Prince Andrew no surprise

[Pixxie7]

No surprise that the met have stopped. Their investigation into PA.

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

Another law that needs urgent amendment then.

Whether the judge finds bulletproof evidence or not is irrelevant.

The 230 organisations he was a patron of didn't need a court to convince them he did wrong. But a lot of the people on here do need it. I find it strange.

There is a grey area of highly dodgy and immoral shenanigans that aren't strictly illegal or haven't led to conviction yet.

The charities can drop a patron for this stuff, even if a conviction isn't forthcoming.

He will have the punishment at least of many people shunning him, possibly never being able to work again, and effectively losing many of the high privileges to which he was born. And maybe more than that.

possibly never being able to work again

Hilarious.

@MissMarpleRocks

My criminal law professor said it is better that 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person is found guilty. I happen to agree with him. As did my cohort.

The theory sounds okay, but it depends on who goes free. Shoplifters, yes I agree. Serial killers like Shipman and Peter Tobbin - a 100 of those type of people going free - then no.

ideally we would convict 100% of the guilty

in an imperfect world, it is important that we at least do not wrongfully convict the innocent

which is a pillar of English law

Diplomacy is very different from being personal friends. We are talking about who the RF members are personal friends with.

@CBUK2K I have shared details of how RF members are personal friends with sex offenders. Just one example of Prince Charles with Peter Ball. He admits he gave him money and they were good friends.

www.insider.com/prince-charles-history-with-pedophile-priest-peter-ball-2020-1

You are being disingenuous with your question about finding people guilty.
Rape convictions of complaints made are shockingly low and have fallen over the years. There need to be proper investigations to get more convictions. We know when specialist officers investigate and prosecute rape cases, the conviction rates increase. We don't just throw our hands up and say its better for 100 guilty rapists to go free than wrongly convict someone innocent.

Rape convictions of complaints made are shockingly low and have fallen over the years. There need to be proper investigations to get more convictions

The main cause is the complainant withdrawing, not poor investigations or any of the other things often blamed.

The rest of your post is deliberately emotive. It is an absolute bedrock of the British justice system (and, indeed, many other justice systems) that it is better for 100 guilty people to go free than for one guilty person to be convicted. After all, if innocence is no protection against conviction, what is the point of obeying the law? Yes, I would like to see a higher proportion of reported rapes result in conviction but not by stripping away the protections against wrongful conviction. They've been weakened more than enough already.

There are 10'000's of young women on the internet looking for "sugar daddies". They're not asking them to feed their children in exchange for dating them. They are offering to spend time with men in exchange for designed shoes/bags, exotic holidays or paying for their monthly beauty treatments. There are lots of students choosing to do this because they want to live a celebrity lifestyle while at uni rather than living in a grotty bedsit and eating beans on toast like we did 20 years ago.

Another attempt at derailing, why? Totally different scenario.

JE's world was about systematic coercion of vulnerable teens using threats of violence and involved the videotaping and logging of all encounters. He knew exactly what he was doing.

A pp has said this was a jetset version of the Rotherham abuse ring, and that's exactly what it was. Can't get the evidence/won't investigate/don't believe the girls or a combination of all three.

PA was a client of a coercive sex abuse ring. So it's whatever law that allows that type of abuse to continue that needs changing. As another pp has said, this is a huge grey area.

In the meantime PA is the taxpayer-funded poster boy for establishment sleaze, defended by our HoS. Great situation.

How on earth we can lump together sugar daddies dot com and vulnerable cash poor coerced young girls manupulated into having sex with older men...god alone knows
Sounds like some victim blaming going on there
'They knew what they were doing'
'Why didn't the just walk out'
'They're smiling'
Etc

Yes it is total victim-blaming. And it is the money that hides for some what is going on.
If a man on the local council estate was having parties full of middle-aged men and young teenagers, do you really think everyone would be saying that was an okay situation?
Add a private island and private jets and for some the obvious abuse disappears.

If a man on the local council estate was having parties full of middle-aged men and young teenagers, do you really think everyone would be saying that was an okay situation?

They did in Rotherham. Even the police there reckoned there was nothing wrong with it.

I was at a glitzy private party once where several (very famous) international footballers were also present. I went as the plus one of a work colleague with some tangential connections to that world. The place was, literally, dripping with stunning young women dressed and made up to the nines. How young? Absolutely impossible for me to judge - but a lot younger than me (I was in my late 20s at the time). The famous men in the crowd were very popular with them.

Why were they all there? I could hazard a guess, as I imagine many of you could do. How would I know if any of them were being exploited? No, genuinely, how would I know?

@Serenster you don't know. But you are talking about women in their twenties and professional footballers in their twenties and thirties.
You know that is different from men in their forties and fifties and teenagers.

They did in Rotherham. Even the police there reckoned there was nothing wrong with it.

Riiiight. The POLICE reckoned it's OK.

Serenster seriously, pretending WAG-land is the same as Rotherham. Come off it.

Riiiight. The POLICE reckoned it's OK.

Why else would they have failed to prosecute for so long?

I never very made that comparison, Church. Don’t put words in my mouth.

WAG land isn’t so far from Tramp and private parties at a financier’s house house, was my point (my party was at a financier’s house). And some of them were definitely teenagers - what I was saying is that I couldn’t tell you whether they were 18 or younger.

The police in Rotherham would not have thought it was okay for their daughters. They thought the girls were slags. They knew it was not right, but blamed the girls. They did not think it was okay.

@Serenster do some rich men exploit girls and women? Yes they do.
Does that make it okay for Prince Andrew to do this too?
No it does not.

I also don’t believe that age alone is the most relevant factor when you are looking at exploitation. The relative power imbalance is far more important.

So julieca every girl at that party I went to was being exploited then?