To have being branded a ''paedophile supporter''.

[Balgoresboy]

Tonight we were at a mates and 1 of them was going on about how Prince Andrew should be sent to US to answer the charges and it was a disgrace he wasn't.

I responded that that was fair enough but if that was the case America should send the diplomat's wife who killed the boy in the car back to the UK to answer the charges as that too was unfair.

Friend raged at me that my
attitude was disgusting and that I was defending a paedo. Was my point unreasonable?

exactly but to some that's defending Andrew

Only to people who don't listen and lack critical thinking.

People like this hear anything that isn't sycophantic agreement to their opinions as a personal attack, so go on the attack themselves missing the point and ignoring what you actually said completely name calling and throwing their toys out of the pram.

Drives me nuts.

Each crime and the circumstances stand on its own. One is not contingent on the other.

Reducing the crimes to politics between the two countries is a disservice to the victims involved.

Both alleged crimes are serious crimes and the victims deserve justice. To make Dunn’s access to justice depend on PA going over to the US and Virginia’s justice dependent on the diplomat’s wife returning to the IK is plain wrong.

They deserve justice on the merit of their case.

It is defending Prince Andrew. What else is it? Why should any victim’s entitlement to justice depend on the case of another victim in a totally different case?

Consider it from a victim’s person and you will see that the argument that PA should only answer for his alleged crimes, if and only if, the woman who killed Harry Dunn is returned to the UK.

Only to people who don't listen and lack critical thinking.
@Sparklfairy that's most of Twitter for a start.

You were right on both counts.

@Why2why

Each crime and the circumstances stand on its own. One is not contingent on the other.

Reducing the crimes to politics between the two countries is a disservice to the victims involved.

Both alleged crimes are serious crimes and the victims deserve justice. To make Dunn’s access to justice depend on PA going over to the US and Virginia’s justice dependent on the diplomat’s wife returning to the IK is plain wrong.

They deserve justice on the merit of their case.

There's a wider debate to be had on UK-US extraditions to be had. There have long been complaints that it's imbalanced

Was his primary point on extradition policy, or moreso the child sexual exploitation by Prince Andrew? If the former, your point was fine; if the latter, it’s whataboutism and YABU.

One doesn't depend on the other, does it? Your attempt to link the two was misguided at best.

@DdraigGoch, I agree but this should not be used by either side to deny justice to the victims involved. These victims should not be played off against each other and their cases, quest for justice, should be dependent on each other.

The debate must be had but victims must not be used as pawns.

*should NOT be dependent on each other

If Andrew were to be indicted, and somehow the UK agreed to send him over, would you protest it? Would you go out there shouting that he should get to stay and avoid punishment unless someone in a totally unrelated case, who has no connection to Andrew's victim, is sent here?

Or, what if the US actually decided to send Anne back here? Would you go out and protest that? Would you say, "do not send her back here unless we agree to give you Andrew?"

No one doesn't depend on the other but what the OP said encourages wider debate about the imbalance with US-UK extradition.

If she said "we shouldn't send Andrew until we get Anne Sacoolas" that would be different.

Its a nuance in language that the OP's friend completely missed.

Very well put @Fiddliestofsticks. Point well made. Makes clear the unreasonableness of the OP’s position.

@Sparklfairy

No one doesn't depend on the other but what the OP said encourages wider debate about the imbalance with US-UK extradition.

If she said "we shouldn't send Andrew until we get Anne Sacoolas" that would be different.

Its a nuance in language that the OP's friend completely missed.

Classic deflection tactic / whataboutery. Hardly an example of nuanced discourse!

Sparklfairy where is this so-called nuance in the OP’s post? It came across clearly as a whatabouterism.

If it was a debate about the perceived imbalance, the OP certainly missed the mark. In fact the OP said it would be unfair for PA to go to the US to face justice. Unfair to whom?

Every victim deserves to be treated fairly and that is not dependent on another victim in an unrelated case being treated fairly.

@ElliottSmithsfingers don't be daft. Its perfectly possible to think Andrew should be forced to cooperate but also think that Anne should too, without holding one to ransom to get the other.

@Why2why according to the OP, she said that too was unfair, keeping the two incidents separate but drawing attention to the double standard. So in answer to your question, unfair to Harry Dunn. Not because Andrew may be forced to answer, but because Anne still isn't. Theyre still separate.

You were absolutely right, and we SHOULD send her back. And Prince Andrew SHOULD answer to those charges.

I'm fed up to the gills with diplomatic immunity from HORRID crimes, world-wide. There is so little accountability!

One is a civil case, the other criminal.

What do people not understand about that?

@VeniVidiWeeWee

One is a civil case, the other criminal.

What do people not understand about that?

Everything

I agree that Anne Sacoolas should return and face prosecution. But if someone was talking about anyone being investigated for sexual assault rather than about diplomatic immunity in general, I wouldn't be bringing her up even if that person had diplomatic immunity.

Since Andrew doesn't have diplomatic immunity bringing up her case is a real dick move. I me it does seem like you are more concerned about some kind of tit-for-tat US v. UK thing than about systematic child sexual abuse.

*to me, not I me

Your logic was all over the place.

You can't extradite someone to meet civil charges. Andrew is a piece of shit but no one in his position would be "extradicted" to another jurisdiction to meet civil charges. And he isn't accused of paedophilia.

Anne S was clearly a member of the CIA and was being protected under diplomatic immunity. Absolutely horrible for the family of the boy she killed but not the only case of it. And it happens in other countries too where someone gets out of jail free because diplomatic corps.

one is not the equivalent of the other and extradicting Andrew is a moot point anyway.

Still, if he even was indicted for a criminal offense - does anyone seriously think he'd be sent to the US to meet the charge??? I'd bet good money against that ever happening.

The difference for me is risk.

Sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. I think it's the highest of any class of crime.

People who kill by dangerous driving don't.

Risk to the public is massively higher in the first case.