Spare Harry

[Jubbs]

8 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

The age of consent is 16. So doing it with a 17 year old is not, in itself, illegal.

Firstly, these crimes Prince Andrew has been accused of (he 10000% is guilty) happened in the US Virgin Islands, where the age of consent is 18. 

Secondly, the victim(s) were sex trafficked, which if you didn't know is illegal, even worse as it was an abuse of power as well. 

Thirdly, it certainly doesn't help his innocence when he gets his mummy to pay an out of court settlement of £12m. I'm not sure I'd be doing that if I was innocent. 

[Magicman]

Both Harry & Meghan have been telling lies that were exposed when fact checked. They are a toxic couple of celebrity wokers. Money grabbers , victimhood & hypocrisy knows no limits when the smell of $$$ is in the air. 

[Carl Sagan]

20 minutes ago, Srg said:

Didn’t it involve sex trafficking and/or abuse of a position of power, because that is. 

Abuse/position of power is immoral but not illegal. Look at Clinton and Lewinsky. Sex trafficking always illegal, but that's never been proven in this case. I don't suppose we'll ever know.

[sage]

27 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

The age of consent is 16. So doing it with a 17 year old is not, in itself, illegal.

In which country ?

[1of4]

If I had any sympathy for any of the privileged tossers, who are embroiled in this whole fiasco. Then it would probably be Harry. Yes he's been a dick with some of what he's said, but I think some of this as come from the same frustration many of us have experienced, when we have been in conflict with a large authoritarian organisation.

[Srg]

10 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Abuse/position of power is immoral but not illegal. Look at Clinton and Lewinsky. Sex trafficking always illegal, but that's never been proven in this case. I don't suppose we'll ever know.

Not true. Teachers can be jailed, and have as it happened at my old school, for having sexual relations with pupils that were of legal age. 

[RoyMac5]

12 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

If I had any sympathy for any of the privileged tossers, who are embroiled in this whole fiasco. Then it would probably be Harry. Yes he's been a dick with some of what he's said, but I think some of this as come from the same frustration many of us have experienced, when we have been in conflict with a large authoritarian organisation.

What him rather than the others who have to 'knuckle down' and get on with their duty?

[AndyinLiverpool]

36 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Abuse/position of power is immoral but not illegal. Look at Clinton and Lewinsky. Sex trafficking always illegal, but that's never been proven in this case. I don't suppose we'll ever know.

It can out you in prison and it'll put you on the sex offenders register.

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

[Elwood P Dowd]

If I were to be generous to Harry I would advise him to spend his book money on the best head doctor he can afford. 
 

If there was a whinging event at the Olympics he would be a certainty for the gold medal.

[PistoldPete]

39 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

It can out you in prison and it'll put you on the sex offenders register.

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

So you have sex with your secretary is that an offence. Asking for a friend. Actually the only thing i see is abuse of position of trust , someone under 18 and in an institution. An abuse of power is immoral think as the poster said but not illegal. 

Edited January 9, 2023 by PistoldPete

[GboroRam]

Well, I hear Harry is pretty bitter about the toxic British press, which I understand and agree with. 

He's angry about the press coverage of Orgreave? Er, no. 

Phone hacking scandal? No, not that either. 

Hillsborough? No, that's not it. 

Being nasty about his wife and dead mum? That's it, yes. 

[TigerTedd]

7 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

So you have sex with your secretary is that an offence. Asking for a friend. 

It’s professional abuse, which in itself is part of the category of organisational abuse, which is outlined As one of 10 forms of abuse in the care act. 

However, that’s talking specifically about people at risk. So is she in some way vulnerable, and unable to protect herself?

I teach safeguarding, main in terms of kids and older people, so this would be an interesting debate. 

In the case of Andrew, a 17 year old is still a child, so there should be a decision made in court as to her capacity to consent. Although 16 is the legal age to be able to consent, it doesn’t mean you still can’t be coerced to consent, and as you’re still technically a child, it means you’re still more vulnerable to coercion. 

Also, she’s technically a child, so, either way, any grown man shagging a child, needs to take a good look in the mirror. Shagging a child isn’t on, no matter what the technicalities might be. 

[Elwood P Dowd]

2 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Well, I hear Harry is pretty bitter about the toxic British press, which I understand and agree with. 

He's angry about the press coverage of Orgreave? Er, no. 

Phone hacking scandal? No, not that either. 

Hillsborough? No, that's not it. 

Being nasty about his wife and dead mum? That's it, yes. 

You underestimate Harry,  no matter the subject he can always identify the slight, within the subject, that was personally aimed at him.

[Day]

Fair play to him, seen an opportunity to make a few quid as there is an audience for this kind of content and taken it.

That security to keep his family safe in a country where it's legal to own a gun won't come cheap.

Why there is an audience I'm not entirely sure, maybe it scratches that itch Jeremy Kyle disappearing off our screens left behind.

Oprah, Netflix, book I guess the next step will be to take that tedious couple from Nottingham on in this years Christmas number 1 with some anti Camilla catchy song.

[Crewton]

54 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

So you have sex with your secretary is that an offence. Asking for a friend. Actually the only thing i see is abuse of position of trust , someone under 18 and in an institution. An abuse of power is immoral think as the poster said but not illegal. 

I believe that's right, but if he was involved in or aware of the trafficking aspect, I think that would make him an accessory. 

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, sage said:

Not a massive fan but i'm also very suspicious when the media launch attacks every week for years. 

I would point out having money doesn't mean happiness or having good mental health. 

You could almost believe that  "Look over there - MEGHAN!!!" is official government policy, the way it is eagerly churned out by their media chums and gleefully consumed by a proportion of the public. Members of the Outer Party only had to attend a Two Minutes Hate aimed at Goldstein once a day - this is just endless.

It's almost as though they were trying to divert attention from something else. Surely not?

[ilkleyram]

1 hour ago, TigerTedd said:

It’s professional abuse, which in itself is part of the category of organisational abuse, which is outlined As one of 10 forms of abuse in the care act. 

However, that’s talking specifically about people at risk. So is she in some way vulnerable, and unable to protect herself?

I teach safeguarding, main in terms of kids and older people, so this would be an interesting debate. 

In the case of Andrew, a 17 year old is still a child, so there should be a decision made in court as to her capacity to consent. Although 16 is the legal age to be able to consent, it doesn’t mean you still can’t be coerced to consent, and as you’re still technically a child, it means you’re still more vulnerable to coercion. 

Also, she’s technically a child, so, either way, any grown man shagging a child, needs to take a good look in the mirror. Shagging a child isn’t on, no matter what the technicalities might be. 

Serious question. Would, in your view, the older woman who took Harry’s 17 year old innocence behind the pub, be in any sort of difficulty from a legal perspective, given the propensity to prosecute sex offences many years after the event? 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, David said:

Why there is an audience I'm not entirely sure

Are you kidding? People in this country are still obsessed with the Royal family, and as we witnessed last year, woe betide anyone who says a bad thing about them. Until it's one of the Royals saying bad things about them. At which point I get the popcorn and settle in for the fireworks

If you ask me - the Royals all seem to be pretty abominable human beings, and the spectacle of them ripping each other apart is oddly satisfying. Not least because the tabloids are all in meltdown over it too. Sod the lot of them. Wait till King Charles rolls out his brand new gold coronation carriage in the middle of a cost of living crisis. Some of us might not have the strength left to doff our caps

 

[Day]

22 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Are you kidding? People in this country are still obsessed with the Royal family, and as we witnessed last year, woe betide anyone who says a bad thing about them. Until it's one of the Royals saying bad things about them. At which point I get the popcorn and settle in for the fireworks

If you ask me - the Royals all seem to be pretty abominable human beings, and the spectacle of them ripping each other apart is oddly satisfying. Not least because the tabloids are all in meltdown over it too. Sod the lot of them. Wait till King Charles rolls out his brand new gold coronation carriage in the middle of a cost of living crisis. Some of us might not have the strength left to doff our caps

I mean I get it, but I don't at the same time.

It's a bit like that Love Island on ITV, social media becomes obsessed by it and I just can't wrap my head around why.

The only thing I can really put it down to is we as a nation love watching drama unfold, be it a football club rivalry, peeping out the curtains watching the neighbours scrap on the street or celebrities going at it on social media and TV.

I'm just not arsed by it, especially the he said this, she said that Royal Family drama, it's kinda pathetic, like watching my sister and her fella argue on Facebook knowing full well they are sat in the same room together.

With all these YouTuber boxing matches, get the pair of them in the ring, fight till one gets knocked out and be done with it.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

Are you kidding? People in this country are still obsessed with the Royal family, and as we witnessed last year, woe betide anyone who says a bad thing about them. Until it's one of the Royals saying bad things about them. At which point I get the popcorn and settle in for the fireworks

If you ask me - the Royals all seem to be pretty abominable human beings, and the spectacle of them ripping each other apart is oddly satisfying. Not least because the tabloids are all in meltdown over it too. Sod the lot of them. Wait till King Charles rolls out his brand new gold coronation carriage in the middle of a cost of living crisis. Some of us might not have the strength left to doff our caps

 

Wolfie had the right idea.

Come the revolution, brothers and sisters - up against the wall, bop bop bop.