Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit

I wasn’t trying to diminish the wrong doing, but I understood the point of the case was she was trafficked rather than she was underage and was therefore raped. . I apologise if my post inferred that I didn’t think he was an abusive rapist slimeball.

The age thing could be argued between UK vs where she’d been trafficked from I guess.
But that would be down to consent and as she was trafficked is a moot point.
 
Statutory rape in the UK is beneath the age of 13 IIRC but this is a bad road to go down here. Just because she was older than 13 (or 16) doesn’t mean she hadn’t been trafficked for abuse as a minor.
 
I wasn’t trying to diminish the wrong doing, but I understood the point of the case was she was trafficked rather than she was underage and was therefore raped. . I apologise if my post inferred that I didn’t think he was an abusive rapist slimeball.
It's the fact someone is trafficked (and the person having sex with them knew or suspected it) that makes it a rape; trafficked women and girls don't have the freedom not to consent.
 
It's the fact someone is trafficked (and the person having sex with them knew or suspected it) that makes it a rape; trafficked women and girls don't have the freedom not to consent.
That’s the point I was making.
 
A moot point in so much as she can’t have consented, yes?

If you were making the same point, a weird way of making that point would be to say ‘at least he wasn’t abusing underage girls’
But I accept you might have been clumsy in language as I am also.
 
This case won't do Brenda any harm, she's bulletproof. Her eldest son is a different matter though he lacks the veneer of international respect she has built up. I can well imagine King Chucky on his first state visit to the US and some reporter shouting up from the back.
"What's the story with your nonce of a brother, Your Majesty"
In the video address to the COP26 Jamboree, Brenda made a point of praising my eldest son and his eldest son.
 
If you were making the same point, a weird way of making that point would be to say ‘at least he wasn’t abusing underage girls’
But I accept you might have been clumsy in language as I am also.
Yes, I realise that my use of language wasn’t great.
 
Statutory rape in the UK is beneath the age of 13 IIRC but this is a bad road to go down here. Just because she was older than 13 (or 16) doesn’t mean she hadn’t been trafficked for abuse as a minor.
That's not strictly correct.

Sexual offences with a child under the age of 13 is charged under a different part of the legislation than sexual offences with a child aged 13 to 16.


Statutory rape is where one or both of the participants are under the age of consent.
 
That's not strictly correct.

Sexual offences with a child under the age of 13 is charged under a different part of the legislation than sexual offences with a child aged 13 to 16.


Statutory rape is where one or both of the participants are under the age of consent.

Not sure how you’re disagreeing with me there. If a female is 13 or under she can’t consent by law so is rape regardless. If she’s above that but trafficked then it’s the same deal - she can’t consent because she’s trafficked.
 
Think the thing is it's not rape in law. English/Welsh law, at least. It's two separate offences, with different sentencing criteria etc to rape. You can call it rape informally, if you like, but people who have "consensual" sex with kids are never charged with rape.
 
Think the thing is it's not rape in law. English/Welsh law, at least. It's two separate offences, with different sentencing criteria etc to rape. You can call it rape informally, if you like, but people who have "consensual" sex with kids are never charged with rape.
I thought it was statutory rape if one of them was under 16? In that someone under 16 cannot legally give consent?

You might be right about prosecutions, but is that possibly because they are going down for a fairly long stretch for sex with a minor anyway? ie just CPS approach?

I thought it was just that sentencing was (rightly) harsher if the victim was under 13?
 
I thought it was statutory rape if one of them was under 16? In that someone under 16 cannot legally give consent.
I think that the law doesn't actually say anywhere that someone under 16 can't give consent, only that it is a crime to have sex with someone under 16.
 
Not sure how you’re disagreeing with me there. If a female is 13 or under she can’t consent by law so is rape regardless. If she’s above that but trafficked then it’s the same deal - she can’t consent because she’s trafficked.
It's not that 13 is the cut-off, the cut-off is the age of consent which is 16. There are different crimes for those who have unlawful sex with a child under the age of 13.

I don't jump on you for anything you say, but when you post things that are incorrect I am going correct any errors as I would for anybody else.
 
I don't think the Sexual Offences Act 2003 says that people under 16 can't consent; rather it says that the fact they consented doesn't mean it's not a crime to have sex with them.

It's only considered rape if they're under 13; it's a different crime if they're over 13 but under 16.
 
I don't think the Sexual Offences Act 2003 says that people under 16 can't consent; rather it says that the fact they consented doesn't mean it's not a crime to have sex with them.

It's only considered rape if they're under 13; it's a different crime if they're over 13 but under 16.

Which is what I was trying to say but got ‘corrected’ on.
 
It’s sex with a minor if over 13 and consent was given.
the whole point of an age of consent is that people below that age are unable to give consent: although activity by someone under the age of consent with someone else under the aoc can be a grey area

1636118757677.png
 
Back
Top Bottom