…cuck!
Maia, you seem not to appreciate the untouchable status of your Royalty. Punishment for misconduct? Fat chance, it’s not going to happen. The Royal family, like the Clintons, can get away with murder. And if they can’t, it’s a wrist-slap, nothing more.
I have a newfound respect for France. In France, just give em a reason, one misdeed and they’ll roll out the guillotines, Aristocrat or not. Props to France.
That’s not strictly true. Charles I was beheaded in 1649 for being a tyrant, James II was deposed in 1688 for being a Catholic, and Edward VIII was deposed in 1936 for being a Nazi.
So what’s the age of consent in England? If it’s less why didn’t he just stay there to have sex with young women?
So would the story be any different if he was accused in your land for intentionally having sex with a 15 year old. That seems different then the result of an accidental death from driving on the wrong side of the street. One seems to have taken place with intention, the other the result of an accident. Would you recommend a trade of intention for accident?
The woman involved was 17. You can only make the analogy by changing the nature of what he actually did. Even if he did it, which he denies.
With regard to Anne Sacoolas, the likelihood is that she would have been given a suspended sentence. The outrage was caused when she told the police she would stick around to help their investigation, then took the first plane home.
They all do, for they perceive shame in it, if not their own, then societies. It is difficult to recognize the guilty from the innocent, but that is different then the accidental. Why get yourself all up in a bundle, about the if of a suspended sentence, and cooperation in an investigation, when it has been ruled an accident? A tragedy for sure. The tragedy of intent is an other issue, particularly if the intent is to get away with something. Do you feel Anne was attempting to get away with something, I feel your prince is.
She killed someone then ran away. It has not been ruled an accident, because she never faced justice for it. Fleeing justice is a serious crime. It would most certainly not be a suspended sentence now.
As for Prince Andrew, did he know she was 17? And if so, did he know that in America having sex with a 17-year-old is considered paedophilia? In other words, was it accidental?
But no one here cares about Prince Andrew. You can have him. When will Anne Sacoolis face justice?
“Fleeing justice is a serious crime.”
Not if you have diplomatic status. Then it’s not a crime, it’s not even fleeing.
I mean, if we’re going to go by what’s a crime and what’s not…
The law says nothing about pedophilia. It only mentions minors, and whether adults can have sex with them or not.
I have a question: can you flee social justice?
I know that’s not what this thread is about, but I’m trying to understand something.
Not to mention, what we’re really concerned about is not that necessarily. It’s more that Epstein was a pimp, and the procedence of that girl is questionable at the very best.
At worst, your King Duke or whatever aided and benefitted from one of the deepest prostitution (often forced or as good as forced) and blackmail operations ever identified. A prostitution ring which specialized in under-aged girls which, if not necessarily pedophiliac, we do consider to be fucking disgusting, as these are girls that barely know where they are standing. Also girls with not the full-fledged rights of an adult.
Anyway, the answer is yes. If you give us the prince, we’ll give you Anna Sacoolas.
i have question. is this disgust because of the age of the girls, or the fact that they’re involved in prostitution?
if it’s because of the age only - that being below the age of consent - i have another question. is that disgust demographically relative, or do you have a number (age) in your head that applies everywhere? so for instance in india where the age of consent if 18, you’re only disgusted with someone who has sex with a 17 year old. then you fly to a state in the U.S. where the age of consent is 16, and you’re only disgusted with someone who has sex with a 15 year old. then you fly to china where the age of consent is 14, and you’re only disgusted with someone who has sex with a 13 year old. have i got that right, or do you have a disgust threshold that is applicable throughout the entire solar system?
if it’s because of the prostitution involvement - and this because such girls ‘barely know where they stand’ - is your disgust because those men running the ring didn’t make clear enough what the girls would be doing? should they have been given a brochure and an orientation CD before being hired?
excluding of course any case where the girls are forced or blackmailed or threatened in some way which would coerce the girls into deciding to become prostitutes. i’d agree that that’s a bit sketchy.
It’s disgusting because the girls are tricked, easy to trick, and are limited in their freedom by the very law that protects them. They can’t just wip out a creditcard and bail out.
But it’s far more than that. Epstein did some evil shit.
The sexual maturity of the girl has little or nothing to do with it.
“excluding of course any case where the girls are forced or blackmailed or threatened in some way which would coerce the girls into deciding to become prostitutes. i’d agree that that’s a bit sketchy.”
That’s the point broseph.
And I would like you to admit, it’s more than a bit sketchy. It’s straight fucked.
They’re not coerced into deciding to be prostitutes. They are coerced and mind fucked into prostituting themselvs.
S’ different.
And 17 is the one we know about, the one the media was alowed to talk about. So that we’d all go “that’s not THAT fucked.”
But let me turn the question around on you: at what age does it get creepy?
How would you feel about Count Earl Andrew fucking an 11 year old?
And lastly, my virging-on-collaborationist friend, why was Epstein killed?
