Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Toofast wrote:

trexmeyer wrote:
Age of consent is 16-18.
Brain stops developing at 25.
I don't get it.

So you think the age of consent should be 25?

I think the standard for voting/enlistment/porn/alcohol/tobacco should be set 20 or 21, but that would hurt powerful industries that rely on exploiting on immaturity and irrational behavior too much.

trexmeyer wrote:

I think the standard for voting/enlistment/porn/alcohol/tobacco should be set 20 or 21, but that would hurt powerful industries that rely on exploiting on immaturity and irrational behavior too much.

Not to get too off-topic here, but no. There's already enough attempted voter disenfranchisement of the younger generations. It's 18 to vote. Frankly, it should be 16--if you're old enough to drive a car or get a job and get taxed for it? You're old enough to be voting.

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Ms Guiffre was not a child.
She was a prostitute looking for a paycheck by playing the victim.
She allegedly went with Maxwell to London nightclubs, where the papparazzi lurk, and if an actual trafficked sex slave could have easily extricated herself from trouble by screaming loud enough.
She was also of legal age at the time of the alleged meetings with Prince Andrew.

When Giuffre met Maxwell and Epstein in summer 2000, she was 16 years old. She was 17 years old when she met Prince Andrew. The age of consent in the state of Florida is 18, so I am not sure how you came up with the definition of her as a prostitute and not a victim, here.

I am specifically referring to Prince Andrew alleged involvement with guiffre which from the accusations plastered over the press, and adjoining photos occured in London when she was 17 and the Age of Consent is 16.
Don't get me wrong sleeping with a 16 year old, if it happened, is a major taboo in the UK, even in the Alphabet Soup era where pretty much anything goes. But it is not a crime.
There does not appear to be any evidence of Prince Andrew meeting Guiffre in Florida.
Interestingly New York state where the hearing is being held has an Age of Consent of 17, which would also make any alleged procurement of Guiffre as a prostitute illegal only in terms of prostitution itself, and not paedophilia.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Ms Guiffre was not a child.
She was a prostitute looking for a paycheck by playing the victim.
She allegedly went with Maxwell to London nightclubs, where the papparazzi lurk, and if an actual trafficked sex slave could have easily extricated herself from trouble by screaming loud enough.

Thank God we have you here to tell us how someone could totally get free of a situation.

Your sarcasm aside, this is broadly so,

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm sure there's no way that, say, she could have had all of her financial assets taken out of her control. Or her medical documentation. Or even just basics like identifying information.

Call out loud enough that she was being peddled as an 'underage sex slave to Prince Andrew' loud enough and you will get all the protection, and money, you want.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Age of consent doesn't matter if coercion is present.

There is no evidence of coercion though. Guiffre might say she was made to do this and that, but was free to move on her own accord and had ability at the time to access a media that would have lapped up any scandal like this. This was at the time of Blair also, the UK was visibly ultra-woke then and the government of the day had elements that was hostile to the royals.
I just don't buy it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jeez, one would almost think you don't know what you're talking about...

Speak for yourself.

 Kanluwen wrote:

No, in the US there are persistent rumors driven by people looking to decry anything that isn't "hometown, Christian, folksy, rural" as being some kind of den of sin. There's a reason why those "rumours" are so predominantly and inexorably tied to QAnon nonsense now. There's a reason why anytime someone on the left does something, the Republican Party and its mouthpieces try so hard to connect them to anything and everyone on that side of things.

MeToo, Weinstein etc etc, all a dream?
And how about Nassar and his enablers in US Olympic gymnastics and education establishments?

Do I need a MAGA hat to recognise the wrong here?

It makes a lot of sense whenever anyone mentions the possibility that a proportion of people in authority might have paedophilic tendencies that it must be some baseless politicised lunacy. Just as planned.
Truth is you will find paedophiles anywhere, just as you will find politicians. Some unfortunately will be both. Everyone has sexual desires, most are concealed and some people will have very unpleasant sexual desires and be very good at concealing them or have someone else to do so for them.
Most societies will try to cover up an embarassment than expose and denounce their own who go that far. Portugal went through this recently. Truth is, there will, sadly be paedos in authority at some point, that is a fact of life, and a reality of percentage demographics. They do not reflect on the nation they infest if the nation denounces and ostacises them as individuals. The press will not see it this way and thus government will cover up to prevent what they see as greater damage because most politicians want the easier path..
It is just an extension of human nature, makes sense and one doesn't need to be part of any conspiracy group to recognise.

 Kanluwen wrote:

You literally cannot "get away" if all of your travel is controlled. You cannot "get away" if your financial assets are tied to your trafficker. You cannot "get away" if your trafficker has control of your medical and psychological health.

True in some situations, but you make the glaring error of using this as blanket statements against specific cases to which this does not apply..
If you are trafficked to a remote location, or the police are aiding and abetting the perpetrators, or getting heavy on families tying to remedy the situation then the victim cannot 'get away'.

But when a late teen with a visibly open high life in New York or London you definitely can get away. You can get away immediately by screaming for help, and you can get away in the longer term by approaching the press.

 Kanluwen wrote:

No, what we see in the US is an actual case of one of the most bizarre and strange cases relating to human trafficking that I've ever read about actively playing out. The fallout from this whole thing will probably take decades to resolve and I would be shocked if it didn't spawn more investigations or if the documents that are sealed are not connected to potential further prosecutions.

Bizarre and strange indeed, it involved surprisingly little trafficking. Late teen girls were procured through payment and promise of social access, they were not bundled into vans.
From what we see they received the payments they were promised and also let go afterwards.
Child trafficking doesn't look like that, and yet the image generated, reinforced by a highly edited narrative, is that of child trafficking.

You are correct in one thing and one thing alone, the fallout will last decades.

However it will likely not be resolved because the media and public are being spoon fed a narrative, and many people who should be investigated have already been entirely removed from suspicion, either indirectly or formally in the case of Bill Clinton.
Please also note that while Trump disowned Epstein and Maxwell long ago, prior to these scandals breaking, the leftist media are very quick to associate Maxwell and Epstein with Trump but not others, funny that. 'Trump's friend Ghislaine Maxwell...." crops up a lot right now. That alone should tell you that there is a forged narrative going on.

Doesn't matter, she was a minor(In the US, where she is a citizen) taken out of the country to another country(by an adult with power over her) to have sex with somebody outside of her age of consent. This is child trafficking, there is no "but but but", it is child trafficking full stop.

Don't be too quick to dismiss 'conspiracy theories' around this one.

Epstein 'broke his own neck' in his cell while his TWO guards were 'asleep' for three hours and the TWO cameras watching him 'malfunctioned'. The injuries were consistent with strangulation/murder.

 John Prins wrote:
Don't be too quick to dismiss 'conspiracy theories' around this one.

Epstein 'broke his own neck' in his cell while his TWO guards were 'asleep' for three hours and the TWO cameras watching him 'malfunctioned'. The injuries were consistent with strangulation/murder

It should be pointed out that there's a difference between suspicion of events that have definitely happened (as you mentioned) and the modern day blood libel that anyone/everyone in [opposing political party] are all in on a giant pedo-conspiracy to do every bad thing under the sun.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
Don't be too quick to dismiss 'conspiracy theories' around this one.

Epstein 'broke his own neck' in his cell while his TWO guards were 'asleep' for three hours and the TWO cameras watching him 'malfunctioned'. The injuries were consistent with strangulation/murder

It should be pointed out that there's a difference between suspicion of events that have definitely happened (as you mentioned) and the modern day blood libel that anyone/everyone in [opposing political party] are all in on a giant pedo-conspiracy to do every bad thing under the sun.

The amount of resources and competence required for most conspiracy theories to happen pretty much precludes them from actually happening.

But this one's hella sus.

As she has been found guilty, I think we are in for a very interesting year ahead, this story is far from over.

Prince Andrew is as guilty as sin, I have no doubt that he'll be the next in line. Still amazed that he thought doing that interview was a way to handle the situation.

Regarding Epstein, I doubt he hung himself, someone wanted him dead. Does that mean I think the 'Elite' are all pedophiles who are part of a cabal that gather in pizza take aways to fiddle kiddies? Nah, that is as insane as Flat Earthers and Anti Vaxxers nonsense.

 John Prins wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
Don't be too quick to dismiss 'conspiracy theories' around this one.

Epstein 'broke his own neck' in his cell while his TWO guards were 'asleep' for three hours and the TWO cameras watching him 'malfunctioned'. The injuries were consistent with strangulation/murder

It should be pointed out that there's a difference between suspicion of events that have definitely happened (as you mentioned) and the modern day blood libel that anyone/everyone in [opposing political party] are all in on a giant pedo-conspiracy to do every bad thing under the sun.

The amount of resources and competence required for most conspiracy theories to happen pretty much precludes them from actually happening.

But this one's hella sus.

I think you're forgetting The Manhattan Project. Compartmentalized information can explain some of the less insane conspiracies.

Orlanth wrote:She allegedly went with Maxwell to London nightclubs, where the papparazzi lurk, and if an actual trafficked sex slave could have easily extricated herself from trouble by screaming loud enough.

So, all this to say that you don't believe there are any people in London nightclubs who have been trafficked or are there not of their own affirmative enthusiastic consensual accord?

I'm not sure if you're naive, ignorant, or plain malicious, but you're definitely wrong.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Doesn't matter, she was a minor(In the US, where she is a citizen) taken out of the country to another country(by an adult with power over her) to have sex with somebody outside of her age of consent. This is child trafficking, there is no "but but but", it is child trafficking full stop.

1. So far none of the teen prostitutes related to this case fit the definition of a child. A 'child' is someone under the age of 13 in most jurisdictions. Cancel your hysteria.
2. The US doesn't have a set Age of Consent, it is varied by state.
3. A prostitute of age to consent to sexual activity who is enticed to travel for sex is not being 'trafficked' if they agree to travel and do so on their own..
4. The citizenship of the alleged victim is not relevant, only the Age of Consent at the location where an alleged incident took place. Though enticement from a locale where the alleged victim is underage would be a crime.

There is no 'but but but', but 'law law law'.

Now a caveat here in case you are triggered by this.

It is highly morally questionable to procure teenagers even if over the age of consent for older clients. However that doesn't make an activity criminal with relation to sexual exploitation of minors unless an age of consent boundary is breached.
Any breaches are localised to where alleged incidents occurred, so someone procuring an individual from a nation of region with a higher Age of Consent law will be infringing, but the client in a lower Age of Consent jurisdiction would not.
Prostitution, procuring the services of a prostitute, or profiteering from prostitution and may be of itself illegal in any of these jurisdictions, and is not of itself age related.

TLR Just because one doesn't like it, doesn't necessarily make it illegal.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stonehorse wrote:
As she has been found guilty, I think we are in for a very interesting year ahead, this story is far from over.
Prince Andrew is as guilty as sin, I have no doubt that he'll be the next in line. Still amazed that he thought doing that interview was a way to handle the situation.

Prince Andrew is in a lot of trouble. Because of the nature of his public persona he cannot avoid scrutiny as easily as others, there is an expectation for his to face this, and that is being exploited.
He is also not too bright and has been incompetently advised. The pressure was put up so he would make the sort of mistakes he has made.

Orlanth wrote: A prostitute of age to consent to sexual activity who is enticed to travel for sex is not being 'trafficked' if they agree to travel and do so on their own.

Key word being *if*, and if they agreed without duress or other coercion.

Being pressured or coerced into such a situation is not consent.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Orlanth wrote:She allegedly went with Maxwell to London nightclubs, where the papparazzi lurk, and if an actual trafficked sex slave could have easily extricated herself from trouble by screaming loud enough.

So, all this to say that you don't believe there are any people in London nightclubs who have been trafficked or are there not of their own affirmative enthusiastic consensual accord?
I'm not sure if you're naive, ignorant, or plain malicious, but you're definitely wrong.

Read more carefully. I am not saying there is no seedy underworld to central London.
I am saying that someone allegedly being raped by a royal family member will be easily able to get press attention. It is a completely different scenario to being held by the mob or some such.
Also if the person is free to move about, as Maxwell's call girls allegedly were, then they could gain short term protection by asking for it.

I an certainly not naive or ignorant of the nature of the London papparazzi and how they would react to a story like that.
As for accusations of malice, you need to explain yourself there.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Orlanth wrote:She allegedly went with Maxwell to London nightclubs, where the papparazzi lurk, and if an actual trafficked sex slave could have easily extricated herself from trouble by screaming loud enough.

So, all this to say that you don't believe there are any people in London nightclubs who have been trafficked or are there not of their own affirmative enthusiastic consensual accord?
I'm not sure if you're naive, ignorant, or plain malicious, but you're definitely wrong.

Read more carefully. I am not saying there is no seedy underworld to central London.

Really? Because what you literally just wrote was "an actual trafficked sex slave could have easily extricated herself from trouble by screaming loud enough". Hard to take that any other way.

Sounds easy, doesn't it? If it's so easy, do you want to take that claim to it's conclusion?
Or maybe you want to walk that back.

I an certainly not naive or ignorant of the nature of the London papparazzi and how they would react to a story like that.
As for accusations of malice, you need to explain yourself there.

I'm not questioning London pap. I'm referring to the comment about "an actual trafficked sex slave could have easily extricated herself from trouble by screaming loud enough", and the dangerous lack of understanding you seem to have about victims of sexual abuse.

I suggest you might want to walk that claim back.

My dude, I suspect you don’t know what it’s like to be in such a situation.

End of the day? We’re talking what, 20 years or so ago? Probably longer.

Whilst far from the same situation, I’ve been in an “unfortunate” situation myself. It. Is. Not. Pleasant. At all.

A mere kid, in that sort of situation, and in high society circles could well have screamed. But look at the real world, and realise that depressingly, in all likelihood, nobody would’ve listened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My post was a reply to Orlanth, for sake of continuity.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Orlanth wrote: A prostitute of age to consent to sexual activity who is enticed to travel for sex is not being 'trafficked' if they agree to travel and do so on their own.

Key word being *if*, and if they agreed without duress or other coercion.

Being pressured or coerced into such a situation is not consent.

That is hard to define and even harder to prove, especially where the alleged victim travelled independently.
Enticement and duress/coercion are two different things.
This is why there is room for an appeal here. Not that it will do Maxwell any good, there are others who need the book thrown at her to take heat from elsewhere.

More important is the localised movements of the girls in question. If they were under duress when meeting clients then that is rape/sexual assault, regardless of age. If they were enticed that is prostitution if of age and rape/sexual assault if not.

trexmeyer wrote:

I think you're forgetting The Manhattan Project. Compartmentalized information can explain some of the less insane conspiracies.

The amount of discipline and effort involved is impressive, but keep in mind this was during wartime with people who weren't involved in a criminal conspiracy, just a military secret.

Personally I don't like ascribing to conspiracy what can be explained by simple incompetence, negligence or sheer co-incidence. But that doesn't mean there aren't people out there doing shady business. Ghislaine's (deceased) father having KGB, MI6 and Mossad connections alone raises a whole bunch of flags.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

My dude, I suspect you don’t know what it’s like to be in such a situation.
End of the day? We’re talking what, 20 years or so ago? Probably longer.
Whilst far from the same situation, I’ve been in an “unfortunate” situation myself. It. Is. Not. Pleasant. At all.
A mere kid, in that sort of situation, and in high society circles could well have screamed. But look at the real world, and realise that depressingly, in all likelihood, nobody would’ve listened.

What we are being sold decades later and what happened at the time may be completely different.

My main concern is that things are worse now than before, not better.
Police and media are all too eager to listen to 'victims'.
We have had several high profile cases of people making accusations because they can, and many have been fraudulent. By the time we know for sure lives are ruined.

I have not been in such a situation as you describe, thank God, and it would be hard for a 'kid'. But these are not kids.
Looking at the picture of Maxwell, Guiffre and Prince Andrew I have a lot of sympathy for Andrew. Guiffre doesn't appear to be a sex slave, and we know she had her liberty at this time. We only only three facts, one she was in Epsteins circle, she was a teenage prostitute and now wants money.
i see no evidence that Prince Andrew or for that matter most of Esptein's clients were involved in the activities the press likes to portray this as. This is not a nonce ring, this isn't Huckle or Saville or the Rotherham gangs.
These are wealthy men meeting late teens who are giving no indication they didn't want to be there until now twenty years later when they sniff gold.

As for people not listening. This was 20 years ago, height of Blair and papparazzi were less restricted than they are today. The media of the time were in a frenzy over the royals at every opportunity and this was very transparent even to a teenager. This was post Diana, so there were some agreements, but they only related to leaving alone Prince William and Harry, a scandal of this nature regarding Andrew would have ran and ran in the press, and if no any reason the UK press were shut down by shadowy powers it would have made a big splash in the continental or US press. An alleged victim would have been well looked after and been able to negotiate a hefty sum for the story.

 John Prins wrote:

trexmeyer wrote:

I think you're forgetting The Manhattan Project. Compartmentalized information can explain some of the less insane conspiracies.

The amount of discipline and effort involved is impressive, but keep in mind this was during wartime with people who weren't involved in a criminal conspiracy, just a military secret.

Personally I don't like ascribing to conspiracy what can be explained by simple incompetence, negligence or sheer co-incidence. But that doesn't mean there aren't people out there doing shady business. Ghislaine's (deceased) father having KGB, MI6 and Mossad connections alone raises a whole bunch of flags.

I do agree with Hanlon's Razor, but there is a good degree of overlap between military secrets and what some groups consider to be a conspiracy in action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My dude, I suspect you don’t know what it’s like to be in such a situation.

End of the day? We’re talking what, 20 years or so ago? Probably longer.

Whilst far from the same situation, I’ve been in an “unfortunate” situation myself. It. Is. Not. Pleasant. At all.

A mere kid, in that sort of situation, and in high society circles could well have screamed. But look at the real world, and realise that depressingly, in all likelihood, nobody would’ve listened.

My post was a reply to Orlanth, for sake of continuity.

A similar situation to Virginia Roberts occurred repeatedly with GirlsDoPorn and they were taken to the cleaners.

Edit: Spelled Virginia incorrectly. >.<

 Orlanth wrote:
My main concern is that things are worse now than before, not better.
Police and media are all too eager to listen to 'victims'.
We have had several high profile cases of people making accusations because they can, and many have been fraudulent. By the time we know for sure lives are ruined.

And how many countless cases where people didn't or couldn't make accusations because they wouldn't be heard?

The fact you find listening to victims (no inverted commas) to be something you consider "worse" is frankly horrifying, and exactly the kind of attitude that leads to more victims going unheard.

"Several" high profile cases of false accusations, versus countless true victims who haven't been able to share their stories? I think I know which the larger issue is.

I have not been in such a situation as you describe, thank God, and it would be hard for a 'kid'. But these are not kids.

A 16-17 year old is a kid. Legally, say what you like, but that's not someone who we can ever claim is entirely acting on their own accord when it comes to very socially savvy and powerful circles.

An alleged victim would have been well looked after and been able to negotiate a hefty sum for the story.

And what if they didn't feel that to be the case? They're expected to shut up and never mention it in the future?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Really? Because what you literally just wrote was "an actual trafficked sex slave could have easily extricated herself from trouble by screaming loud enough". Hard to take that any other way.

Sounds easy, doesn't it? If it's so easy, do you want to take that claim to it's conclusion?

There is nothing to walk back. In fact I will walk forward.

I know some police and have stories. Some have dealt with families where a minor was in danger of being abducted by a family member and removed from the country. This happens often enough, usually by a father from the middle east.
The children, or teenagers at risk are warned by the police that if they are being abducted and do not want to go they should shout loudly at the airport that they do not want to travel and their calls will be heard..
Police at airports are trained to handle these eventualities.
AFAIK there are similar contingencies for transport police.

Now for late teenagers as is covered here it is easier. Actual children can easily be coerced into silence. Cases such as we see in this case, or late teens, with liberty to travel, in highly public places can very easily attract attention to remove themselves from captivity. The grooming required to condition sex slaves requires a much younger age group and even then is not certain. Mental health might prevent some from speaking out, on an individual basis, and that would be valid regardless of age, but it would be an exceptional risk.

You have to look at this logically. why would a perpetrator of sex slavery want to allow their slaves open liberty, knowing they have potential access to random people and media who risk exposure of an entire network. It simply does not make any sense. A perpetrator would need to keep all the salves under lock and key, or guarantee a thorough brainwashing, or remove them to a hell hole location where there is nowhere to flee to. Neither London or New York qualify.

There is sex trafficking going on in western cities, it doesn't involve the openness we see around Maxwell's stable of call girls.
Sorry I am not buying it. Not only would it be a critical risk to Maxwell and Epstein to traffick slaves openly in London or New York, no society clients would dare attend due to risk to themselves.
The only logical conclusion is that the call girls agreed to be there and were not under duress at the time.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I suggest you might want to walk that claim back.

Nope.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Really? Because what you literally just wrote was "an actual trafficked sex slave could have easily extricated herself from trouble by screaming loud enough". Hard to take that any other way.

Sounds easy, doesn't it? If it's so easy, do you want to take that claim to it's conclusion?

There is nothing to walk back. In fact I will walk forward.

I know some police and have stories. Some have dealt with families where a minor was in danger of being abducted by a family member and removed from the country. This happens often enough, usually by a father from the middle east.
The children, or teenagers at risk are warned by the police that if they are being abducted and do not want to go they should shout loudly at the airport that they do not want to travel and their calls will be heard..
Police at airports are trained to handle these eventualities.
AFAIK there are similar contingencies for transport police.

So you want to claim that all of these situations where children have been abducted have been prevented then? After all, there's all this "training" and "contingencies" for these eventualities, so there should be no way it could ever happen, right? It's just so easy for children to shout loudly and every child would do that and no child has ever been abducted?

Good lord, get a grip and realise what you're saying here. It's not about if it's *avoidable*, it's the fact that it can, AND DOES, happen.

Now for late teenagers as is covered here it is easier. Actual children can easily be coerced into silence.

But I thought you just said they should be shouting in airports?

It's almost like that doesn't always work, for many varied reasons.

You have to look at this logically.

And there's your problem. The whole situation tends to mess with people emotionally, and I don't know about you, but when people get emotional, logic isn't really a leading factor in decision making - and it's that confusion and lack of logic that predators prey on. "Why didn't the victim just cry out" shows an entire lack of understanding of what victims in those situations go through.

why would a perpetrator of sex slavery want to allow their slaves open liberty, knowing they have potential access to random people and media who risk exposure of an entire network. It simply does not make any sense.

Nor does wanting to be a perpetrator of sex trafficking, but here we are.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The fact you find listening to victims (no inverted commas) to be something you consider "worse" is frankly horrifying, and exactly the kind of attitude that leads to more victims going unheard.

Cancel your hysteria.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/carl-beech-trial-jail-sentence-vip-paedophile-ring-court-a9022311.html

It is worse. It is bad enough that people are not listened to enough, but back in the day victims were listened to. We know that because there were cases brought to court, there were laws made etc.
However the rise of victim culture meant that liars could make false accusations and involve the state directly in their persecution of their own targets.

Never have I stated or implied that listening to actual victims is bad or wrong in any way. You should not be horrified. Cancel your hysteria.

In fact the hysteria you spread is itself the biggest threat to justice. Too many cases of false accusation make it difficult to listen to real victims, people need to be doubly wary.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

"Several" high profile cases of false accusations, versus countless true victims who haven't been able to share their stories? I think I know which the larger issue is.

Thank you. This highlights the truth that your attitude to this is part of the problem. You shouldn't be weighting the issues.
Instead acknowledge that victims of horrendous sex crimes occur and false accusation also occurs.
While there try and examine the causal link. The cover up of sex crimes leads to hashtag movements that end up with self appointed inquisitorial mandates.
We get cases like that linked in this post because the police covered up crimes elsewhere, and the terrible thing about it is that post the automatically believe stage when dust has settles a little and targets of false accusation finally get vindication the sex crimes covered up to begin with are still ongoing.
Even now ten years later there is concealment of sex crime report statistics in Rotherham, in breach of Home Office rules and Public Information laws, and after Cliff Richard and Dave Lee Travis were able to prove they were not paedophiles we have still not had a single indictment of a BBC executive over Saville.

I can still state that things are definitively "worse" because we expand one problem to two, but I never said one type of genuine victim was of greater value than the other.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I have not been in such a situation as you describe, thank God, and it would be hard for a 'kid'. But these are not kids.

A 16-17 year old is a kid. Legally, say what you like, but that's not someone who we can ever claim is entirely acting on their own accord when it comes to very socially savvy and powerful circles.

You contradict yourself. The very socially savvy would not let a sex slave who can implicate them loose, no matter how powerful their circles. Those circles are not hegemonic, there are elements of the press who would print with clear and massive evidence in the public domain (their own newspapers and gossip magazines!) that reinforce this.

There is also the tendency from hysterics and the media compound problems with loaded and false rhetoric. Labelling people who sleep with questionably young call girls who are over the age of consent as 'nonces' or 'paedophiles' when these terms both relate to something far far nastier. Labelling late teen sex workers 'kids' or 'children' when it suits some to do so.

A grown man should not be sleeping with a 17 year old prostitute, but that is a moral issue not a legal one, and one that is oddly still scandalous in the age of Alphabet soup due to the identity of the clients involved.
We live in a time where anything goes so long as you are not a celebrity, then you will be raked over the coals. There will be plenty of people who slept with Epsteins and Maxwells call girls who have nothing to lose sleep over because they are not in the public eye.
If we were to have true justice the identity should not be relevant but in these cases it is everything and the chief finger pointers are a self righteous media that is equal or more morally bankrupt than Epstein anyway.

Just read Orlanth’s response to my post.

I’m done in this thread. Done and very, very, very effing angry.

Gonna flag the thread with the mods because this will not end well.

Why yes, I do have near super human restraint.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just read Orlanth’s response to my post.

I’m done in this thread. Done and very, very, very effing angry.

Gonna flag the thread with the mods because this will not end well.

Why yes, I do have near super human restraint.

He's actually defending the prostitution of 17 year olds.

@Orlanth, go back to 4Chan.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Good lord, get a grip and realise what you're saying here. It's not about if it's *avoidable*, it's the fact that it can, AND DOES, happen.

Do you think a 100% success rate is a necessary passmark for a social construct.
Please get real.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

You have to look at this logically.

And there's your problem. The whole situation tends to mess with people emotionally, and I don't know about you, but when people get emotional, logic isn't really a leading factor in decision making.

Nope. Stop you there. It is in these times when logic is most needed. Take the procedures of law, they do not, or at least should not play on the emotive, but on the factual.
Guilt and innocence is determined by hard fact to the best ability of the court, to the extent a judge can order a jury to throw out some evidence.
Now the system does in part break down because juries themselves are emotive, and irrational. Jury decisions are oftimes split on ethnic, gender or class bqckgrounds. Bias is hard to avoid, but it is a worthwhile goal, and this is done by applying logic whenever possible.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

- and it's that confusion and lack of logic that predators prey on. "Why didn't the victim just cry out" shows an entire lack of understanding of what victims in those situations go through.

logic still remains. Logic is neutral and can be reviewed holistically. It doesn't rely on a dry pitiness judgement of an alleged victims mentality, but on all factors involved.
Can a high profile perpetrator rely on a victim not crying out? Is as important to ask as whether victims did.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

why would a perpetrator of sex slavery want to allow their slaves open liberty, knowing they have potential access to random people and media who risk exposure of an entire network. It simply does not make any sense.

Nor does wanting to be a perpetrator of sex trafficking, but here we are.

No, you don't get away with that as a reply. Epstein was evil, he wasn't stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

trexmeyer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just read Orlanth’s response to my post.

I’m done in this thread. Done and very, very, very effing angry.

Gonna flag the thread with the mods because this will not end well.

Why yes, I do have near super human restraint.

He's actually defending the prostitution of 17 year olds.

No I am not and never have defended prostitution of 17 year olds.
I am just and only separating that from paedophile rings.
Because factually I can as there is a legal and moral girth between the two, and I have enough emotional maturity to resist the hype and do so.

Prostitution is still a criminal offence and I do not endorse crime.
However the offense is relatively minor with most weighting on the profiteering from prostitution and little on clients and actual prostitutes.
Being caught with a call girl can still be embarrassing, and socially damaging, and considerably more so if the client has a public profile and more besides if the age gap is significant. But this issue should be put in its proper place if the Age of Consent was followed.

trexmeyer wrote:

@Orlanth, go back to 4Chan.

Sometimes making a logical standpoint against a baying mob has this sort of price.

Orlanth wrote:Sometimes making a logical standpoint against a baying mob has this sort of price.

Be a monster, attract a mob.

trexmeyer wrote:He's actually defending the prostitution of 17 year olds.

No, he's not. Its much worse than that. He's defending the abusive coercion of children and blaming them for being prostitutes (and doubling down on the idea that prostitutes innately have no rights and deserve no protections)

Voss wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Sometimes making a logical standpoint against a baying mob has this sort of price.

Be a monster, attract a mob.

The mob was already here.

Voss wrote:

trexmeyer wrote:He's actually defending the prostitution of 17 year olds.

No, he's not. Its much worse than that. He's defending the abusive coercion of children and blaming them for being prostitutes (and doubling down on the idea that prostitutes innately have no rights and deserve no protections)

Not even remotely true.

1. I am challenging the narrative in the press that some of the cases were abusive coercion, or that they involved actual children.
2. I am recognising that prostitution exists.
3. I am not at any time claiming that prostitutes have no rights or that protections are forfeit. I am instead recognising that a person over the age of consent can legally make the decision to engage in sexual acts for personal gain, and that is legally distinct from rape or sexual abuse for any party involved even if said acts are otherwise illegal due to prostitution laws.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Doesn't matter, she was a minor(In the US, where she is a citizen) taken out of the country to another country(by an adult with power over her) to have sex with somebody outside of her age of consent. This is child trafficking, there is no "but but but", it is child trafficking full stop.

1. So far none of the teen prostitutes related to this case fit the definition of a child. A 'child' is someone under the age of 13 in most jurisdictions. Cancel your hysteria.
2. The US doesn't have a set Age of Consent, it is varied by state.
3. A prostitute of age to consent to sexual activity who is enticed to travel for sex is not being 'trafficked' if they agree to travel and do so on their own..
4. The citizenship of the alleged victim is not relevant, only the Age of Consent at the location where an alleged incident took place. Though enticement from a locale where the alleged victim is underage would be a crime.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Doesn't matter, she was a minor(In the US, where she is a citizen) taken out of the country to another country(by an adult with power over her) to have sex with somebody outside of her age of consent. This is child trafficking, there is no "but but but", it is child trafficking full stop.

1. So far none of the teen prostitutes related to this case fit the definition of a child. A 'child' is someone under the age of 13 in most jurisdictions. Cancel your hysteria.
2. The US doesn't have a set Age of Consent, it is varied by state.
3. A prostitute of age to consent to sexual activity who is enticed to travel for sex is not being 'trafficked' if they agree to travel and do so on their own..
4. The citizenship of the alleged victim is not relevant, only the Age of Consent at the location where an alleged incident took place. Though enticement from a locale where the alleged victim is underage would be a crime.

1. That is not true. Get out of here with that lie.
2. I know. I live here. That is why her home state of Florida is brought up.
3. None of that made sense or is legal. Sorry, get out of here with that prostitution crap. It is disgusting, it is a child and a minor and you continue to keep on with that logic.
4. Yes it is. Age of consent of her home country as a minor and unable to travel outside of the country to commit illegal acts. Get out of here and educate yourself on some stuff.

Teen Prostitute. What is this garbage?