Outrage as Lady Colin Campbell claims soliciting sex from minors 'is not the same as paedophilia' in Good Morning Britain interview on Prince Andrew

Lady Colin Campbell has caused outrage after claiming soliciting sex from minors 'is not the same as paedophilia'.

The socialite, 70, made the comments on Good Morning Britain while discussing Prince Andrew and his friendship with the paedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.

She faced a backlash from presenter Piers Morgan after she said there was a difference between hiring sex from a minor and paedophilia.

The former TV personality defended the Duke of York - who is recovering from a 'car crash' interview aired on Saturday night - and his friendship with the late financier Epstein, a 66-year-old convicted sex offender who died in custody in New York in August.




https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7698157/Lady-Colin-Campbell-claims-soliciting-sex-minors-not-paedophilia.html


Beggars belief

Since when does attending parties where 17 and 18 year old girls are present automatically become "soliciting sex from minors"  (i.e. children under the age of consent, i.e.16)  ???

Prince Andrew may be a sleazebag, and obviously not the sharpest pencil in the box --  but the anti-monarchist and #me_too! brigades in Britain are going that extra step, by openly accusing him of paedophilia and underage sex..

Whether he turns out to be innocent or guilty, the 'usual suspects' in the Brit media are still publicallly making these inferences, well beyond what the prince's 3 American accusers are claiming.

Just what I thought Wolfie !

'Wolfie wrote:

Since when does attending parties where 17 and 18 year old girls are present automatically become "soliciting sex from minors"  (i.e. children under the age of consent, i.e.16)  ???

The issue is with the Lady claiming 14 year olds are not minors, claiming they are prostitutes. 

Which is absolute nonsense

Why is the polarity between 'underaged' and 'prostitutes'? They go to two different concepts?

I, too, think Campbell is nutz. But she is trying to differentiate between a psychological predilection, and a commercial transaction. The question is, why raise the distinction...child abuse is child abuse? Who cares what path one took to get there.

The great and unanswered questions are, of course, what is the actual purpose of "Lady" Colin Campbell? - and just what bloody use to humanity is a "socialite"?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:The great and unanswered questions are, of course, what is the actual purpose of "Lady" Colin Campbell? - and just what bloody use to humanity is a "socialite"?

Gd. question. I just joined in mid-conversation, so I don't know the answer. I assumed that she was somehow someone of importance over there. A conservative pundit, perhaps?

Two things are being confused here.

The age of consent is one thing.

But the bar is higher for the age of consent in certain instances - namely  prostitution [and other 'gateway professions' allied to prostitution - like stripper, lapdancer, pole dancer, masseurs].

Case in point : billionaire Silvio Berlusconi the ex Italian Prime minister was prosecuted for having sex with a young girl who was above the age of consent, but still below the age at which a girl can be procured for sex as a hooker. She was just 17.

Prostitute or not, a girl aged 14 is underage. Any man that requests a girl of that age is a paedophile.

These traffickers are paedophiles fullstop. Yes, some of the girls are sexually mature, in their late teens,  but they have been groomed and  trafficked and passed around like meat ever since they were under-age

So Lady Campbell is wrong. Trafficking at ANY age is part of the paedophile spectrum of crimes.

The evil Muslim gangs who abused girls were all called paedophiles no matter if the girls were below or above the age of consent.  Similarly Epstein & his cohorts can rightfully be called paedo's too and this is the crime he was convicted for.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:The great and unanswered questions are, of course, what is the actual purpose of "Lady" Colin Campbell? - and just what bloody use to humanity is a "socialite"?

Gd. question.  I just joined in mid-conversation, so I don't know the answer.  I assumed that she was somehow someone of importance over there.  A conservative pundit, perhaps?

I know not, nor indeed do I care, whether she's "conservative" or "a Conservative"...but I'm working class Northerner enough to regard people who describe themselves as "socialites" to be a fucking waste of time and space when all that it really means is that they host hugely expensive parties for  people of their own ilk who are similarly pompous, posturing and pretentious. (adjectives and alliteration working overtime again!!!)

She gained her title through an extremely short marriage to a minor member of the nobility; has an interesting family and medical background (far too intimate for your innocent ears,Quill old chap, but Wiki makes interesting reading) and has written a book or two about our Royals based on what is probably her overblown claim of close friendship to the great and the good.

In my book she's simply listed as an infuriatingly silly and annoying old trout.

Wiki is interesting. So, she is a writer of books on royalty.

I'm curious...Campbell is a Scottish name, from Inveraray, no? Whom did she marry?

Original Quill wrote:Wiki is interesting.  So, she is a writer of books on royalty.
,
I'm curious...Campbell is a Scottish name, from Inveraray, no?  Whom did she marry?

The youngest son of the (non Royal) Duke of Argyll. Great Burke's Peerage lineage and pedigree though not very high in the national nobility pecking order.

Admittedly, the Campbells are a noble and most honourable Clan, as opposed to my own...a mere sept of the historically more significant Clan Keith.

At least it means that as a Yorkshireman, I am entitled to wear a rather rice tartan on Burns Night....the trews and not the kilt, though. I have too much respect for my, er crown jewels, than to submit them to the traditional "nae knickers" requirement of the kilt on a freezing cold January night!

The fallout is epic!! He will lose his £248K pa salary and have to clear his desk and dismiss his huge staff. (Not that he's in any danger of starving anytime soon, with his mum being the reigning monarch.)


One thing that struck me is the way his daughter's fiancé suddenly cut & run last year, after nearly TEN years of courtship. Puzzling! He is American and it's like he knew something was in the air?    He escaped from the mess just in time.

You've got to feel sorry the two princesses, they don't need this!

Fred M. wrote:Admittedly, the Campbells are a noble and most honourable Clan, as opposed to my own...a mere sept of the historically more significant Clan Keith.

Congratulations on the Clan Keith. Definitely a noble clan from the north.

The Campbells are neither noble nor honourable. They are traitors to Scots. I visit Inveraray, in Argyll, merely to pee on their graves.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:Admittedly, the Campbells are a noble and most honourable Clan, as opposed to my own...a mere sept of the historically more significant Clan Keith.

Congratulations on the Clan Keith.  Definitely a noble clan from the north.

The Campbells are neither noble nor honourable.  They are traitors to Scots.  I visit Inveraray, in Argyll, merely to pee on their graves.

I take it that you don't sing "The Campbells are Coming" in your shower then?

Over here, as on Mull and Morvern, they are known as 'the hated Campbells', with a thick brogue.

Living With the Curse of the Campbells

From Glencoe to Victoria, is there no place the clan of ‘the twisted mouth’ won’t go to wreak havoc?

The arrival of Robbie Burns Day this Sunday invites contemplation of Scotland’s most infamous clan. We speak, of course, of the Campbells. And we ask, are the Campbells cursed?

Original Quill wrote:Over here, as on Mull and Morvern, they are known as 'the hated Campbells', with a thick brogue.

Living With the Curse of the Campbells

From Glencoe to Victoria, is there no place the clan of ‘the twisted mouth’ won’t go to wreak havoc?

The arrival of Robbie Burns Day this Sunday invites contemplation of Scotland’s most infamous clan. We speak, of course, of the Campbells. And we ask, are the Campbells cursed?

Yes, to adapt a famous quotation by one of your own Presidents, 13th February 1692 is a date that will forever live in infamy in Bonnie Scotland.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:Admittedly, the Campbells are a noble and most honourable Clan, as opposed to my own...a mere sept of the historically more significant Clan Keith.

Congratulations on the Clan Keith.  Definitely a noble clan from the north.

The Campbells are neither noble nor honourable.  They are traitors to Scots.  I visit Inveraray, in Argyll, merely to pee on their graves.

Yes they are, as the motto of both the Keiths and the sept name that I am privileged to bear proudly as part of my own full moniker proclaims: Veritas vincit.