Wednesday, January 07, 2015

Newsflash!

Prince Andrew has denied press allegations that he has had sex with an under-age girl .

Where is Mandy Rice-Davies when we need her?

18 comments:

  1. The irony is that in UK law said girl would not have been underage - the press is focusing on the fact that she was 17 at the time (and hence underage in the jurisdiction where the acts were alleged to take place, but not here), rather than on the claim that she was coerced into said acts, which would make it rape both in UK law and in the law of the jurisdiction where the alleged acts happened.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In Australia the Herald Sun refers to her as a 'sex slave'

    ReplyDelete
  3. The age of consent is 16 in the UK and 17 in New York State. Virginia Roberts was 17 and the Duke of York was 42 and divorced at the time of the alleged coupling so neither under-aged sex nor even adultery took place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Florida's age of consent is 18, which is why the papers were lodged there.

      Delete
  4. "Where is Mandy Rice-Davies when we need her? "

    Having been both sentient and post pubescent at the time of her initial fame, I can recall that she was, in the vernacular of the time, "a dolly bird".

    Alas, she has gone on to her final reward and now sleeps with the angels, so to speak.

    I'm sure we can locate an effective doppelganger.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's a nice smarmy insinuation of Prince Andrew's guilt there.

    Do you believe in the principle of being presumed innocent before trial? Or was your comment an attempt at humour?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get real Brian - not only was it funny, it is also expressing the suspicions that everyone I have spoken about this have voiced themselves - the issue of proven guilt is an entirely different beast from what an awful lot of people believe.

      Delete
    2. The reference to Mandy Rice Davis gives us a historical perspective on the ageless pursuit of firm flesh. Will the congenital idiots who comprise the so-called Establishment never learn their lesson?

      It seems from the media ventilation of his social life, that Prince Andrew has had his fair share of attractive young women. Come to think of it, he has probably had mine as well. And certainly Old Geezer's, who fatally mixed up sensual and sentient in his chat-up line.

      Delete
    3. Alas, at the time in question I was not sensual, but I was sentient. The wound was therefore not fatal, and I shall live on to confuse others another day.

      Cheers!

      Delete
  6. I noted that the statement denied only that he had had sex with an "under-age minor", which - strictly speaking - doesn't rule out the possibility of sex with a minor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean a Morris minor ?

      Delete
  7. I enjoyed Ms.Rice-Davies' put down of Ivan Lawrence QC when he doubted that she uttered those words back in '63, justified by 'I have my handwritten notes in front of me'. It drew from her the casual retort: 'I have the court transcript in front of me'; as casual as swatting a troublesome gadfly, I'd say...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sex with a minor of 16 or 17 is not an offence in the absence of coercion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not in (many parts of) the USA, and hideously complex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws

      Delete
  9. Who really gives a toss if those allegedly involved were willing participants and of majority. From what we read this lady was intent on putting herself around the social circuit. iyt might make good copy but it is nothing more than Hilda Ogden peering( and sneering) through the net curtain.

    You can't tell me the object of the exercise is anything else other than to extract money......................

    ReplyDelete
  10. Things ain't what they used to be.13 January 2015 at 07:11

    This site purports to stand up for the rights of the individual but this nasty smear flies in the face of it.

    The author should be ashamed of him/herself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It also pokes fun at those who put themselves on offer, refers to historical similarity and updates it with contemporary comment - the only shame due is upon you for your prurient attitude.

      Delete
    2. things aint what they used to be14 January 2015 at 08:28

      Oh really, I am all for people being innocent until proved otherwise and the sexual aspect is irrelevant. Not sure you actually knew what prurient meant. but we will let that pass.. and Its not contemporary comment, its a straightforward smear...

      Delete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.