Georgie Ziadie, known as Lady Colin Campbell, is a well-known British socialite descended from a powerful family in Jamaica. She recently made news in the UK after she defended pederasty as well as the relationship between Prince Andrew of the British Royal family and the infamous pedophile with direct ties (through his contacts as well as the admissions of Alex Acosta) to Jeffrey Epstein.
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.
…
Lady Colin Campbell said on the show today: ‘You all seem to have forgotten that Jeffrey Epstein, the offence for which he was charged and for which he was imprisoned, was for soliciting prostitution from minors.
‘That is not the same thing as paedophilia.’
She said it was ‘prostitution’ when Morgan asked what she would call it.
But the 54-year-old journalist said:’If you solicited a 14-year-old for prostitution, you’re a paedophile.’
Lady Campbell said: ‘It doesn’t matter.’
A shocked Morgan hit back: ‘It does matter. You’re procuring an underage girl for sex.’
He added: ‘That’s what he was convicted of! I’m sorry, I’m sorry, with respect, that is nonsense.’
Lady Campbell replied: ‘Was he? 14? Well, I’m not justifying Jeffrey Epstein.’
‘Paedophilia, I suspect there’s a difference between a minor and a child.’ (source)
Now if one wants to get highly “technical”, as I have discussed before, there is a difference between a post-pubescent but legally underage teenager versus a pre-pubescent teenager or a younger person. I have discussed this in previous article However, this is NOT the point that matters here because the point here is a matter of principle.
Under the law, largely due to American influence, there is a general understanding that 18 is the age at which a person becomes an adult. This is an arbitrary number (a compromise between 15 and 20) that was established at the beginning of the 20th century. However, this is the social standard used by governments around the world for establishing legality in terms of age for eligibility as well as crimes.
Standards exist for a reason the same way that rules exist in a game, which is to provide fixed points and unchangeable boundaries that in case of a controversy, they can be referred back to for guidance. This is where the phrase “moving the goalpost” comes from, as it signifies a person who changes their fundamental definitions of a subject after having established in during the middle of an argument in order to try to win the argument by dishonest means. One does not “move the goalpost” during a soccer or football game because that would result in changing the standards by which one determines if a particular kick or pass is legitimate for point, and the same case is how the law is intended to function.
Right now there is a concerted effort that is being made by the sodomites and their supporters to redefine the “age of consent” in order to justify their own barbaric tendencies towards raping children in lust-fueled rampages. Such a striking example of this is Gary Michael Voris of Church Militant’s interview with the pederast and sodomite Milo Yiannopoulos when they “agreed” that the age of consent should be lowered to sixteen. This is not because they believe in a more objective standard of what the age is that a person enters into adulthood, but because they both have long histories with sodomite behavior and want to acquire a legal means to indulge themselves with younger and younger people.
Prince Andrew recently did an interview with the BBC that some people are calling the biggest public relations disaster for the Royal Family since the scandal over the death of Princess Diana in 1997. The interview, which is interesting to watch, shows a clearly nervous Prince Andrew attempting to deny his connections to Epstein and any possible links to having sex with minors.
In a grand mea culpa, Andrew concedes that his friendship was not “becoming of a member of the Royal Family.” But far from repairing the PR damage done to Britain’s Royal Family, his move may have been a ‘catastrophic’ own-goal by his Palace handlers.
When asked why he stayed at the Epstein mansion after knowing he was already branded a convicted offender, the Prince answered simply, “It was a convenient place to stay.”
This, and other gaffs has led top media lawyer, Mark Stephens, who previously represented Princess Diana’s lover James Hewitt, to issue harsh skepticism as to whether this was a wise move to push Andrew back into the spotlight. He told the Guardian:
“This strategy only works if you’ve got a complete and full answer to every possible question, and here there are too many loose ends.”
“If he’d kept his silence he’d have been able to remain outside of the case, as he’s a witness and is entitled to diplomatic immunity. He was a private individual and now he’s waived that privacy.”
Entertainment PR agent Mark Borkowski, added:
“Andrew has never enjoyed the company of journalists, and always kept the press firmly at arm’s length. Doing something so public is a high-risk strategy, and likely just to draw more attention to the issue without changing any minds.” (source)
Consider also that possibly the worst pedophile in the UK’s history, the infamous Jimmy Savile, had very close ties to the Royal Family, and was a frequent visitor as well as was even claimed by a former employee of the Royal family to have been nominated as a potential godfather for Prince Harry.
The Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal involved at least 450 victims, with current accusations against him up to 589, and one can only guess if there were more victims.
Then there are curious videos such as this, which appear to show a naked teenager climbing out of window from Buckingham Palace before falling what appears to be a long way.
Some people have claimed this was a movie being filmed, yet upon investigation I have not been able to find proof to substantiate this. What makes this video more suspicious is how Buckingham Palace has refused to clarify the situation by refusing to comment on it. Likewise, noting the fact that he only has one sock on, there is no evidence of film crews, the bed sheets, the fall, and no context in a film to place this into, it is very strange.
Generally speaking and especially within the English-speaking world, people who refuse to comment on things of an open and potentially highly scandalous nature usually are guilty of them.
The issue is far bigger than just this one socialite. The UK has a notorious history of such behavior, as do all major nations (one only needs to look at the US or Russia to see this), and the connections between the abuse of the innocent and these elite social, financial, industrial, and political circles will be something to watch the news about for the years to come.