Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Prince Andrew loses military titles and patronages – BBC News" video.

Amazing it took this long. As long as he dodges this issue, he should receive no honours or respect from anyone.
154
@youarewhatyouare I'm capable of focussing on more than one thing at a time, and given that I can affect neither of them for at least 4 more years, it's no more effort to listen to this video, than it is to listen to one about Boris. I guess we should be grateful that the channel we all pay for with our licence fee has deigned to permit us to comment on THIS video for a change.
5
@estefanymurillo22 Once he's been proven guilty.
4
@estefanymurillo22 17 is legal in the UK. He's guilty of sex trafficking.
2
@estefanymurillo22 No, there is a clear legal definition of what a pedophile is, and Andrew didn't meet that definition. I agree with you that if he was involved in trafficking a minor (that's not pedophilia) then he deserves punishment, but let's just be clear about our terms. "pedo" is thrown around far too lightly. What he did was serious enough on its own.
1
@estefanymurillo22 1. There is no suggestion by ANYONE that he had sex with a minor. Speculating about what he COULD have done with no suggestion from ANYONE that he did so is pointless. 2. Having sex with a 17 year old is not illegal. 3. I think you are mistaken. Psychological definitions do NOT have legal weight per se. If I went to court and claimed "emotional trauma" that is not a crime, especially as it is subjective, although it may help to inform penalties IF found guilty of an actual crime.
1
@estefanymurillo22 She was 17 at the time. Having sex with a 17 year old is not a crime. As for always believing the victim, how do you know an accuser is a victim until it's proved in court?
1