On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 02:50:05 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll**** unread

02:50 am in Australia? AGAIN??? So, for how long have you been up and
trolling this night already, you clinically insane trolling senile pest from
Oz?

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile' activity with
no clarification. Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'? And is anyone who
has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

At one time, it meant 'fancying' pre pubescent boys or girls. Now used for
anyone who has sex with one under the age of consent in any particular
country.

--
*Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:29:18 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassturder®™", farted
again:


This is the most disastrous start to any interview I can imagine. And
then I suddenly recognise it for what it is: pure stomach-gripping nerves.

Overawed by a minor royal. Perhaps they should have chosen someone
with more backbone for the interview?

A psychopath like you might have been the right asshole for the job. Don't
you think so too, pedophilic gay Razovic?

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID:

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 15:07:33 UTC, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 13:19, Pancho wrote:
On 19/11/2019 23:02, Norman Wells wrote:


What do you mean by 'trafficking'?


I was curious about what trafficking meant, so did a quick wiki.

In USA law and in the case of a minor it seems to require nothing more
than inducing an under eighteen year old to commit a sex act.

So maybe the equivalent of the word "procuring" in English law. Just my
suggestion.

and subtracking 1-2 years of age is more difficult.


s22 Causing prostitution of women

(1)It is an offence for a person€”

(a)to procure a woman to become, in any part of the world, a common
prostitute ; or

(b)to procure a woman to leave the United Kingdom, intending her to
become an inmate of or frequent a brothel elsewhere; or

(c)to procure a woman to leave her usual place of abode in the United
Kingdom, intending her to become an inmate of or frequent a brothel in
any part of the world for the purposes of prostitution.

unquote

Nothing there seems to apply.


Is it central to the American offence of trafficking that the woman ends
up selling sex for money or being part of a brothel?

Who knows it's down to how much you pay for a laywer.

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 15:16:15 UTC, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 15:07, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 14:51, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 12:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:

Andrew agrees that he visited Epstein many times. The girl visited
Epstein many times. The fact that both appear on a photograph is not
proof that he had any sexual contact with her.

You discount 'sole purpose of visit' then?

What did he go for, tea and scones?

I do not know. But I think we should be told.

For some reason Emily Maitlis didn't ask him how he spent his time
chez Epstein.

Some questions you just know will not result in any clarification or
revelation.

As Maitlis says in her Times piece, she was surprised by how forthcoming
he was, so ready to answer all questions put to him.

What would he have said? Did they play numerous games of cards,
backgammon and tennis? Did they watch movies together on TV? Did they
embark on earnest discussions about philosophy, religion or economic
policy? Was the Duke single minded about his desire to market British
business and British goods throughout the world, via Epstein's valuable
contacts?

They could have watched TOWIE together.
There's worse thinmg he could have done, but not many ;-)

On 20/11/2019 16:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile' activity with
no clarification. Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'? And is anyone who
has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

At one time, it meant 'fancying' pre pubescent boys or girls. Now used for
anyone who has sex with one under the age of consent in any particular
country.

But that means you're a paedophile if you have sex with a girl in one
country, but not one if you have sex with her somewhere else.

Schrodinger's cat could probably advise but I'm not sure if he's still
alive.

On 20/11/2019 16:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile' activity with
no clarification. Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'? And is anyone who
has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

At one time, it meant 'fancying' pre pubescent boys or girls. Now used for
anyone who has sex with one under the age of consent in any particular
country.



I hate to find myself more or less on the same side as our Norm, but
it's clearly pretty daft to lump those fancying 17 year olds in with the
dreadful folk who fancy the very young.

If the term paedophile has changed its meaning like that, then it's no
longer a useful term.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:43:39 +0100, Foreskin Peeler
wrote:

[FLUHS Grik skata]...and better air in here again! [sic][SIC!!! LOL]

Watch, it geezer!

HAVING, an apoplectic Grik fit anus? B

And an online mini-orgasm anus? G

Just because Rod Speed posted something anus? GB

What the **** is WRONG with, you anus? VGB

Puttana! Schifosa! Vaffanculo!
tsk

On 20/11/2019 18:32, pamela wrote:

It is a crime if he had sex with a 17 year old in a jurisdiction where it
is illegal.


Is it a crime if done by someone with diplomatic immunity? This is a
purely semantic question.

In article ,
GB wrote:
On 20/11/2019 16:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile' activity with
no clarification. Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'? And is anyone who
has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

At one time, it meant 'fancying' pre pubescent boys or girls. Now used for
anyone who has sex with one under the age of consent in any particular
country.



I hate to find myself more or less on the same side as our Norm, but
it's clearly pretty daft to lump those fancying 17 year olds in with the
dreadful folk who fancy the very young.

If the term paedophile has changed its meaning like that, then it's no
longer a useful term.


Yup. I'm not defending any such behavour. Just the way the word is now
used to include what many would consider young adults. Not children.

--
*A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/11/2019 18:37, pamela wrote:
On 15:27 20 Nov 2019, "michael adams" wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Now for some *facts*. Epstein was convicted in Florida for procuring
an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. He
was arrested on charges of sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New
York but was not convicted. He died before the case could be brought.

I am not aware of any circumstances that would add up to the NSPCC
definition of 'trafficking' above. Nor can I find any indication that
any of the girls was unwilling.

This explanation is by a former federal prosecutor

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...in-case-shows-
how-sex-trafficking-really-works.html

I suspect Norman falls into the category mentioned in the article....

When jurors hear 'sex trafficking,' they conjure up images of victims
bound by chains, subjected to physical force and imprisonment.

I quoted the NSPCC definition earlier actually. Let me put it back for you:

"Trafficking is where children and young people tricked, forced or
persuaded to leave their homes and are moved or transported and then
exploited, forced to work or sold."

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:29:18 -0800, Grikbassturder®™ wrote:

Overawed by a minor royal. Perhaps they should have chosen someone with
more backbone for the interview?

How about Paxo?




--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

On 20/11/2019 19:16, Cursitor Doom wrote:

How about Paxo?

Known in our household as Smug *******.

On 20/11/2019 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 02:07, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:02:34 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

What do you mean by 'trafficking'?

How do you define 'paedophile'?Â* And what evidence do you have?

Ignoring the first two *daft* (even by Usenet standards) questions for
obvious reasons

No, you can't just gloss over them.Â* You suggested:

"what might well be a huge international paedophile network
trafficking young girls for sex between the rich and powerful".

I don't know what is meant by 'trafficking' in such a context.Â* It's a
strange and rather archaic expression to me that needs some explanation.
Â*What do *you* mean by it?

Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile' activity with
no clarification.Â* Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'?Â* And is anyone who
has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

Clarification is needed to understand what you're saying.Â* So, do say.

I had not realised this was cross posted before I posted and Cursitor
Doom replied to my post.

But you can have my opinion for free.

It's not rape "if you shout surprise".



--
Adam

"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2019 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 08:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend
several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some
fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he
did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I
believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly
photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?


The photograph does not show sexual activity. In fact, it proves nothing
at all. There's no need to photoshop such a picture, unless you want to
display it on your wall as a proud memento of meeting a Prince. If such
things please you.

Hasving photoshopped quite a lot, the differences in shadow and height
and context all show up clearly


Andrew agrees that he visited Epstein many times. The girl visited
Epstein many times. The fact that both appear on a photograph is not
proof that he had any sexual contact with her.

Especially when its faked.



Prince Andrew said in the interview that his advisers (and presumably he
can pay for good advisers) tell him that it is impossible to tell whether
or not it is faked because it is a photograph of a photograph and you'd
need to locate the original.

That isnt the only way to tell if its been photoshopped.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2019 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:53, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 08:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend
several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some
fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What
he did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I
believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly
photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?


The photograph does not show sexual activity. In fact, it proves
nothing at all. There's no need to photoshop such a picture, unless
you want to display it on your wall as a proud memento of meeting a
Prince. If such things please you.

Hasving photoshopped quite a lot, the differences in shadow and height
and context all show up clearly

I think you need to explain your reasoning more carefully.

It looks to me like an image originally on film taken with a compact
camera where the inbuilt flash is to the left of the lens. This puts
shadows on the right hand side of all objects in the field of view.

If the negative still exists and is in sequence with others from that
night then it would be definitive (or show that there was a very complex
and long planned conspiracy against him).

Andrew agrees that he visited Epstein many times. The girl visited
Epstein many times. The fact that both appear on a photograph is not
proof that he had any sexual contact with her.

Especially when its faked.

Prince Andrew said in the interview that his advisers (and presumably he
can pay for good advisers) tell him that it is impossible to tell
whether or not it is faked because it is a photograph of a photograph
and you'd need to locate the original.

If you see a room in which a person cast a shadow in one direction and
another person is clearly lit up from the other side, and the person who
is in it is clearly taller than the person she is next to despite being
allegedly 6" shorter...

Are we talking about the same photo?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...nterview#img-3

She is very clearly at least 4" shorter than he is in this photo.
(and we cannot see if she is wearing heals)

And his pot belly doesnt look quite right overlapping her image.

And what is supposed to be his left hand around her body
would need a much .longer arm than his visible right arm.

The skin tones are quite different too, particularly with the hands.

And being photographed with someone who is clearly happy
to be there proves nothing about illegal activity.

And it wouldnt be surprising if he assumed she was 18
and didnt ask to see her birth certificate before ****ing her.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:01:23 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


And his pot belly doesn¢t look quite right overlapping her image.

FLUSH

Senile Rodent has ALL the answers, AGAIN! I mean, he ALWAYS has ALL the
answers! To EVERYTHING! ALWAYS! LOL

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 19:16:41 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:29:18 -0800, Grikbassturder®? wrote:

Overawed by a minor royal. Perhaps they should have chosen someone with
more backbone for the interview?

How about Paxo?

Far too obnoxious. He'd be shown the door after two minutes.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:28:56 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Prince Andrew said in the interview that his advisers (and presumably he
can pay for good advisers) tell him that it is impossible to tell whether
or not it is faked because it is a photograph of a photograph and you'd
need to locate the original.

That isnt the only way to tell if its been photoshopped.

We know already, the best way would simply be to ask YOU, senile Rodent! You
ALWAYS know EVERYTHING! ALWAYS, you clinically insane senile idiot! LOL

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

"Rod Speed posting as "Ray" wrote " wrote in message
...


And what is supposed to be his left hand around her body
would need a much .longer arm than his visible right arm.


It's what he was holding in his right hand that's clearly been photshopped
out, that I'd be more concerned with, myself.


michael adams

....

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 13:19:54 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassturder®™", farted
again:


How about Paxo?

Far too obnoxious. He'd be shown the door after two minutes.

How could anyone ever be as obnoxious as YOU are, you perverted, obnoxious,
psychopathic cretin?

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID:

On 20/11/2019 18:32, pamela wrote:
On 14:15 20 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 12:39, pamela wrote:
On 08:51 20 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 02:07, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:02:34 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

What do you mean by 'trafficking'?

How do you define 'paedophile'? And what evidence do you have?

Ignoring the first two *daft* (even by Usenet standards) questions
for obvious reasons

No, you can't just gloss over them. You suggested:

"what might well be a huge international paedophile network
trafficking young girls for sex between the rich and powerful".

I don't know what is meant by 'trafficking' in such a context. It's a
strange and rather archaic expression to me that needs some
explanation.
What do *you* mean by it?

Stop being daft. Look it up.

Yes, I have. This is what the NSPCC (who ought to know) says:

"Trafficking is where children and young people tricked, forced or
persuaded to leave their homes and are moved or transported and then
exploited, forced to work or sold."

You don't seem to know the background to this case at all. The
trafficking by Epstein and his madam, Maxwell, was notorious and
Epstiein was eventually imprisoned on trafficking charges.

Now for some *facts*. Epstein was convicted in Florida for procuring an
underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. He was
arrested on charges of sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York
but was not convicted. He died before the case could be brought.

I am not aware of any circumstances that would add up to the NSPCC
definition of 'trafficking' above. Nor can I find any indication that
any of the girls was unwilling.

The NSPCC definition is not used in America. Stop being silly by picking
and switching.

Then what definition is? I asked 'What do you mean by 'trafficking'?"
and you said I was being daft to ask. Now you're disputing the meaning
of the word yourself.

You're looking ever more ridiculous with every passing day.

No one is doing the same as you by picking the American age for legal sex
and then trying to apply it to Andrews's sexual relationships in London.
That would be foolish and what you are doing is equally foolish.

I've taken all the occasions and all the locations Ms Roberts alleged.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Why doesn't it to you?

Google is your friend although you seem to prefer asking naive
questions.

Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile' activity
with no clarification. Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'? And is
anyone who has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

Clarification is needed to understand what you're saying. So, do say.

As it happens, Epstein was a convicted paedophile.

So what?

What's more, Prince Andrew was consorting with an underage girl.

You think 17 is underage? Not in the UK it isn't.
And I don't think 'consorting' is a crime anyway.

It is a crime if he had sex with a 17 year old in a jurisdiction where it
is illegal.

Got any evidence that he did?

If so, what is it?

You entered this discussion without knowing the facts of the case and as
you have learnt them and seen you're wrong, you are now trying to wheedle
your argument.

Hardly.

It's such a pity your abilty to read and comprehend ordinary English is
so limited.

Norman Wells wrote:

On 20/11/2019 12:39, pamela wrote:
On 08:51 20 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:

On 20/11/2019 02:07, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:02:34 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

What do you mean by 'trafficking'?

How do you define 'paedophile'? And what evidence do you have?

Ignoring the first two *daft* (even by Usenet standards) questions for
obvious reasons

No, you can't just gloss over them. You suggested:

"what might well be a huge international paedophile network
trafficking young girls for sex between the rich and powerful".

I don't know what is meant by 'trafficking' in such a context. It's a
strange and rather archaic expression to me that needs some explanation.
What do *you* mean by it?

Stop being daft. Look it up.

Yes, I have. This is what the NSPCC (who ought to know) says:

"Trafficking is where children and young people tricked, forced or
persuaded to leave their homes and are moved or transported and then
exploited, forced to work or sold."

You don't seem to know the background to this
case at all. The trafficking by Epstein and his madam, Maxwell, was
notorious and Epstiein was eventually imprisoned on trafficking charges.

Now for some *facts*. Epstein was convicted in Florida for procuring an
underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. He was
arrested on charges of sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York
but was not convicted. He died before the case could be brought.

I am not aware of any circumstances that would add up to the NSPCC
definition of 'trafficking' above. Nor can I find any indication that
any of the girls was unwilling.

Many if not most of the girls exploited by the gangs in Rotherham and
other Northern towns were "willing" at least until they were too far
involved to back out.



Google is your friend although you seem to prefer asking naive questions.

Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile' activity with
no clarification. Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'? And is anyone who
has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

Clarification is needed to understand what you're saying. So, do say.

As it happens, Epstein was a convicted paedophile.

So what?

What's more, Prince Andrew was consorting with an underage girl.

You think 17 is underage? Not in the UK it isn't.

And I don't think 'consorting' is a crime anyway.


Even if the girls weren't trafficked, most people probably think using
the services of prostitutes is sufficiently morally despicable to
exclude such users from decent society.



--

Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote:

On 20/11/2019 12:39, pamela wrote:
On 08:51 20 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:

On 20/11/2019 02:07, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:02:34 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

What do you mean by 'trafficking'?

How do you define 'paedophile'? And what evidence do you have?

Ignoring the first two *daft* (even by Usenet standards) questions
for
obvious reasons

No, you can't just gloss over them. You suggested:

"what might well be a huge international paedophile network
trafficking young girls for sex between the rich and powerful".

I don't know what is meant by 'trafficking' in such a context. It's a
strange and rather archaic expression to me that needs some
explanation.
What do *you* mean by it?

Stop being daft. Look it up.

Yes, I have. This is what the NSPCC (who ought to know) says:

"Trafficking is where children and young people tricked, forced or
persuaded to leave their homes and are moved or transported and then
exploited, forced to work or sold."

You don't seem to know the background to this
case at all. The trafficking by Epstein and his madam, Maxwell, was
notorious and Epstiein was eventually imprisoned on trafficking
charges.

Now for some *facts*. Epstein was convicted in Florida for procuring an
underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. He was
arrested on charges of sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York
but was not convicted. He died before the case could be brought.

I am not aware of any circumstances that would add up to the NSPCC
definition of 'trafficking' above. Nor can I find any indication that
any of the girls was unwilling.

Many if not most of the girls exploited by the gangs in Rotherham and
other Northern towns were "willing" at least until they were too far
involved to back out.



Google is your friend although you seem to prefer asking naive
questions.

Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile' activity
with
no clarification. Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'? And is anyone who
has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

Clarification is needed to understand what you're saying. So, do say.

As it happens, Epstein was a convicted paedophile.

So what?

What's more, Prince Andrew was consorting with an underage girl.

You think 17 is underage? Not in the UK it isn't.

And I don't think 'consorting' is a crime anyway.


Even if the girls weren't trafficked, most people probably think using
the services of prostitutes is sufficiently morally despicable to
exclude such users from decent society.

That isnt true of the royals who had been in the Navy. Including Phil.

"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2019 13:19, Pancho wrote:
On 19/11/2019 23:02, Norman Wells wrote:


What do you mean by 'trafficking'?


I was curious about what trafficking meant, so did a quick wiki.

In USA law and in the case of a minor it seems to require nothing more
than inducing an under eighteen year old to commit a sex act.

So maybe the equivalent of the word "procuring" in English law. Just my
suggestion.

s22 Causing prostitution of women

(1)It is an offence for a person€”

(a)to procure a woman to become, in any part of the world, a common
prostitute ; or

(b)to procure a woman to leave the United Kingdom, intending her to become
an inmate of or frequent a brothel elsewhere; or

(c)to procure a woman to leave her usual place of abode in the United
Kingdom, intending her to become an inmate of or frequent a brothel in any
part of the world for the purposes of prostitution.

unquote

Is it central to the American offence of trafficking that the woman ends
up selling sex for money or being part of a brothel?

Hard to claim that any of Epstein's places were technically a brothel.

For some reason I naively thought trafficking involved moving or
transporting but it seems to be closer to meaning "trade". Possibly this
follows from the drug context, as in drug trafficker.

It seems to be a very reasonable question. I would certainly appreciate
correction if I have misunderstood.

"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2019 15:07, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 14:51, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 12:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:

Andrew agrees that he visited Epstein many times. The girl visited
Epstein many times. The fact that both appear on a photograph is not
proof that he had any sexual contact with her.

You discount 'sole purpose of visit' then?

What did he go for, tea and scones?

I do not know. But I think we should be told.

For some reason Emily Maitlis didn't ask him how he spent his time chez
Epstein.

Some questions you just know will not result in any clarification or
revelation.

As Maitlis says in her Times piece, she was surprised by how forthcoming
he was, so ready to answer all questions put to him.

Not all, particularly with what he would do if the cops showed up
and asked him to come down to the cop shop for an interview.

What would he have said? Did they play numerous games of cards, backgammon
and tennis? Did they watch movies together on TV? Did they embark on
earnest discussions about philosophy, religion or economic policy? Was the
Duke single minded about his desire to market British business and British
goods throughout the world, via Epstein's valuable contacts?

On 21/11/2019 00:19:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

On 20/11/2019 12:39, pamela wrote:
On 08:51 20 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:

On 20/11/2019 02:07, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:02:34 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

What do you mean by 'trafficking'?

How do you define 'paedophile'? And what evidence do you have?

Ignoring the first two *daft* (even by Usenet standards) questions for
obvious reasons

No, you can't just gloss over them. You suggested:

"what might well be a huge international paedophile network
trafficking young girls for sex between the rich and powerful".

I don't know what is meant by 'trafficking' in such a context. It's a
strange and rather archaic expression to me that needs some explanation.
What do *you* mean by it?

Stop being daft. Look it up.

Yes, I have. This is what the NSPCC (who ought to know) says:

"Trafficking is where children and young people tricked, forced or
persuaded to leave their homes and are moved or transported and then
exploited, forced to work or sold."

You don't seem to know the background to this
case at all. The trafficking by Epstein and his madam, Maxwell, was
notorious and Epstiein was eventually imprisoned on trafficking charges.

Now for some *facts*. Epstein was convicted in Florida for procuring an
underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. He was
arrested on charges of sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York
but was not convicted. He died before the case could be brought.

I am not aware of any circumstances that would add up to the NSPCC
definition of 'trafficking' above. Nor can I find any indication that
any of the girls was unwilling.

Many if not most of the girls exploited by the gangs in Rotherham and
other Northern towns were "willing" at least until they were too far
involved to back out.



Google is your friend although you seem to prefer asking naive questions.

Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile' activity with
no clarification. Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'? And is anyone who
has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

Clarification is needed to understand what you're saying. So, do say.

As it happens, Epstein was a convicted paedophile.

So what?

What's more, Prince Andrew was consorting with an underage girl.

You think 17 is underage? Not in the UK it isn't.

And I don't think 'consorting' is a crime anyway.


Even if the girls weren't trafficked, most people probably think using
the services of prostitutes is sufficiently morally despicable to
exclude such users from decent society.

Sadly it is less morally reprehensible to make undying promises of an
enduring relationship in order to solicit sex.

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2019 15:07, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 13:19, Pancho wrote:
On 19/11/2019 23:02, Norman Wells wrote:


What do you mean by 'trafficking'?


I was curious about what trafficking meant, so did a quick wiki.

In USA law and in the case of a minor it seems to require nothing more
than inducing an under eighteen year old to commit a sex act.

So maybe the equivalent of the word "procuring" in English law. Just my
suggestion.

s22 Causing prostitution of women

(1)It is an offence for a person€”

(a)to procure a woman to become, in any part of the world, a common
prostitute ; or

(b)to procure a woman to leave the United Kingdom, intending her to
become an inmate of or frequent a brothel elsewhere; or

(c)to procure a woman to leave her usual place of abode in the United
Kingdom, intending her to become an inmate of or frequent a brothel in
any part of the world for the purposes of prostitution.

unquote

Is it central to the American offence of trafficking that the woman ends
up selling sex for money or being part of a brothel?



For some reason I naively thought trafficking involved moving or
transporting but it seems to be closer to meaning "trade". Possibly this
follows from the drug context, as in drug trafficker.

It seems to be a very reasonable question. I would certainly appreciate
correction if I have misunderstood.


Epstein was reportedly charged under 18 U.S. Code §€¯1591 (Sex trafficking
of children or by force, fraud, or coercion) which is similar to
"procuring" but applies only where a person is under 18 and for a
"commercial sex act"[1]. The latter is defined as "any sex act, on account
of which anything of value is given to or received by any person". I've
no idea if "anything of value" means (in UK terms) "money's worth" or
extends to wider benefits.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...77-sec1591.htm

"§1591. Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion

"(a) Whoever knowingly€”

(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits,
entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, or maintains by any means
a person; or

(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from
participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in
violation of paragraph (1),

knowing, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force,
threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any
combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a
commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18
years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be
punished as provided in subsection (b).

etc etc etc"

That one is a federal crime and its far from clear if Andy was
involved in any federal crime, involving any interstate whatever.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile' activity with
no clarification. Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'? And is anyone who
has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

At one time, it meant 'fancying' pre pubescent boys or girls. Now used for
anyone who has sex with one under the age of consent in any particular
country.

Its more complicated than that in most modern first world countries.

Its not pedophilia if the both of them are under the age
of consent by not much or if one of them is only a small
number of years over the age of consent and the other isnt.

"Jeff" wrote in message ...

Are we talking about the same photo?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...nterview#img-3
She is very clearly at least 4" shorter than he is in this photo.
(and we cannot see if she is wearing heals)


He is 6' and Virginia Giuffre is allegedly 5'3", a 9" difference.

But that could just be the heels she was wearing.

Tho it does look like a composite/fake photo to me.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 14:15 20 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:

On 20/11/2019 12:39, pamela wrote:
On 08:51 20 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:

On 20/11/2019 02:07, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:02:34 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

What do you mean by 'trafficking'?

How do you define 'paedophile'? And what evidence do you have?

Ignoring the first two *daft* (even by Usenet standards) questions
for obvious reasons

No, you can't just gloss over them. You suggested:

"what might well be a huge international paedophile network
trafficking young girls for sex between the rich and powerful".

I don't know what is meant by 'trafficking' in such a context. It's a
strange and rather archaic expression to me that needs some
explanation.
What do *you* mean by it?

Stop being daft. Look it up.

Yes, I have. This is what the NSPCC (who ought to know) says:

"Trafficking is where children and young people tricked, forced or
persuaded to leave their homes and are moved or transported and then
exploited, forced to work or sold."

You don't seem to know the background to this case at all. The
trafficking by Epstein and his madam, Maxwell, was notorious and
Epstiein was eventually imprisoned on trafficking charges.

Now for some *facts*. Epstein was convicted in Florida for procuring an
underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. He was
arrested on charges of sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York
but was not convicted. He died before the case could be brought.

I am not aware of any circumstances that would add up to the NSPCC
definition of 'trafficking' above. Nor can I find any indication that
any of the girls was unwilling.

The NSPCC definition is not used in America. Stop being silly by picking
and switching.

No one is doing the same as you by picking the American age for legal sex
and then trying to apply it to Andrews's sexual relationships in London.
That would be foolish and what you are doing is equally foolish.

Roberts does claim the ****ed her multiple times in
the USA tho, so the USA age of consent is relevant.
Tho its hardly a serious crime that he didn’t check
her birth certificate before ****ing her in the USA,

Google is your friend although you seem to prefer asking naive
questions.

Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile' activity
with no clarification. Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'? And is
anyone who has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

Clarification is needed to understand what you're saying. So, do say.

As it happens, Epstein was a convicted paedophile.

So what?

What's more, Prince Andrew was consorting with an underage girl.

You think 17 is underage? Not in the UK it isn't.
And I don't think 'consorting' is a crime anyway.

It is a crime if he had sex with a 17 year old in a jurisdiction where it
is illegal.

You entered this discussion without knowing the facts of the case and as
you have learnt them and seen you're wrong, you are now trying to wheedle
your argument.

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2019 18:32, pamela wrote:

It is a crime if he had sex with a 17 year old in a jurisdiction where it
is illegal.

Is it a crime if done by someone with diplomatic immunity?

Yep, you just cant be successfully prosecuted.

This is a purely semantic question.

A likely story. We know you are Andy, you randy devil.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:22:44 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Is it a crime if done by someone with diplomatic immunity?

Yep, you just cant be successfully prosecuted.

This is a purely semantic question.

A likely story. We know you are Andy, you randy devil.

We know what kind of a senile retard YOU are, senile Rodent! Check sig!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:09:42 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Roberts does claim the ****ed her multiple times in
the USA tho, so the USA age of consent is relevant.
Tho its hardly a serious crime that he didn¢t check
her birth certificate before ****ing her in the USA,

Incapacitated senile 85-year-old losers like you are hardly in a position to
rant about other people's sex lives, you obnoxious trolling senile pest from
Oz!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 11:48:19 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Even if the girls weren't trafficked, most people probably think using
the services of prostitutes is sufficiently morally despicable to
exclude such users from decent society.

That isnt true of the royals who had been in the Navy. Including Phil.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you clinically insane trolling senile
pest? BG

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On 21/11/2019 00:19, Roger Hayter wrote:

Even if the girls weren't trafficked, most people probably think using
the services of prostitutes is sufficiently morally despicable to
exclude such users from decent society.

It wouldn't be the world's oldest profession if there weren't the demand
and the supply. But I'm interested to know why you think it is 'morally
despicable', and the basis on which you think most people probably agree
with you. Where does that moral judgement come from?

Anyway, good luck in your campaign to eliminate it.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:19:14 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Its more complicated than that

In auto-contradicting mode again, you clinically insane, nym-shifting,
senile asshole troll? BG

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:55:14 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


That one is a federal crime and its far from clear if Andy was
involved in any federal crime, involving any interstate whatever.

What is VERY clear is that you are a nym-shifting, trolling, pathological,
senile asshole!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 21/11/2019 05:09, Rod Speed wrote:

Roberts does claim the ****ed her multiple times in
the USA tho, so the USA age of consent is relevant.

If you think there is a 'USA age of consent', do please tell us what is.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:03:31 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Hard to claim that any of Epstein's places were technically a brothel.

What's hard about it, you auto-contradicting senile cretin from Oz?

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID: