How Andrew against all advice thought it a good idea to give an hour-long interview on British TV to attempt to clear his name from the Epstein scandal defies belief. A well known saying - when in a hole stop digging! What did him most of all is the lack of empathy he showed to the victims of a paedophile. His excuses quite frankly sounded ridiculous, the British papers are having a field day picking apart his denials of wrong-doing. I'm not sure he is going to get away with this - what is the view the other side of the pond?
Quote from: Irons on November 18, 2019, 12:22:01 AM
How Andrew against all advice thought it a good idea to give an hour-long interview on British TV to attempt to clear his name from the Epstein scandal defies belief. A well known saying - when in a hole stop digging! What did him most of all is the lack of empathy he showed to the victims of a paedophile. His excuses quite frankly sounded ridiculous, the British papers are having a field day picking apart his denials of wrong-doing. I'm not sure he is going to get away with this - what is the view the other side of the pond?
Don't know about the other side of the pond but in Australia where we are supposed to regard Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is our head of state I couldn't care less. The British Royal Family is an ignoble line sprinkled with numerous adulterers, murderers, perverts, lunatics etc stretching back centuries. Why should we expect this generation to be any different? As to the specifics of this latest scandal it will sell stacks of cheap and nasty magazines adding again to Rupert Murdock's bank balance. The particular case Prince Andrew was supposedly involved in is as yet of unknown reality. Sadly since the ME TOO thing got going a number of opportunistic 'victims' have jumped on the bandwagon making genuine cases now suspect in the public mind. Eventually boredom sets in. Not like the old days when Anthony Armstrong Jones dabbling with his enormous member on both sides of the fence was fuel for millions of erotic fantasies.
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 18, 2019, 12:48:29 AM
Don't know about the other side of the pond but in Australia where we are supposed to regard Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is our head of state I couldn't care less. The British Royal Family is an ignoble line sprinkled with numerous adulterers, murderers, perverts, lunatics etc stretching back centuries. My should we expect this generation to be any different? As to the specifics of this latest scandal it will sell stacks of cheap and nasty magazines adding again to Rupert Murdock's bank balance. The particular case Prince Andrew was supposedly involved in is as yet of unknown reality. Sadly since the ME TOO thing got going a number of opportunistic 'victims' have jumped on the bandwagon making genuine cases now suspect in the public mind. Eventually boredom sets in. Not like the old days when Anthony Armstrong Jones dabbling with his enormous member on both sides of the fence was fuel for millions of erotic fantasies.
You learn something every day! Anthony Armstrong Jones had an enormous member - lucky chap.
He embodies the essence of calm composure: never let 'em see you sweat.
I especially admired his stoical recovery: without treatment, or indeed diagnosis, he was able to overcome a rare (even singular) affliction so that now he might — he has the common touch — perspire.
(//)
Quote from: Irons on November 18, 2019, 12:22:01 AM
How Andrew against all advice thought it a good idea to give an hour-long interview on British TV to attempt to clear his name from the Epstein scandal defies belief. A well known saying - when in a hole stop digging! What did him most of all is the lack of empathy he showed to the victims of a paedophile. His excuses quite frankly sounded ridiculous, the British papers are having a field day picking apart his denials of wrong-doing. I'm not sure he is going to get away with this - what is the view the other side of the pond?
This side of the pond has Trump to deal with, so Prince Andrew's case is very tangential, and there are enough homegrown scandals about Epstein, revolving around the guards at the jail where he died, the possibility he was murdered, and the involvement of Bill Clinton and others, that HRH is purely collateral damage. (And Epstein had enough connections on both sides of the aisle to think that coverup and sweeping under the rug will be final result, unless the press is unusually diligent.)
Why such an interest for what people « from across the pond » think? It's almost like a Spike and Chester relationship :D
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a2/22/ea/a222eadab5765b9ff7b49f8d093c2b75.jpg)
I heard about this, might be amusing to watch.
What I don't get is the idea of a billionaire pedo ring. So there's only 2000 or so billionaires in the world, even if there's only like 20 involved, wouldn't that be more than the average population? Or would it be larger because they have more confidence they can get away with their crimes?
Quote from: JBS on November 18, 2019, 07:39:10 AM
This side of the pond has Trump to deal with, so Prince Andrew's case is very tangential, and there are enough homegrown scandals about Epstein, revolving around the guards at the jail where he died, the possibility he was murdered, and the involvement of Bill Clinton and others, that HRH is purely collateral damage. (And Epstein had enough connections on both sides of the aisle to think that coverup and sweeping under the rug will be final result, unless the press is unusually diligent.)
That is interesting. The Queen is a treasure but the rest of them .......! I guess you are not paying for them like we are so the hypocrisy and untruths doesn't cut deep. I wonder if the Prince will ever set foot in the US again? I think not.
Quote from: Irons on November 18, 2019, 01:17:39 PM
That is interesting. The Queen is a treasure but the rest of them .......! I guess you are not paying for them like we are so the hypocrisy and untruths doesn't cut deep. I wonder if the Prince will ever set foot in the US again? I think not.
He will probably find a more "convenient" place to stay ...
Quote from: Irons on November 18, 2019, 01:17:39 PM
That is interesting. The Queen is a treasure but the rest of them .......! I guess you are not paying for them like we are so the hypocrisy and untruths doesn't cut deep. I wonder if the Prince will ever set foot in the US again? I think not.
I think "Randy Andy" was probably the best liked member of the royal brood here when he was in his 20s and 30s, but all of them have gotten tarnished in the ensuing years. The wives of the princes were/are probably better liked than the princes (Diana and Fergie, and in the newer generation Kate and Meghan)
Quote from: JBS on November 18, 2019, 07:39:10 AM
This side of the pond has Trump to deal with, so Prince Andrew's case is very tangential, and there are enough homegrown scandals about Epstein, revolving around the guards at the jail where he died, the possibility he was murdered, and the involvement of Bill Clinton and others, that HRH is purely collateral damage. (And Epstein had enough connections on both sides of the aisle to think that coverup and sweeping under the rug will be final result, unless the press is unusually diligent.)
How long before the conspiracy theorists imagine connections between Princess Diana's death and Epstein's?
Not that I don't think there was something very suspicious about Epstien's departure from the planet.
Quote from: Irons on November 18, 2019, 01:17:39 PM
That is interesting. The Queen is a treasure but the rest of them .......!
That's a mistake. If all the kids are bungling idiots, there's likely something wrong at the source, too. The mom and dad.
Reportedly Andy is the Queen's favorite and though I don't want to hurt Charles's feelings (him of the stupid marriage to Diana, the ten boiled eggs at breakfast (so he can pick the best and throw out the other nine) and travelling with a toilet seat - and still pretend to be environmentally minded) Andy surely is the stupidest and silliest in the bunch.
The Queen okayed the interview. And not a 10-minute interview, but a full hour. No one comes out of such a long interview unscathed.
The problem is these people, Elizabeth, Philip, Charles, Andrew and Anne, all think they're absolutely great and nothing will ever stick to them, because they have staff for carrying around their toilet seats.
It's stunning to see Andrew and his communications staff have been planning this appearance for weeks if not months, and all he can come up with for every painful matter is saying he's too "honourable" to do stuff in a normal way. And nothing has been thought through. His explanation for the four day visit after Epsteins jail time is he wanted to break off the friendship. That would be the honourable thing to do. Really? If you want to do that (not picking up the phone is also an idea) you meet some place downtown and say goodbye. You don't stay for four days at Epstein's place and enjoy a couple of parties.
The phrase "insult to one's intelligence" comes up.
Quote from: greg on November 18, 2019, 10:13:57 AM
I heard about this, might be amusing to watch.
What I don't get is the idea of a billionaire pedo ring. So there's only 2000 or so billionaires in the world, even if there's only like 20 involved, wouldn't that be more than the average population? Or would it be larger because they have more confidence they can get away with their crimes?
1 people are called billionaire rather fast these days. Think Trump, who most likely is not a billionaire. Neither was Epstein.
2 Answer to your last question: you got it.
Quote from: Herman on November 19, 2019, 03:14:06 AM
That's a mistake. If all the kids are bungling idiots, there's likely something wrong at the source, too. The mom and dad.
Reportedly Andy is the Queen's favorite and though I don't want to hurt Charles's feelings (him of the stupid marriage to Diana, the ten boiled eggs at breakfast (so he can pick the best and throw out the other nine) and travelling with a toilet seat - and still pretend to be environmentally minded) Andy surely is the stupidest and silliest in the bunch.
The Queen okayed the interview. And not a 10-minute interview, but a full hour. No one comes out of such a long interview unscathed.
The problem is these people, Elizabeth, Philip, Charles, Andrew and Anne, all think they're absolutely great and nothing will ever stick to them, because they have staff for carrying around their toilet seats.
It's stunning to see Andrew and his communications staff have been planning this appearance for weeks if not months, and all he can come up with for every painful matter is saying he's too "honourable" to do stuff in a normal way. And nothing has been thought through. His explanation for the four day visit after Epsteins jail time is he wanted to break off the friendship. That would be the honourable thing to do. Really? If you want to do that (not picking up the phone is also an idea) you meet some place downtown and say goodbye. You don't stay for four days at Epstein's place and enjoy a couple of parties.
The phrase "insult to one's intelligence" comes up.
I agree with most what you say with the exception of the Queen. Would you ask for advice to how to handle the Press by your 93 year old mum? They have advisers for this sort of stuff. You are right though, her kids and grand kids are not much short of a disaster. Harry was the blue-eyed boy but since Meghan came along that has gone down the tubes. That a 93 year old women is keeping it all together is a worry - for them.
Quote from: greg on November 18, 2019, 10:13:57 AM
I heard about this, might be amusing to watch.
What I don't get is the idea of a billionaire pedo ring. So there's only 2000 or so billionaires in the world, even if there's only like 20 involved, wouldn't that be more than the average population? Or would it be larger because they have more confidence they can get away with their crimes?
Me Too exponents may want to castrate me for this but isn't it the case money is an aphrodisiac?
Quote from: Irons on November 19, 2019, 06:52:56 AM
Harry was the blue-eyed boy but since Meghan came along that has gone down the tubes. .
You've been swallowing too much media mud. Besides, keep in mind Harry's mother's treatment by those parasites and how it influences his behavior. Can we blame him?
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 19, 2019, 08:39:39 PM
You've been swallowing too much media mud. Besides, keep in mind Harry's mother's treatment by those parasites and how it influences his behavior. Can we blame him?
The Royal Family live or die by the
sword media. Public perception is everything.
Harry's mother wasn't treated too well by her husband either.
And to think one day he'll be the head of the Anglican Church. Not that that's any guarantee of respectability.
Quote from: Irons on November 19, 2019, 06:52:56 AM
I agree with most what you say with the exception of the Queen. Would you ask for advice to how to handle the Press by your 93 year old mum? They have advisers for this sort of stuff. You are right though, her kids and grand kids are not much short of a disaster. Harry was the blue-eyed boy but since Meghan came along that has gone down the tubes. That a 93 year old women is keeping it all together is a worry - for them.
Largely agree with this. I found the interview too painful to watch, especially the 'too honourable' comment.
Quote from: vandermolen on November 20, 2019, 05:07:59 AM
Largely agree with this. I found the interview too painful to watch, especially the 'too honourable' comment.
I had seen the young woman involved interviewed and not found her story very credible— she just kept adding famous names to her list. I think she even named some who provably could not have done it. But then Andrew tells this flagrant lie about not sweating. WTF. The honorable bit was bad too but for me the real question is why the lie? I don't know what is true but I don't give him any credibility now.
Quote from: Ken B on November 20, 2019, 06:12:55 AM
I had seen the young woman involved interviewed and not found her story very credible— she just kept adding famous names to her list. I think she even named some who provably could not have done it. But then Andrew tells this flagrant lie about not sweating. WTF. The honorable bit was bad too but for me the real question is why the lie? I don't know what is true but I don't give him any credibility now.
Yes I agree. I didn't find her evidence convincing either.
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 19, 2019, 07:40:27 PM
Me Too exponents may want to castrate me for this but isn't it the case money is an aphrodisiac?
Yeah, for many women it is. That's why the 50 shades of Gray isn't some guy that works at Burger King.
Also that's why I don't get outraged at the infamous Trump quote. Whether he did questionable stuff or not, he's literally just stating a fact that people don't like to think about.
If I heard correctly, the underage people were paid? If that's the case then they have some responsibility in the crime as well, but i don't think they should be legal punished but rather have social disapproval. If they can just say no and turn down the money then that could have prevented the crime itself from happening.
Quote from: greg on November 20, 2019, 12:47:20 PM
If I heard correctly, the underage people were paid? If that's the case then they have some responsibility in the crime as well, but i don't think they should be legal punished but rather have social disapproval. If they can just say no and turn down the money then that could have prevented the crime itself from happening.
Greg, sex with minors - under any circumstance - is a crime for a reason.
I guess you don't get that reason.
Q
The Queen is ok, but after her, what next? I think Charles will be King only for the time needed to sign his abdication in William's favor. And then God save the British monarchy, if it is indeed worth saving.
Quote from: Que on November 20, 2019, 10:30:09 PM
Greg, sex with minors - under any circumstance - is a crime for a reason.
Absolutely.
In most jurisdictions it is far more nuanced. The girl was not 13 (in this case it would be a crime in most jurisdictions under most circumstances) but 16-17, I think. In this case it would not be a crime in many jurisdictions unter many circumstances. There usually needs to be some element of prostitution or coercion. Which apparently was the case in the Epstein environment, but I still think it is important that the criminal offense is not merely due to age but a combination of age and coercive or similar circumstances.
Quote from: Que on November 20, 2019, 10:30:09 PM
Greg, sex with minors - under any circumstance - is a crime for a reason.
Q
Of course it is. Children have to be protected. It is no different then a stranger offering sweets to a young child to get into his car. Sweets, or for an older child money makes no difference.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 21, 2019, 12:07:24 AM
In most jurisdictions it is far more nuanced. The girl was not 13 (in this case it would be a crime in most jurisdictions under most circumstances) but 16-17, I think. In this case it would not be a crime in many jurisdictions unter many circumstances. There usually needs to be some element of prostitution or coercion. Which apparently was the case in the Epstein environment, but I still think it is important that the criminal offense is not merely due to age but a combination of age and coercive or similar circumstances.
Do you imply that in many jurisdictions an adult having consensual sex with a minor does not commit a crime?
In most countries: "minor" means something different from "age of consent for sexual relations". In Germany, the former is below 18, and for the latter the ages of 14, 16 and 18 are relevant depending on the circumstances.
So most certainly having consensual unpaid etc. sex with a 16 year old is not an offense per se in Germany. I am not sure about the details, but I think for below 14 the only mitigating circumstances would be that the offender is roughly the same age, i.e. I am pretty sure that a 15 yo having consensual sex with a 13 yo would usually not be prosecuted. If one party is considerably older, there is some presumption that the "power differential" casts doubt on consent, so an 18 yo. will get in trouble for sex with a 13 yo. Between 14 and 18 similar rules could apply, I am not sure. But I am pretty sure that over the age of 14 there is no automatic "statutory rape" in Germany but it depends on circumstances.
And one can legally marry a non-minor partner with 16 (or at least it used to be like that when I learned that stuff in school in the 80s), although the parents of the minor partner need to agree.
Reminds me of a Norwegian saying: "S..t will eventually float to the surface"
Quote from: Que on November 20, 2019, 10:30:09 PM
Greg, sex with minors - under any circumstance - is a crime for a reason.
I guess you don't get that reason.
Q
Not sure why you don't think i get it?
More specifically, if they are a teenager then they know what they are getting into and so are partially responsible. If they are only 8, then of course they have no responsibility of it at all.
That's just a side no one wants to look at. Would you feel no guilt at the age of 15 if you accepted a bribery of money (assuming it wasn't for survival)? Of course not.
Though the main focus should be on the criminals...
Quote from: Que on November 20, 2019, 10:30:09 PM
sex with minors - under any circumstance - is a crime
In many jurisdictions there are exemptions, such as when both are minors, or the couple is married. And the age of consent varies so much that "minor" is an ambiguous term.
Quote from: Florestan on November 21, 2019, 12:19:30 AM
Do you imply that in many jurisdictions an adult having consensual sex with a minor does not commit a crime?
I don't imply it. I state it.
Quote from: Ken B on November 21, 2019, 06:31:19 AM
In many jurisdictions there are exemptions, such as when both are minors, or the couple is married. And the age of consent varies so much that "minor" is an ambiguous term.
This was mainly what I wanted to express above. Age of consent varies between 12 and 20 or so, if one looks into sufficiently different countries. In any case it is a much broader range than standard legal majority (for voting etc.).
Quote from: greg on November 21, 2019, 06:14:52 AM
Not sure why you don't think i get it?
More specifically, if they are a teenager then they know what they are getting into and so are partially responsible. If they are only 8, then of course they have no responsibility of it at all.
I'm gobsmacked at the idea that these trafficked kids taking whatever money their traffickers deigned to slip them now and then would be significant in anyone's moral calculus.
Quote from: Ken B on November 21, 2019, 06:32:52 AM
I don't imply it. I state it.
Relevant details here: https://www.torontodefencelawyers.com/blog/general-category/crime-date-minor-canada/ (https://www.torontodefencelawyers.com/blog/general-category/crime-date-minor-canada/)
Quote from: André on November 21, 2019, 12:12:33 PM
Relevant details here: https://www.torontodefencelawyers.com/blog/general-category/crime-date-minor-canada/ (https://www.torontodefencelawyers.com/blog/general-category/crime-date-minor-canada/)
Good link André.
Minor status and the age of consent need not coincide, and the age of consent not only varies from country to country but according to circumstances.
I am rather impressed by Canadian law here. It's morally obtuse to treat a 15 year old and his 17 year old girlfriend having consensual sex the same as Epstein.
Quote from: Daverz on November 21, 2019, 12:00:31 PM
I'm gobsmacked at the idea that these trafficked kids taking whatever money their traffickers deigned to slip them now and then would be significant in anyone's moral calculus.
I might as well not bother making any point at all about this, since it will only be warped into something completely different since it's such a sensitive subject, so no critical thinking allowed, I guess.
Actually I thought something simple that might help reduce these crimes from happening as much, and I don't know if it's a good idea or terrible idea, but screw it, I'm just not going to say anything at all because I don't trust people to not respond emotionally to stuff, leading to misrepresentation, etc. (of course, negative criticism would be welcome coming from a logical perspective, but people are just unable to temporarily detach in order to help make things better)
I think for most people (certainly for me) the trafficking and exploitative prostitution are the main problem here, not whether the girls are 15, 17 or 25. The age does make it worse in the case of minors but it is for me a secondary issue, at least past ca. 15-16.
I don't think there is a simple recipe for reducing these crimes. 50 years ago people kidded themselves that a bigoted society and personal repressions or whatever the the then current pseudo-Freudian take on sex was were the main causes and liberalization or what is now termed "sexual revolution" would be the solution.
If metoo, Epstein etc. has shown anything, it seems that this "solution" was at the least utterly naive. As there obviously is no way back to traditional "repressed" sexual mores, the toolbox does not offer that many options.
Germany tried to improve the situation of prostitutes or "sex workers" with more liberalization in the last 20 years but the consequences are apparently not that great. Maybe it was not the best idea to have this almost coincide with open borders to the poor easter/southeastern European countries. (Of course, human trafficking is still illegal, but apparently quite hard to get rid of) Also the fact that other countries (France, Sweden) went for a tough course (criminalizing the customers) led to sex tourism into Germany with huge brothels in regions close to France. (Another newish thing are apparently Nigerian girls held in thrall via Voodoo beliefs that make them fear magical retribution from their pimps and madams if they try to get away.)
In more cultures than I care to think about even today it's legal to marry pre-pubescent children.
In Afganistan, a nation supposedly running to strict muslim rules, pre-teen dancing boys are offered 'for the night' to visiting chieftains.
I was invited to one of these events without knowing how it would conclude. As a member of the diplomatic corps I was the one offered the boy for the night. In refusing to not accept the offer I nearly had my throat cut.
Some years prior to this I met an African chieftain at the airport upon his arrival in Australia. His first question was. "Mr X, can you take me to the prostitutes". Not wanting to cause a diplomatic incident I had us driven to the red light district where he found what he wanted. Three years later when I saw him off back to Africa he told me "Mr X, when you come to my village any of my sons or daughters, grandsons or grandaughters are your's for taking" I didn't think much of this until I mentioned it back at the office only to be told he meant whichever member of his family I chose would be my property to do with what I wished and that if I didn't accept any of his family as 'mine' the consequences could be fatal. I think what I'm trying to draw attention to here is the disgusting idea that any human, no matter what the age, can be regarded as the property of another is beyond evil.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 21, 2019, 11:35:23 PM
I think for most people (certainly for me) the trafficking and exploitative prostitution are the main problem here, not whether the girls are 15, 17 or 25. The age does make it worse in the case of minors but it is for me a secondary issue, at least past ca. 15-16.
I do not think age is a secondary issue if you are the girl's father - I realise I am bringing emotion into it but it is an emotive issue. If my 15 year old daughter was used for sex (not precipitating as they do that anyway) it would be a very main problem indeed.
What also has to be taken in account is the psychological damage on a young mind when exploited in such a way.
That's why laws are not made by concerned parents but by "disinterested" parliaments and jurists.
I don't say that the age is irrelevant (I explicitly wrote that it is worse for younger ones). Mainly, that trafficking for prostitution is sufficiently bad with 25 year olds (or at any age) that I think that the illegality and punishment should mainly focus on human trafficking, not on whether the girls are 16 or 26. I can understand the special outrage for 14 or younger but not with 16 yo vs. 20 yo.
There's an issue seldom discussed in this context, the 'sexual rights' of the young. Even though we know adults of our species are often prone to take advantage of the young how should we treat the young who are experimenting sexually with those of their own age? In an era when children are exposed to pornography from the day they are given their first mobile phone we have opened Pandora's box.
I confess though my perspective on this may be somewhat biased having been a sexually very active 14 year old once I discovered the showers at my local surf life saving club. I was lucky in that nobody ever forced me to do anything against my will but the puritanical attitude to sex in that era (I'm 73) meant none of us would have dared speak to our parents or teachers about what we were up to.
And there lies one of the biggest problems associated with child sex abuse. The majority of children are abused either within their own home by close relatives of by authority figures such as priests.
This last is a really complex subject and although we've had saturation media coverage about child sex abuse and the church of late hardly ever is are the really difficult questions asked. What difficult questions? For one why are pedophiles attracted to the priesthood? Is it possible that worshiping a farther who tortured his own son on the cross to redeem sins he knowingly made possible in the first place has anything to do with it?
I'm wandering a long way from Prince Andrew and his family, a family whose sexual history over the centuries is worth contemplating .
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 22, 2019, 02:14:29 AM
For one why are pedophiles attracted to the priesthood? Is it possible that worshiping a farther who tortured his own son on the cross to redeem sins he knowingly made possible in the first place has anything to do with it?
That's pure fantasy. A much more prosaic and plausible explanation is that paedophiles are naturally attracted towards professions in which frequent contact with children and youngsters is an essential part of the job descriptiion.
Quote from: Florestan on November 22, 2019, 02:23:22 AM
That's pure fantasy. A much more prosaic and plausible explanation is that paedophiles are naturally attracted towards professions in which frequent contact with children and youngsters is an essential part of the job descriptiion.
Teachers have far more regular contact with children than priests yet feature far less in juvenile sexual abuse statistics.
And yes, Christian theology is pure fantasy, a very dangerous, sadistic fantasy the young should not be exposed to.
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 22, 2019, 02:33:10 AM
Teachers have far more regular contact with children than priests yet feature far less in juvenile sexual abuse statistics.
Teachers are usually married with kids and their contact with children is much more public and regulated than the Catholic priests'. Besides, the Roman Catholic Church, unlike schools, has a proven record of denial and concealing when it comes to paedophilia. A paedophile is much more likely to be protected and go unpunished. as a priest than as a teacher.
Fwiw, in Romania most convicted paedophiles were working, or volunteering, for NGOs dealing with abandoned or disfavored children. Paedophilia among clergy is rare, but then again not only are Orthodox priests not required to be celibate, they are actually required to be married in order to have their own parish.
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 22, 2019, 02:33:10 AM
And yes, Christian theology is pure fantasy, a very dangerous, sadistic fantasy the young should not be exposed to.
You just posted about widespread child sexual abuse amongst the largest non-Christian group on the planet. Do you actually read what you write? Or is everything an excuse to trot out the hobby-horse?
Should not? Laws I suppose.
Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-andrew-was-given-beautiful-young-neurosurgeon-by-jeffrey-epstein-says-ex-housekeeper (https://www.thedailybeast.com/prince-andrew-was-given-beautiful-young-neurosurgeon-by-jeffrey-epstein-says-ex-housekeeper)
"Given" a beautiful young neurosurgeon as a concubine? Because brilliant young neurosurgeons — an anonymous one, they are so thick on the ground they are hard to keep track of — have no choice but prostitution to make ends meet.
Quote from: greg on November 20, 2019, 12:47:20 PM
Also that's why I don't get outraged at the infamous Trump quote. Whether he did questionable stuff or not, he's literally just stating a fact that people don't like to think about.
The quote was infamous because he was saying he didn't care about consent.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 22, 2019, 01:54:33 AM
That's why laws are not made by concerned parents but by "disinterested" parliaments and jurists.
I don't say that the age is irrelevant (I explicitly wrote that it is worse for younger ones). Mainly, that trafficking for prostitution is sufficiently bad with 25 year olds (or at any age) that I think that the illegality and punishment should mainly focus on human trafficking, not on whether the girls are 16 or 26. I can understand the special outrage for 14 or younger but not with 16 yo vs. 20 yo.
Things no one has ever said: "Sure my daughter was pumped full of drugs and sold by her pimp but at least she was 23."
Quote from: Florestan on November 22, 2019, 02:23:22 AM
That's pure fantasy. A much more prosaic and plausible explanation is that paedophiles are naturally attracted towards professions in which frequent contact with children and youngsters is an essential part of the job descriptiion.
I think it is generally acknowledged although often not made clear in popular news articles that there are not more paedophiles among the catholic priests than in similar positions. Overall the abuse rates in sports, any church (so there is not the clear connection with celibacy the naive person would assume), any youth organisation etc. are pretty similar. Of course, data for this are not exact. But the people who make or lose money here, namely insurance companies, do not ask catholic organisations to pay a higher premium in such insurances (for the legal trouble or possible reparations) than other non-religious organisations.
The one thing that might be worse in the catholic church is the power it had and used to cover up things. But this is a different issue, the rate of abuse is not signficantly higher than elsewhere.
Quote from: Ken B on November 22, 2019, 06:59:47 AM
You just posted about widespread child sexual abuse amongst the largest non-Christian group on the planet. Do you actually read what you write? Or is everything an excuse to trot out the hobby-horse?
Should not? Laws I suppose.
The specifics of on religions theology may not relate to an others in the matter of specifics causes of institutionalised childhood sexual abuse. However, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the age of some of Muhammad's 'brides'.
And yes, I do read what I write. Do you think about what you read?
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 23, 2019, 02:04:28 AM
The specifics of on religions theology may not relate to an others in the matter of specifics causes of institutionalised childhood sexual abuse. However, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the age of some of Muhammad's 'brides'.
And yes, I do read what I write. Do you think about what you read?
Ah, presumptuous as well as illogical. You must be fun at parties.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 23, 2019, 01:41:35 AM
I think it is generally acknowledged although often not made clear in popular news articles that there are not more paedophiles among the catholic priests than in similar positions. Overall the abuse rates in sports, any church (so there is not the clear connection with celibacy the naive person would assume), any youth organisation etc. are pretty similar. Of course, data for this are not exact. But the people who make or lose money here, namely insurance companies, do not ask catholic organisations to pay a higher premium in such insurances (for the legal trouble or possible reparations) than other non-religious organisations.
The one thing that might be worse in the catholic church is the power it had and used to cover up things. But this is a different issue, the rate of abuse is not signficantly higher than elsewhere.
No, I think it is clear the RC church has a special problem. That is why they have lost court cases for conspiracy. They had a policy of moving priests, and special organizations for recycling them. You have any actual data?
Quote from: Ken B on November 23, 2019, 06:07:29 AM
No, I think it is clear the RC church has a special problem. That is why they have lost court cases for conspiracy. They had a policy of moving priests, and special organizations for recycling them.
The RCC has a proven record of denial and cover up regarding this issue. If they get more exposure and arouse more outrage than other organisations it's precisely because of that (plus other obvious and no less compelling reasons)
Quote
You have any actual data?
That's what I'd like to know, too.
Quote from: Ken B on November 23, 2019, 06:02:46 AM
Ah, presumptuous as well as illogical. You must be fun at parties.
At my age I seldom attend parties and like you suspect I'm no longer fun and possibly presumptuous too.
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 23, 2019, 02:04:28 AM
The specifics of on religions theology may not relate to an others in the matter of specifics causes of institutionalised childhood sexual abuse. However, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the age of some of Muhammad's 'brides'.
And yes, I do read what I write. Do you think about what you read?
We have the testimony of Mohammed's child bride that getting married to him meant nothing more than playing in front of Mohammed's tent instead of her father's tent.
And you might want to acquaint yourself with bridal ages in the medieval era and earlier. Child brides among the elite were not unusual, even at times were the norm.
Quote from: JBS on November 23, 2019, 06:29:26 PM
We have the testimony of Mohammed's child bride that getting married to him meant nothing more than playing in front of Mohammed's tent instead of her father's tent.
And you might want to acquaint yourself with bridal ages in the medieval era and earlier. Child brides among the elite were not unusual, even at times were the norm.
No, we have no witness accounts at all. The Hadith are all later fabrications, there are no biographies within almost 200 years after the traditional time of his death. All we really know is that the Koran appeared, mostly in its final form, a bit after 600 CE, and so presumably there was a "prophet" of some sort, whom we call Mohammed. Even its origin in central Saudi Arabia is uncertain and unlikely. Mecca for instance was demonstrably not a major trading center at that time, and the belief it was is central to the Islamic origin myth.
A place to start is The Quest For the Historical Mohammed by ibn Warraq.
Quote from: Ken B on November 23, 2019, 06:44:03 PM
No, we have no witness accounts at all. The Hadith are all later fabrications, there are no biographies within almost 200 years after the traditional time of his death. All we really know is that the Koran appeared, mostly in its final form, a bit after 600 CE, and so presumably there was a "prophet" of some sort, whom we call Mohammed. Even its origin in central Saudi Arabia is uncertain and unlikely. Mecca for instance was demonstrably not a major trading center at that time, and the belief it was is central to the Islamic origin myth.
A place to start is The Quest For the Historical Mohammed by ibn Warraq.
I am familiar with the theory. It's woefully lacking in any real evidence to support it, and its basic premise that there is no real evidence from that era is based mostly on wishful thinking.
Quote from: JBS on November 23, 2019, 07:13:18 PM
I am familiar with the theory. It's woefully lacking in any real evidence to support it, and its basic premise that there is no real evidence from that era is based mostly on wishful thinking.
"The" theory?
You mean the fact that there are no, as in none, written Muslim sources within 180 years of the traditional date of his death?
There is evidence from that era of course. Non Muslim evidence. That is how we know Mecca was not a trading center. What is unevidenced is the traditional Muslim tale of the life of Mohammed and the birth of Islam.
Quote from: Ken B on November 23, 2019, 07:43:55 PM
"The" theory?
You mean the fact that there are no, as in none, written Muslim sources within 180 years of the traditional date of his death?
There is evidence from that era of course. Non Muslim evidence. That is how we know Mecca was not a trading center. What is unevidenced is the traditional Muslim tale of the life of Mohammed and the birth of Islam.
The theory assumes that oral history is by definition not credible. An assumption not in touch with reality, so naturally the theory is not in touch with reality.
Quote from: JBS on November 23, 2019, 06:29:26 PM
We have the testimony of Mohammed's child bride that getting married to him meant nothing more than playing in front of Mohammed's tent instead of her father's tent.
And you might want to acquaint yourself with bridal ages in the medieval era and earlier. Child brides among the elite were not unusual, even at times were the norm.
The significance of these myths, or whatever they are, is in their widespread use as justification for the abuse of the young. Historically true or not is if no importance if they're accepted by a culture. I'm impressed at your faith in swallowing the supposed testimony of Mohammed's child bride. Must be very comforting. I wonder how you manage to defuse the meaning of Sura 3. V 7-11?
I am well acquainted with medieval and earlier history but thanks ever so for the recommendation I require further study.
And to think Prince Andrew's little escapades triggered this discussion.
Quote from: JBS on November 23, 2019, 07:55:20 PM
The theory assumes that oral history is by definition not credible. An assumption not in touch with reality, so naturally the theory is not in touch with reality.
So you accept the resurrection of Jesus then? ::)
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 23, 2019, 08:47:56 PM
The significance of these myths, or whatever they are, is in their widespread use as justification for the abuse of the young. Historically true or not is if no importance if they're accepted by a culture. I'm impressed at your faith in swallowing the supposed testimony of Mohammed's child bride. Must be very comforting. I wonder how you manage to defuse the meaning of Sura 3. V 7-11?
I am well acquainted with medieval and earlier history but thanks ever so for the recommendation I require further study.
And to think Prince Andrew's little escapades triggered this discussion.
Didn't you tell me to acquaint myself with Mohammed's brides?
What has that passage from Surah 3 go to do with kids or brides?
You are right though that the historicity of tales of humping 9 year olds is less important in the belief that it represents right conduct and has been used to justify kid humping for centuries.
Quote from: Ken B on November 23, 2019, 11:29:54 PM
What has that passage from Surah 3 go to do with kids or brides?
Nothing.
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 23, 2019, 08:47:56 PM
I am well acquainted with medieval and earlier history but thanks ever so for the recommendation I require further study.
You obviously do require further study, since you seem to have entirely missed the point I was making: child brides were fairly common, and not only in the Middle East, up until early modern times.
Quote from: JBS on November 24, 2019, 07:03:57 AM
You obviously do require further study, since you seem to have entirely missed the point I was making: child brides were fairly common, and not only in the Middle East, up until early modern times.
And interestingly it was the medieval church which insisted on female consent in marriage (and by extension sex in general). Obviously fathers often had ways to get formal consent from unwilling daughters, but that this was even necessary was due to the church.
Quote from: Ken B on November 24, 2019, 07:50:42 AM
And interestingly it was the medieval church which insisted on female consent in marriage (and by extension sex in general). Obviously fathers often had ways to get formal consent from unwilling daughters, but that this was even necessary was due to the church.
Which would show Europe was regressive. In the first marriage negotiation recorded in detail in Genesis, that of Isaac and Rebecca, the bride's consent is a decisive step both in agreeing to the marriage and agreeing that the bride should travel immediately to meet the groom instead of waiting a year or so. Consent of the bride was essential in biblical law if she had reached puberty. Before then, the father could marry her off, by biblical law. Which means biblical law allowed child marriages.
Tangential but relevant, the Midrash, followed by the medieval rabbis, claimed that Rebecca was three years at the time of her marriage. Which is not to say I think she was that age...but to say the rabbis of circa 100-1200 CE thought such a young age was plausible.
Quote from: dissily Mordentroge on November 22, 2019, 02:33:10 AM
Teachers have far more regular contact with children than priests yet feature far less in juvenile sexual abuse statistics.
That's surprising... maybe it's the second most common then?
My only male elementary school teacher was busted for trying to meet a minor once (wasn't a student). :-X
Regardless, seems like it would be more about being able to isolate the kid, which would require both contact and secrecy. Picking a profession which has no contact with kids would make it harder for them- straight up kidnapping, I'd imagine, would be a hard thing to pull off.
Quote from: JBS on November 24, 2019, 07:03:57 AM
You obviously do require further study, since you seem to have entirely missed the point I was making: child brides were fairly common, and not only in the Middle East, up until early modern times.
Up until modern times? They still happen all too frequently.
Quote from: JBS on November 24, 2019, 12:25:56 PM
Which would show Europe was regressive. In the first marriage negotiation recorded in detail in Genesis, that of Isaac and Rebecca, the bride's consent is a decisive step both in agreeing to the marriage and agreeing that the bride should travel immediately to meet the groom instead of waiting a year or so. Consent of the bride was essential in biblical law if she had reached puberty. Before then, the father could marry her off, by biblical law. Which means biblical law allowed child marriages.
Tangential but relevant, the Midrash, followed by the medieval rabbis, claimed that Rebecca was three years at the time of her marriage. Which is not to say I think she was that age...but to say the rabbis of circa 100-1200 CE thought such a young age was plausible.
Well, for the topic at hand it is age at consummation that is the relevant age. There are cases of royal marriages at absurd ages, but they never even met until many years later.
The traditional tales of Mohammed differ. Some say married at 6 screwed at 9, some married at 9 screwed at 12. All have him somewhere north of 40.
Well, latest news on Prince Andrew: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/13/uk/prince-andrew-military-titles-charities-intl-gbr/index.html And, he'll be defending himself as a private citizen in his upcoming civil lawsuit brought against him by Virginia Giuffre.
PD
Rough jokes on the social media:
The Andrew Formerly Known As Prince ...
Quote from: MusicTurner on January 13, 2022, 09:35:49 AM
Rough jokes on the social media:
The Andrew Formerly Known As Prince ...
Ouch! Though a good one to be truthful.
PD
He always looked like an idiot in uniform, so it's for the best.
That tv interview he did was painfully transparent.
A coddled idiot, he'd probably lose his way counting to two.
What does he say to his mother if she asks if the accusations are true? Saying they are true he is making the Queen complicit. Saying they are not he is lying to his mother, the bastion of public service. Fall on your sword, Sir.
Quote from: Irons on January 14, 2022, 07:07:35 AM
What does he say to his mother if she asks if the accusations are true? Saying they are true he is making the Queen complicit. Saying they are not he is lying to his mother, the bastion of public service. Fall on your sword, Sir.
Good point about the predicament that he would be putting her in should she ask!
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on January 14, 2022, 09:15:27 AM
Good point about the predicament that he would be putting her in should she ask!
PD
I suspect she is smart enough not to ask.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on January 14, 2022, 09:28:29 AM
I suspect she is smart enough not to ask.
I suspect so too.
PD
New, likely massive Royal family scandal - Prince Charles receiving bags with large amounts of cash (millions) from Qatar, this went on for years. His staff got the job to count them ...
Quote from: MusicTurner on June 28, 2022, 11:10:08 AM
New, likely massive Royal family scandal - Prince Charles receiving bags with large amounts of cash (millions) from Quatar, this went on for years. His staff got the job to count them ...
What use could he be to Qatar?
Quote from: JBS on June 28, 2022, 11:40:51 AM
What use could he be to Qatar?
He says it went to beneficial foundations. There's been critique of those foundations not being transparent and having unclear purposes, being intertwined with his own finances and lifestyle, etc.
Quote from: MusicTurner on June 28, 2022, 11:53:43 AM
He says it went to beneficial foundations. There's been critique of those foundations not being transparent and having unclear purposes, being intertwined with his own finances and lifestyle, etc.
I understand that. What I don't understand is what the Qataris expected to gain from it. There are loads more people in politics and other professions with much more influence on decision making and popular opinion.
My impression is that whenever HRH says something about a public issue, he's either laughed at or told he's a bore who needs to stay in his lane.
Actually, why is it that only the British Royal Family attracts such publicity?
When was the last time you guys heard of a sex / money scandal of such scale involving any of the other "royal" European families?
The Belgians and Spanish get some headlines too ...
and Monaco...