TVP is currently assessing one allegation that a woman was trafficked into Britain by Epstein in 2010 to have sex with Mr Mountbatten-Windsor at Royal Lodge in Windsor.
The force has been in contact with the woman’s legal team.
Flying in a willing tart is – these days – classed as trafficking. Which, of course, it ain’t. But that’s the way the extremists have managed to get the law to define it…..
It’s always confused me that “progressives” fight the rearguard. Rather than see smart young women riding the wave of prudery to make a fast buck and get screwed by some VIP, they see the shy retiring wallflower beloved of the Victorians, hauled off by some bloke to ensnare some unsuspecting but lecherous VIP…
Feminism started out being about freedom, but once that was achieved, those sorts of women stopped being involved and were taking advantage of the new opportunities. The vacuum left in the movement that was built was filled with controlling statists. Who of course have the worst version of things because they want more control over other people.
It’s why Bonnie Blue is voting Reform.
Sounds like the usual story of any organisation. Entrepreneurial founders are eventually replaced by HR.
It’s either amusing or irritating that the Fawcett Society is so statist. In reality Millicent Fawcett was a classical liberal who opposed all sorts of state intervention people now think is totally normal.
Feminism was never solely about freedom: it is and always was primarily about promoting the interests of (certain types of) women over those of all men.
NO, it was originally about equal rights and equal opportunities. Certain unpleasant individuals chose to exploit those demands for equal treatment by adding claims for compensation for (real or imaginary) past wrongs [I can remember being told I owed some form of compensation to a woman because people like her grandfather had been rude to my grandmother].
For who John? The upper echelons of the middle classes? It was never of much interest to the working class. Working class women never wanted equality. They wished to be treated with the respect a woman deserves. “Votes For Women” was mostly a relatively small selection of the educated middle-class. Working class people voted in the family interest so it didn’t matter if there was one vote or two. They would produce the same result.
I’m obviously not talking about the “Votes for Women” scam. At the time most (i.e. the working-class) men didn’t have the vote – there was a property qualification that gave votes to a few women in local government elections so there were votes for *some* women when most men did not have the vote.
Equal rights included not giving a husband total ownership and control of his wife’s property, equal opportunities include women being able to study at universities (Cambridge did not officially award degrees to female students until 1948, most of a century after the first women’s college was founded and overe a millennium after men first studied at Oxford), the ability of women to inherit titles (there are a very few pre-mediaeval baronies that can be inherited by women but there were no mediaeval or later ones), …
Who do you think gave a fuck about what went on at universities? Before very recently people got hired because they’d proved they were the people capable of doing the job. And that certainly didn’t exclude women. Apart from some of the professions which as ever pursued a protective “closed shop” policy. If a woman could do the job she got the job. Plenty of examples of that.
Not sure what caused what, but the advent of credentialism – where whether a person is fit to do a job is decided by someone never done a proper job, by giving them a piece of paper – meant a woman who had the piece of paper got the job. Endless examples of that.
Did credentialisation cause feminism or the other way round?
“At the time most (i.e. the working-class) men didn’t have the vote`’; what time do you have in mind?
1910
Google’s AI says “Only about 60% of the adult male population qualified to vote.” i.e. most adult men did have the vote in 1910.
Feminism started out being about . . . .
Y’all are all wrong. Gamecock’s mother was on the front line from the 1950s. It was about equal treatment and equal opportunity. She won two major battles for women. She was the first female health physics tech in the Western world, perhaps the entire world.
But, yes, after successes the movement devolved to commie bullshit.
1950s? How backward the US was.
“The Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 was a landmark United Kingdom law that lifted long-standing legal barriers preventing women from participating in professional and public life.”
Women were first admitted to Edinburgh medical school in 1869. They were not allowed to graduate.
The first women graduates allowed to practise were enrolled in 1916. My grandmother joined up in 1917.
She married “one of the low / on whom assurance sits / like a silk hat on a Bradford millionaire” and when he went bust in the Great Depression she went full time.
My grandmother joined up in 1940 for what became the SOE. Remember that scene in the railway station in Casablanca? My grandma was on that train.
Ha ha ha ha. From the school of “facism-is-fine-as-long-as-they-do-good-things.”
It took us another 50 years before Comintern propaganda got us to give the federal government power over private employment practices.
You think this shit is better than keeping the national government out of the people’s business?
UK is sofa king dead. For the forty-eleventh time, the solution is NOT better policies; it is stripping the governments power to do anything.
Whenever you hear government POLICIES, it means FAILURE. Government should not have policies. It is totalitarian.
Ummm Gamecock…
From Home Owner’s Associations and School Boards all the way up through countless Federal Agencies up to the Entire Mil-Ind complex …..
It’s not as if the US hasn’t got its own Brand of Bureaucrats and Prodnoses…
All *quite* democratic, of course…
And the last attempt at actually doing anything about it… petered out…
Probably according to Keikaku…
Absolutely. I can give you chapter and verse:
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
A bizarre Supreme Court finding.
Result is a fascist nation. 600 federal agencies telling people how they must live.
G Gordon Liddy told the story of an Italian friend visiting him in New York. He took him to a baseball game.
The National Anthem played before the start. When the song came to the line, “O’er the land of the free,” his friend burst out laughing. He thought it was a joke.
*reads up on that one*
Ye gods… If even Wokeypedia is… mildly disdainful… of that particular interpretation…
That’s truly one that only Lawyers™ can come up with….
Yet another example of rhoda’s Schrödinger’s Feminist.
Ah yes…
Is it just trafficking when a hooker gets on a plane, or does an outcall to Surbiton count too?
The odd bit in this is that there is no shortage of home grown slappers, some of them extraordinarily beautiful (and some less so).
Why would anyone go to the trouble and expense of flying one in?
Quite, unless allegedly fully vetted and entirely safe. Provenance. Whoops…
Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria Hungary made his wife infertile by giving her VD that he caught off of the Schonbrunn palace maids, that he had been banging.
And that was his wife’s version & she was, unfortunately for him, believed..
“these days – classed as trafficking” Was it so classified in 2010? Was “trafficking” even an offence in England and Wales in 2010?
It’s a variant of the Mann Act. I dunno whether that has clauses about crossing international boundaries as well.
Doesn’t really matter in this case. Statute of limitations makes it moot. In US, that is.
I discussed Epstein cases with my district attorney neighbor. Gave me a headache. Departing from US airports would make Mann Act apply. Epstein Island is in US territory, anyway, so US law would apply to what happened there.
There is no specific statement in the Telegraph report from where the tart was imported from.
Is there a hooker equivalent of Temu ir AliBaba ?
Order on the interwebs and three weeks later turns up plastered with postage stamps.
Dunno but sending humans by post used to be legal in England.
An accountant called W. Reginald Bray that the law said living things larger than a bee but smaller than an elephant could be sent via the Royal Mail, and ‘posted’ himself successfully in 1900 and again in 1903.
A pair of suffragettes also sent themselves to 10 Downing Street in 1909 (Asquith’s office refused to accept the ‘parcels’.)
It was only made illegal in 1920.
They could have been left in a ‘safe place’, or tried Lloyd George next door, he’d have been delighted, the randy old sod.
Does Andrew still have the money to afford good, independent, legal representation?
Because this looks like he’s been thrown to the lions, with detectives leaking to the press to let you know how wide this fishing expedition goes:
Detectives are understood to be concerned that the public believes they are only focused on claims that the former Prince leaked documents to Jeffrey Epstein, when the legal terms of the offence under investigation are much broader.
They’re building a Wicker Man, and they’re putting Andrew in it, because they hope a blood sacrifice will spare them? If a former Prince of the Realm, and Falklands war hero can find himself completely monstered by the British press, robbed of his birthright, and subjected to the full dildo of British criminal justice, all without any crime having been proven (!), what does that mean?
Yeah, that’s enough. Well past enough. Past sexual offences? If she didn’t report it at the first opportunity, it never happened or was not an offence.
Ideed, if some person not being a virgin was shagged in disputed circumsntances sixteen years ago and suffered no physical harm it is not justified to lock someone up today, or to indict them.
It does seem very late in the day to raise accusations against him. Epstein died 7 years ago.
Agreed. It is sleazy government, trying to get in on the Epstein excitement. And embarass royalty.
The force has been in contact with the woman’s legal team.
Never trust a woman who has a ‘legal team.’ Okay, okay, “Never trust a woman” works, too.
The charge is that he leaked documents. 16 years ago. What did the cops think they’d find, Melania’s panties?
What possible evidence could there be that he leaked documents 16 years ago? Receipts?
Not that it’s a defence, a mere mitigation, that I’m dubious that Andy had access to anything very important. Not sure it’s a national security concern if, say, Mossad finds out the UK wants to sell more beetroot to Albania. I thought everyone knew he was a prize bellend, and letting him be a playboy pitchman for Trade was about schmoozing and boozing other top knobs from other countries? Something he was actually good at – a lot of his counterparts appreciated British royal flattery, the currency of their association. But he probably wasn’t carrying the nuclear secrets, eh?
The teddy bears stuff, and the Royal Lodge wall-to-wall full of hoarded Amazon boxes and spiders, is the key. Andrew is, unfortunately, a man child. He can’t be trusted with grown up responsibilities, due to his messed up childhood and upbringing, which are not his fault. His reputation has been murdered by a thousand cuts of innuendo, but – so far – no proven wrongdoing.
He deserves independent legal defence, and I’m not sure if that’s possible if the brother who took his birthright is also funding his legal bills. The cops’ leaking is imo a confession, this is a “show me the man, I’ll show you the crime” jobby. And unfortunately for Andrew, he is personally unlikable, so he’s not well equipped to deal with being the sacrificial goat.
However, remember the debates over Shamina Begum? The ISIS bride? There were plenty of people in Britain willing to speak in her defence, and claim she was treated unjustly. Prince Andrew has no defenders. Isn’t that sad, for a knight of the garter?
It means that they are trying to distract attention from their own crimes and the impact of their idiocies (which are *not* crimes in English law because their motive was not to make millions unemployed). The press loathe war heroes.
They’ll harry him for the rest of his life now, because the aim is to destroy England and the English and through him they think they can sink the monarchy.
They’ll harry him
Good one.
It does rather raise the question why certain people can’t find a local willing tart, doesn’t it?
And why would the john care from where she came? The alleged trafficking offense was EPSTEIN’S.