D.J. Webb
I would like to register my disquiet at the claims being made against Prince Andrew by a woman in America. I have no independent information relating to any of the claims, other than what is in the media, but the claim is that a 17-year-old was introduced to Prince Andrew by the billionaire Jerry Epstein, who spent some time in prison for “under-age” sex. It is also claimed the woman, Virginia Roberts, entered Epstein’s entourage at the age of 15.
A number of points need to be made. Firstly, the woman is now 30, and I think it is far too late to be making claims of any type that date back well over a decade. The claim by “rape charities” that “abuse” gives rise to life-long trauma must be questioned. We are infantilising a whole generation of people by telling them you can never get over your past. Many (most?) people do recover from embarrassing episodes in their past.
Secondly, with all such claims, the quality of the available evidence is dire. If anyone, whether prince of the realm or otherwise, had a private massage from a 17-year-old, only the two of them will know precisely what happened. It becomes “he said” versus “she said”, which amounts to no evidence of anything at all.
Thirdly, there is no claim of any “compulsion”. This woman was a willing member of Epstein’s entourage/harem, and, or so the claim goes, a trusted companion of his who could be relied upon to give a good time to Epstein’s friends. Claims this woman was a “sex slave”, or was compelled to take part in such orgies, seems to be false. If her claims are true, she was a willing participant, and charged a fee for her services. This does not at all sound like a forced and reluctant performer of insalubrious acts.
Finally, there is the age of the woman. We are told that 17 years of age is “under age” in Florida. That may be so, but 17 years of age is not under age in the real world. This is five or six years past puberty. It is beyond credulity that a state should legislate such that 18 becomes the minimum age for sexual consent. This is absurd. She has been quoted in newspapers referring to Epstein as a “paedophile”, but having sex with a 17-year-old is not paedophilia. Having sex with a 15-year-old is not paedophilia either. Both might be regarded as unpleasant, giving the gap in age and wealth, but neither a 15-year-old nor a 17-year-old is a little child. There is no evidence whatsoever that Epstein is attracted to pre-pubescent children.
This young woman appears pert and nubile in photographs of her with Prince Andrew. It is simply ridiculous to argue that sex with this woman—which is not proved to have taken place—would have been some kind of paedophilia.
Such women hang round the famous precisely because they afford them access to a celebrity lifestyle and money. Why did this girl, even at 15, visit Epstein? This is not at all the same thing as Epstein jumping out of a bush to force himself on a passing schoolgirl. This story reads like a very knowing and precocious girl, many years past puberty, who joined the Epstein household voluntarily and benefited financially therefrom.
While it is kind of amusing to see even Establishment figures falling foul of such hysteria, we should bear in mind that even if the claims prove to be true, or are held to be true (which is not the same thing), there is nothing unusual about an older man feeling attracted to an older teenage girl. I defy any heterosexual male to look at the photograph of her in the newspaper at 17 years of age and not feel attracted to her. This is a monstrous wrong being done to Prince Andrew—and I regard it as a shakedown for money.
There seems to be a cult of these sort of charges against lots of different people presently.
However, bitter my various other differences with them may be – I commend both Mr Webb and Dr Gabb for remembering the basic principle of the Common Law, that someone is innocent till proven guilty.
Paul – After Dennis O’Keeffe’s funeral, David Davis and I decided to start the New Year so far as we could by setting old disputes behind us. Life is both short and uncertain, and we have enough enemies outside the libertarian movement without making enemies of each other.
As you will be aware, it is part of the mission of the Libertarian Alliance to present all the various differences within the libertarian movement. Some differences may be so profound that there will be legitimate doubt whether they are within the movement. Though we believe our mission is well served if these differences are then explored, even with some sharpness, our preference is for a conscious avoidance of rancour.
You are now a welcome, as opposed to a tolerated, member of the LA Community. As and when we think them particularly good, we will promote your comments to the front page. We trust in return that you will regard yourself as part of a community not merely of intellectuals but also of gentlemen.
I will repeat David’s observation of last month on the length of some of your comments. Unless you particularly wish something to be promoted to the front page, a comment is often better for being shorter and less discursive.
Sean
The whole media circus on this is nonsense. There is no claim that any encounters took place in Florida – one was supposed to be in London (where the age of consent is 16), another in NY, another in the US Virgin Islands – and so the fact that Florida law states 18 – is irrelevant. I don’t think there is a case to answer.
In case you didn’t see it, here is my video (with transcript) on the Bill Cosby case:
https://archive.org/details/BillCosbyAVoiceOfReason
i wonder what that cunt Liz Dux thinks about this, believe the “victim” – you’re right of course, this one is simply a shakedown. Andrew may have married a witch and is obviously a disappointment to ‘Er Indoors, but I don’t think even he would have been that stupid.
Surely the point is, heads of state leaving themselves open to blackmail with their rather grubby affairs.having read the PDF of the allegations,one can only wonder who the famous prime minister mentioned is.
Women I think are the biggest sex entrepreneurs in the world. When one girl comes out of the sexual woodwork against someone more will always follow. I watched a video of one woman and her lawyer who were so outraged with the alleged victim crying on her shoulder. Rich guy, lots of money and willing to buy off unpleasant notoriety doesn’t imply guilt. When something is alleged it should not be in the news who the alleged is. Do we not have laws that say, “Innocent until proven guilty?” The media is so irresponsible and so are the police and courts. All these women come out and you know that this is just a copy-cat so that any woman who might have been close to Cosby is thinking Pay-day. How many times have we seen girls recant allegations against a teacher and yet the teacher is finished regardless. When the girl recants nothing is ever done to her because she is still considered the victim. It’s an endless parade. Women and girls are always the victims, virtually never the perpetrator.
Those of us around and active in the late 50s and 60s will remember that things were different then. The advent of a) contraceptive pill and b) tights (!) brought a new level of freedom and (gloriously) sexual activity and forwardness now frowned on was pretty much the norm.
Any sort of male “celebrity” would be the target of hordes of young women (possibly just below the age of consent, but well after puberty). Most although perhaps not all of the current witch hunting (wizard hunting?) I firmly believe is just attempts to cash in on the current hysteria. I may say that my wife agrees with this quite vehemently. Thank God I am not a rich celebrity!
The total number of lunatic and/or gold-digging females who claim that Mike Tyson has raped them now exceeds 36 I understand. His actual “conviction” was itself dubious but despite said conviction and despite the hysteria of the times, I also understand that police no longer bother to investigate such claims. Because they say that they have already wasted a fortune investigating claims from “victims” who turn out to have been nowhere near Tyson in their entire lives.
The only way so kind of check may be put on this nonsense is if Camorgueron, the original Pussy-whipped boy is himself accused of some sex-crime.
Whatever about Mr. Tyson (I was not in attendance at the media circus at the time), when they follow this up with allegations about Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, now Bill Cosby, and so forth–not to mention the Duke Lacrosse viciousness — and thinking that probably Dr. Ben Carson will also get the treatment, at least if he decides to run — one has a hard time mustering up much sympathy for any of the women.
It has been pointed out that so far from bringing rape into public consciousness as a dreadful crime that ought to be punished well and truly, constantly being beaten about the chops with false squeals of RAPE! eventually desensitizes people to the extent that they figure no one is ever raped, and that even if he or she was it would be “no big deal.”
These ‘rape-accusation mongers’ are irresponsible in the extreme. They have no interest at all in the damage they do to real individual people and families and friendships and careers and to the reputation and acceptability of the accused in the latter’s social circles, and still less in the damage they do to trust amongst its members in society at large.
In a benevolent society, trust is the warp and woof of which the social fabric is woven.
Isn’t the trut expression “The Weft And The Warp”?
The “Weft” is the vertical fibre-matrix,, pre-laid down-up-down-up etc, repeatedly. The “Warp” is the “flying fibre”, sent back and forth horizontally either laboriously by hand, by women of course in pre-capitalist-barbarian-times when this was stuff they could profitably do while men hunted or cowpunched or grew stuff, or (later) by machine, as in “The Flying Shuttle”.
Let’s face it — the Paedophile Prince is good copy for the media…
David, I’m not equipped to address the issue of what is “the trut expression.” Personally I weave not, neither do I spin; but I have enough needlepoint and knitting wool to hold the house up, should the walls fail for some reason. :>)
Of course as we know, the good wife Penelope was blessed to have a large weaving project going, but we are informed that the Master (i.e. professional) knitters of the Middle Ages were men (at least mostly–if a woman can bare her bosom and attack the Romans without benefit of side-saddle, I don’t see why a woman couldn’t perfectly well employ herself by knitting). Personally I’d have thrown the drunken bums out, or else stuck them with various needles, so I don’t see why she didn’t just let fly with her shuttle, knocking holes in a few noggins and thereby, one would hope, regaining some measure of peace as she waits for her own dear husband to dump that homewrecking Calypso and come on home.
Back to the trut expression. There is floating about in my own noggin a sentence fragment: something about “…the warp and woof of the one ____ .” I am trying to dredge the gullies of my mind to find the rest of the fragment and also its origin, but no joy so far. Perhaps an erudite feller like yerself can help?
Sean – I am a short tempered man, even when I am not in one of my “Black Moods” (no youngsters – the “Black Dog” is not a racial thing).
However, I bear you no ill will – I fully accept that a person must earn a living and your actions in the 1990s were a matter of a press office style job, which caused no harm what-so-ever (feel free to quote me on that).
As for the “anti capitalists” and “social justice” types – I now fully accept that you did not hold their opinions at any time (whatever I thought – seeing things through the “Red Mist” which is too often my default mode of operations). And were just more tolerant of them than I would have been – not difficult, as I am totally intolerant of such people. When I see the Black Flag (just as much as the Red Flag) I assume that it is a summons to do battle against those who follow it (I am not using a figure of speech) – nothing else. In my state of health hardly wise – but there are worse ways to die.
I thank you for your kind and generous comment. And from now on I will try and live up to it.
Then the past is a closed book.
In the UK we had a man who raised millions for charities and no one would believe he could do wrong but it was proved he was a rampant pedophile. Likewise we had a legislator, Cyril Smith, who was named but no charges were brought during his life but on his death it was proved he had interfered with countless boys. So we must wait for an impartial assessment of the accusations.
The author is right. It is not pedophilia (adult and prepubescent boy or girl) , nor is it pederasty (adult man and boy). It is not considered a medically abnormal act. But in America, it is considered a matter of competency. That is why in America they used to call it “statutory rape”, because in the real world and without that statute making it illegal, it would not be illegal, if there were consent. However, the law in America recognizes that people under a certain age, usually 18, are deemed under the law to be “incompetent”, unless they are fully emancipated from their families and shown to be making their own decisions.. Incompetent simply means that under the law (not necessarily in reality) they are too young and immature to convey “agreement”, “consent”, etc.