Shocked, Stunned But Not Sweating

[douglas9401]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58871849

Totes amazeballs eh?

[naomi24]

Paedophiles are attracted to
pre-pubescent children.

[emmie]

14 is underage in anyone's book.

[naomi24]

It’s underage, but not the prey of a paedophile.

[emmie]

a despicable man then, a potential blackmailer too.

[emmie]

if he did indeed kill himself then he did the world a favour.

[naomi24]

Without doubt a despicable man. Despicable is too kind.

[emmie]

most of the words i would use would get zapped..

[naomi24]

Me too.

[davebro]

I don't know if this affects her lawyer's request for logs of PA's protection team to be produced - to show whether he was having pizza or something else on the night in question.

[andy-hughes]

Douglas at 00.57, I am not, as you put it, 'a professional in the field ' - news journalism is not my area of expertise, I know little more than anyone else, and what I tend to find increases my intention to keep it that way.

[Peter Pedant]

// If no crime was committed in this country what action would they be expected to take? She was 17.//
yeah but no but
sex isnt the only crime

The Beeb have a really bad understanding about what is going on or not. First they confused criminal and civil. Then they thought he would be extradited. Then they thought he could be deposed ( videod as he answered questions from the plaintiff) then they....asked the plaintiff what her case was - - - and repeated it verbatim as tho it were the gospel troof.

The usual suspects demanded that the reform of the Sexual Offences Act included crimes outside the country. ( NOT back dated) However even at the time people said that such things were gonna be v v hard to prove. So hard it might even be a Bad Law. And there were all sorts of possibles offered: a child on a party holiday, assaulted abroad by someone else in the party could then be continued. So crimes committed abroad ( sex) were made indictable here.

This is in the v v hard to prove - the American lawyers really didnt care, when they went frooda "be he ever so high he has to answer to the law of the Great Republic we live in" bit. So what for accuracy and details of the case.

There is alot about - the Prince has to answer charges. No he doesnt, they have to show their case. He doesnt have to refute it. I mean this is O level stuff.....Law 101

Requests for logs of his men guarding him - I would say, irrelevant and fishing. Nope irrelevant.....
Ah yes it would assist Giuffre's case.
so what the prince does NOT have to assist a case against him

Be he ever so high, a prince must answer in an american court
yeah - like Sacoolas and Trump - right on ! no one is above the law

and you can shove the many paedo irrelvancies on this thread -
she was 17.

Dershowitz says that the agreement he (D) got off on ( liability already discharged, no doub le counting ) means that the Prince will get off. Simples: art 1 - the moolah I have got already means I wont sue anyone else for it - signed - the girl

and it all depends if art 1 says that or says something else. These are Obvious Predetermined positions ( er - Plaintiff will say, no- more moolah please judgie baby ) and the defence will say ( this terminated things for this gold digger, judgie baby - - NO more moolah)

[jno]

PP, while neither Epstein nor Andrew was a paedo, I'm really unclear about whether Giuffre was or wasn't legally underage at the time and in the place where the alleged offences happened. Also whether there are any laws about coercion (though short of rape) that might apply.

The reporting on this case has not been clear.

[Peter Pedant]

underage
they said yes ( her team ) and then checked if it was the case for england ( 16 ) and went quiet about it

and the Beeb of course -swallowed it - er passively

Reporting so bad you cant tell if it is Beeb fluff or a genuine mistake

[oh whilst I am here - today's boo boo - Covid group think - - well group think is where everyone agrees with a course of action ( which is a disaster ) and does NOT dare to speak out. It can be broken by one dissentient voice - which is kinda lucky. Because at the beginning of the Covid pandemic, people werent exactly singing with one voice)