human Trafficking is not. It is illegal in the UK under Sexual Offences Act 2003: Sections 57-59 and under Section 53A

Section 57 makes it a serious criminal offence to intentionally arrange or facilitate the arrival of someone into the UK for sexual exploitation.​

​

Section 58 makes it an offence to intentionally arrange or facilitate travel within the UK for another person (B) with the intention of exploiting them sexually, or believing another person is likely to do so. This applies to UK and foreign nationals moved within the UK for sexual exploitation​

​

Section 53A makes it a strict liability offence in England and Wales to pay for the sexual services of a prostitute if that person has been subjected to exploitative conduct (coercion, force, or deception) by a third party.​

So I repeat, if Epstein and Maxwell trafficked those girls, anyone who had sex with them knowing (and actually even if they didn't know) they had been trafficked, is automatically considered to have raped them, even if the girls consented at the time.

NOTE: It is also illegal under the The Modern Slavery Act 2015 Sections 2 & 3

 

[smartcooky]

Here is a video from Dr Mark Felton, examing Andrew's service in the Falklands. He was more involved that some people are prepared to credit.


First couple of minutes reviews the service of other royals. The rest about Andrew starts about 2:53

 

[zooterkin]

Wrong - its not about prostitution, its about human trafficking. Prostitution may be legal but Human Trafficking is not. It is illegal in the UK under Sexual Offences Act 2003: Sections 57-59 and under Section 53A

Section 57 makes it a serious criminal offence to intentionally arrange or facilitate the arrival of someone into the UK for sexual exploitation.​

​

Section 58 makes it an offence to intentionally arrange or facilitate travel within the UK for another person (B) with the intention of exploiting them sexually, or believing another person is likely to do so. This applies to UK and foreign nationals moved within the UK for sexual exploitation​

​

Section 53A makes it a strict liability offence in England and Wales to pay for the sexual services of a prostitute if that person has been subjected to exploitative conduct (coercion, force, or deception) by a third party.​

So I repeat, if Epstein and Maxwell trafficked those girls, anyone who had sex with them knowing (and actually even if they didn't know) they had been trafficked, is automatically considered to have raped them, even if the girls consented at the time.

NOTE: It is also illegal under the The Modern Slavery Act 2015 Sections 2 & 3

They'd be guilty under section 53A, yes, the offence being "Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc." (Rape is covered by section 1.) The penalty is a fine.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here is a video from Dr Mark Felton, examing Andrew's service in the Falklands. He was more involved that some people are prepared to credit.


First couple of minutes reviews the service of other royals. The rest about Andrew starts about 2:53

Felton's videos are crap

 

[smartcooky]

Felton's videos are crap

Really? I have always found his videos well-researched, well-presented and rich in detail.

 

[arthwollipot]

Really? I have always found his videos well-researched, well-presented and rich in detail.

His expertise seems to be mostly in military history, so I wouldn't dismiss him completely out of hand. But I'd need to know a lot more about him before I trust everything he said. His wikipedia entry is flagged as being mostly or entirely autobiographical.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

He flew some missions in the South Atlantic, mire has been made of it than actually happened.

He never commanded a warship or served aboard one in any capacity other than pilot.

Charles commanded a Warship.
HMS Bronnington. It was the 'Mothership' of my Sea Cadet Unit at the time up until it paid off from service.

Liked your typo! Most appropriate.

 

[Helen]

If the UK monarchy is anything like the Swedish one, and it probably is, paths will always have been nice and smooth for the royals, and their achievements are usually not as hard-won as they would be for others. Failure is not usually on the map. I have no idea if Andrew was good or not at what he did, but he would certainly have been helped along, if he needed it, in ways others would not.

 

[arthwollipot]

If the UK monarchy is anything like the Swedish one, and it probably is, paths will always have been nice and smooth for the royals, and their achievements are usually not as hard-won as they would be for others. Failure is not usually on the map. I have no idea if Andrew was good or not at what he did, but he would certainly have been helped along, if he needed it, in ways others would not.

Sorry but having been reading Unruly by David Mitchell (great book, highly recommended) the very thought that the British monarchy has ever been anything like "smooth" and "not hard-won" is beyond hilarious.

 

[theprestige]

If the UK monarchy is anything like the Swedish one, and it probably is, paths will always have been nice and smooth for the royals, and their achievements are usually not as hard-won as they would be for others. Failure is not usually on the map. I have no idea if Andrew was good or not at what he did, but he would certainly have been helped along, if he needed it, in ways others would not.

Flying carrier-based anti-submarine and anti-surface helicopter patrols in a combat zone is not a casual hobby for dilettantes, no matter how much their path may have been smoothed. We're back to the question - why make up lies, when the truth is enough to justify your hatred of the man?

 

[Steve]

Flying carrier-based anti-submarine and anti-surface helicopter patrols in a combat zone is not a casual hobby for dilettantes, no matter how much their path may have been smoothed. We're back to the question - why make up lies, when the truth is enough to justify your hatred of the man?

Yeah, I just don't get this business of making up stuff to criticize the prick for. Especially as it unjustifiably reflects badly on other members of the armed forces doing the same jobs, His crimes are way more worthy of derision/hatred what have you than any of this "oh, he was privileged" crap.

 

[Planigale]

Wrong - its not about prostitution, its about human trafficking. Prostitution may be legal but Human Trafficking is not. It is illegal in the UK under Sexual Offences Act 2003: Sections 57-59 and under Section 53A

Section 57 makes it a serious criminal offence to intentionally arrange or facilitate the arrival of someone into the UK for sexual exploitation.​

​

Section 58 makes it an offence to intentionally arrange or facilitate travel within the UK for another person (B) with the intention of exploiting them sexually, or believing another person is likely to do so. This applies to UK and foreign nationals moved within the UK for sexual exploitation​

​

Section 53A makes it a strict liability offence in England and Wales to pay for the sexual services of a prostitute if that person has been subjected to exploitative conduct (coercion, force, or deception) by a third party.​

So I repeat, if Epstein and Maxwell trafficked those girls, anyone who had sex with them knowing (and actually even if they didn't know) they had been trafficked, is automatically considered to have raped them, even if the girls consented at the time.

NOTE: It is also illegal under the The Modern Slavery Act 2015 Sections 2 & 3

So not rape like you claimed?

ETA since three has never been a suggestion that AM-W paid section 53a is irrelevant. Since there has never been a suggestion AM-W arranged the travel Giuffre flew in on Epstein's jet he didn't arrange the travel.

I think it is worth remembering Giuffre was actively complicit with Epstein at this time, she recruited school girls for Epstein's parties and was paid a bounty for each girl she recruited.

I have never been clear what the coercion was supposed to be, I have never heard of Epstein threatening violence, pushing drugs, there is no suggestion Giuffre (who had just come out of a previous relationship with a sex trafficker), was deceived.

 

[Helen]

Sorry but having been reading Unruly by David Mitchell (great book, highly recommended) the very thought that the British monarchy has ever been anything like "smooth" and "not hard-won" is beyond hilarious.

I wasn't very clear, was I (I've read Unruly as well)? I meant that royals, perhaps especially nowadays, have educational paths made easier for them - qualifications are waived, results are polished, etc.

 

[Darat]

So not rape like you claimed?

ETA since three has never been a suggestion that AM-W paid section 53a is irrelevant. Since there has never been a suggestion AM-W arranged the travel Giuffre flew in on Epstein's jet he didn't arrange the travel.

I think it is worth remembering Giuffre was actively complicit with Epstein at this time, she recruited school girls for Epstein's parties and was paid a bounty for each girl she recruited.

I have never been clear what the coercion was supposed to be, I have never heard of Epstein threatening violence, pushing drugs, there is no suggestion Giuffre (who had just come out of a previous relationship with a sex trafficker), was deceived.

Coercion doesn't have to be physical, that's why grooming is an offence in and of itself, why consent to travel is not a defence against the trafficking of an adult, the person being trafficked not understanding they were being trafficked and so on. However the legislation that today makes it clear what is considered trafficking and the like was not in place in 2001 which could make it hard to secure a conviction that involved the element of trafficking from back in 2001. (Although no longer an issue in this case any prosecution of him could have exposed her to prosecution for her own involvement in trafficking others, which would no longer be the case because of a statutory defence placed into the newer legislation.)

 

[smartcooky]

So not rape like you claimed?

ETA since three has never been a suggestion that AM-W paid section 53a is irrelevant. Since there has never been a suggestion AM-W arranged the travel Giuffre flew in on Epstein's jet he didn't arrange the travel.

I think it is worth remembering Giuffre was actively complicit with Epstein at this time, she recruited school girls for Epstein's parties and was paid a bounty for each girl she recruited.

I have never been clear what the coercion was supposed to be, I have never heard of Epstein threatening violence, pushing drugs, there is no suggestion Giuffre (who had just come out of a previous relationship with a sex trafficker), was deceived.

Poppycock. You really do like to nitpick piffling itrelevant minutae in your defence of rapists don't you.