harry and megan

Crikey that took a bit to find, couldnt see it at all on the BBC . I think it's been obvious for some time that the BBC were up to their necks in it. It would have been easy to convince Diana considering what she had experienced. I dont know that much will happen, Bashir has been ill for some time, but I suppose it depends what other people knew about the techniques used.

Going off at a tangent, as Royal threads do, Beatrice announced her pregnancy on H&M’s wedding anniversary.

Speculation this was done as revenge for Meghan announcing her first pregnancy at Eugenie’s wedding.

Surely not!

It really upset me when I heard it last night , if all reported is true surely there must be more than Bashir resigning

only she would know of course, but announcing your pregnancy on the same day as your cousins third wedding anniversary when your cousin is in America, is hardly the same as announcing your pregnancy at your husband's cousin's wedding is it.

Thanks for the definition trisher. The age issue raised by worriedwell omits to note that 13 year olds are individuals with different levels of understanding. One of the issues with the Rochdale girls was the belief they were making poor lifestyle choices. The reality was different. Some of those children had learning difficulties amongst many other things

There'san nteresting paper about it here Iam64 wccsj.ac.uk/images/docs/paedophilia_definitions_and_aetiology.pdf
I think if grooming and/or trafficking are involved the age isn't really relevant and consent is a debatable matter. The men who get mixed up in these things are never the innocents they pretend.

Iam64

Thanks for the definition trisher. The age issue raised by worriedwell omits to note that 13 year olds are individuals with different levels of understanding. One of the issues with the Rochdale girls was the belief they were making poor lifestyle choices. The reality was different. Some of those children had learning difficulties amongst many other things

But there is no implication that Andrew had anything to do with Rochdale. He is alleged to have had sex with a 17 year old. If he did and she was traffficked that is immoral and illegal but it isn't paedophilia. Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder where "an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children."

I think it is a little sad that somehow being 17 and trafficked isn't "bad" enough so we have to pretend it is something else.

trisher

There'san nteresting paper about it here Iam64 wccsj.ac.uk/images/docs/paedophilia_definitions_and_aetiology.pdf
I think if grooming and/or trafficking are involved the age isn't really relevant and consent is a debatable matter. The men who get mixed up in these things are never the innocents they pretend.

But are they paedophiles?

Of course grooming and trafficking are serious offences, at any age.

But by definition, paedophilia is intercourse with a younger child than the 17-year-old.

Would a legally married husband or wife, wed by informed consent to someone of 17, above the age of consent, be guilty of paedophilia? If possession of that "piece of paper" that legally binds them together make sex legal, then sex without it is equally legal - otherwise most of the population ought to be in jail.

The woman who has made the accusations was 17 at the time

When was her eighteen birthday because although I don’t agree to what could have happened she looks a lot older than her photos.

mokryna

The woman who has made the accusations was 17 at the time

When was her eighteen birthday because although I don’t agree to what could have happened she looks a lot older than her photos.

are you suggesting Prince Andrew wouldn't find her sexually attractive because she is 37?

Elegran in law the judgement that is applied is based on the ability of the child to understand and to give consent, Children who have been groomed or trafficed may feel unable to refuse to have sex even at 17. So the crime might be considered paedophilia. (although actually it isn't a legal term)
As for the prepubescent requirement, many girls now go through puberty at 11 are you saying someone haviing sex with a 12 or 13 year old isn't a paedophile?

she was sexually abused at 7, trafficked at 13 if that adds context

I said nothing of the sort, Trisher You misread my post if you think I did. I referred to the legal age of consent in this country as the line between paedophilia and "ordinary" sexual grooming, procurement, and trafficking. The paed part of the word refers to childhood (witness the ignorant thugs who some years ago attacked someone they heard was a paediatrician ) The effects of paedophilia carry over beyond childhood, as you say, but the age of childhood itself comes to an end.

No, JaneJudge. Nor do I agree that in some states girls are legally married off at a lot younger, in some states.
I wondered as that as 17 is mentioned and she was looking older than I was when I was married at eighteen, was her eighteen birthday imminent.

Does that matter Mokryna - her age was her age. Tout court

JaneJudge

she was sexually abused at 7, trafficked at 13 if that adds context

I think it does. Now the man having sex with her at 17 may not know her full history but if he is involved with people who are trafficking and abusing he is responsible for using her and any other girls that are 'supplied' for him. It's just high-level abuse, like the Rochdale case but with richer white men.

Were the abusers in the Rochdale case poor white men ?

The Rochdale grooming gangs were largely men of Pakistani Muslim heritage, as I’m sure you know Anniebach. I’m not sure how that’s relevant to the debate going on about whether adult men should have sex with sexually exploited/trafficked girls.

mokryna, many girls who were introduced to sex as children look older than their years, worn out early.

Because sexual abusers, peodophiles are of all races, creeds and colours so not necessary to speak of white richer men

I think that was the point trisher was making although I am sure she can speak for herself.

I was the point being that rich white men get away with abuse and being involved in trafficking simply because they are rich. No doubt Andy's legal team have worked very hard at considerable expense to keep him from being required to answer any questions in the US.

trisher

JaneJudge

she was sexually abused at 7, trafficked at 13 if that adds context

I think it does. Now the man having sex with her at 17 may not know her full history but if he is involved with people who are trafficking and abusing he is responsible for using her and any other girls that are 'supplied' for him. It's just high-level abuse, like the Rochdale case but with richer white men.

Of course he is responsible for using her but it doesn't make him a paedophile. I don't understand why there seems to be this need to make out that having sex with a 17 year old makes you a paedophile.

Having sex with a trafficked 17 year old is rape.

trisher

Elegran in law the judgement that is applied is based on the ability of the child to understand and to give consent, Children who have been groomed or trafficed may feel unable to refuse to have sex even at 17. So the crime might be considered paedophilia. (although actually it isn't a legal term)
As for the prepubescent requirement, many girls now go through puberty at 11 are you saying someone haviing sex with a 12 or 13 year old isn't a paedophile?

Might be considered by who? I've prepared files for court for girls being abused/raped/trafficked. No one ever suggested that at 17 it was paedophilia.

theworriedwell

trisher

Elegran in law the judgement that is applied is based on the ability of the child to understand and to give consent, Children who have been groomed or trafficed may feel unable to refuse to have sex even at 17. So the crime might be considered paedophilia. (although actually it isn't a legal term)
As for the prepubescent requirement, many girls now go through puberty at 11 are you saying someone haviing sex with a 12 or 13 year old isn't a paedophile?

Might be considered by who? I've prepared files for court for girls being abused/raped/trafficked. No one ever suggested that at 17 it was paedophilia.

Possibly because (as I said earlier) paedophilia is not the name of a crime?