Prince Andrew named in Pedophile case....Royal Family becoming EXPOSED!!!

Here we have it...the British Royal Family are finally being exposed for what they are, and one of those things is involved in pedophelia. Prince Andrew has been named in court papers in the case involving Jeffrey Epstein. It claims that a woman says she was forced to be an underage sex slave to Prince Andrew many times. There have been many links between the two men which Epstein has tried to hide, but to no avail. Im going to make this op short as i want people to know this as quick as possible.

Pedophile "alleged" Prince Andrew

Link

Read about that earlier.

I considered posting it but wondered if it was worth it. I consider it brave that you did. Too many things have happened to me in the past for speaking out about such things.

There sure is a lot of outing of the upper echelons of society for such crimes and whilst I am not saying he did, it is good that people are speaking out and naming those that need to be named.

I clicked on your link and all I got was this -

The woman claims she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew, according to reports

No story. No names. No dates. No places. No information.

Not exactly a "pedo" girl was 17, still pretty shady though.

Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

A woman who claims that an American investment banker loaned her to rich and powerful friends as an underage “sex slave” has alleged in a US court document that she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew.

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
Not exactly a "pedo" girl was 17, still pretty shady though.

Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

A woman who claims that an American investment banker loaned her to rich and powerful friends as an underage “sex slave” has alleged in a US court document that she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew.

Very bad if true, to an extent. The age of consent in the UK is 16, she claims she was 17 and at least some of the 'offences' happened in London - therefore even if true, she wasn't underage. If it had happened in Florida, than it appears that would be a different question.

Do 17 year olds in Florida really not have sex?

a reply to: liteonit6969
Quick! Get the broom, and lift the corner of the rug!

Should it not be "rape slave" rather than "sex slave"...


Sex is associated with consent.


I don't understand the Media & Justice Systems adherence to this term that misrepresents the actions.





Even so, I doubt that any of this is true.

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
Not exactly a "pedo" girl was 17, still pretty shady though.

Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

A woman who claims that an American investment banker loaned her to rich and powerful friends as an underage “sex slave” has alleged in a US court document that she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew.

In Florida the woman in question would be considered a minor at age 17, hence the sensational headlines.

As for the names, dates, places where this happened, remember the case isn't being brought against Prince Andrew, he was mentioned amongst the names of the rich people the accused apparently loaned her out to.

Still, they're a shady lot those Windsors, but this isn't the smoking gun is it?

a reply to: Jainine

No story. No names. No dates. No places. No information.

Rape victim names and such are kept for there security.

a reply to: Jaininewhere the story should be is a survey click skip survey to read the story.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

American investment banker behind this? I suppose many are masters of deceit.

Shouldn't we be after the prestigious person who brokered the transaction?

I suppose that is not the American way. Here we go after the one who took the bait.

HAHA LOL looks like the royals arent so royal after all.

a reply to: uncommitted

Embarrassing, perhaps, but not bad. 17? Not a paedophile then - that only applies to pre-pubescent children. A girl of 17 is fully developed, so at worst, Prince Andrew (if at all guilty of anything) would only be guilty of underage sex and then only if this wasn't in the UK. If it was in the UK, then no offence has been committed unless she is alleging rape.

It's also quite odd that other women who have sued this friend of Andrew's for sex crimes have all settled out of court - surely if you were abused as a minor you'd want justice to be served, not a cheque? And all civil trials too, no criminal proceedings were brought, which rings alarm bells again as the burden of proof is much lower in a Civil suit as opposed to a Criminal trial.

All stinks of money grabbing, to me.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: Jainine

No story. No names. No dates. No places. No information.

Rape victim names and such are kept for there security.

In a criminal trial, yes, but a Civil suit? There were no criminal proceedings brought by these women - all settled out of court which to me stinks.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: Jainine

No story. No names. No dates. No places. No information.

Rape victim names and such are kept for there security.

I know. And the names of those accused are plastered on every wall. Even if they are inocent.

I think most states here in the US are at least 16 or 17 so no story but she'll get on TV a time or two. Maybe Dr Phil can save her

Pretty much anybody can name anybody in a lawsuit. Being named in a lawsuit is a far cry from being "exposed." It's being named in a lawsuit.

What happens next will be far more telling than simply being named in the suit.

Brave woman or really stupid as the Royals when faced with embarrassing situations have previous for making people Disappear.

Given his reputation and Randy Andy nickname who knows how close to the wire he flew or whether he crossed the line , even if he did I doubt it would ever get to court , it would just be another skeleton in the Royal cupboard.

a reply to: gortex

Like most other normal people, then?

Jeebus, I could be guilty of "historic offences" - I remember a party at my friends house when we were 19, we had some girls round who we thought we 16+ but turns out some were slightly under.. Thankfully, the one I chose was 16, but my mate woke up in the morning with a 15 year old and she started claiming she was raped (she was more than willing the night before though)..

Thankfully for my mate, her friends sorted her out, but my point is crap like this happens the world over...

You go to a mates house, you're single (or not, it happens), the drink flows and he (like many, many other blokes would) said "lets get some girls"...

It's not like they went out kidnapping children, but instead we have a sexually mature and for all intents and purposes a "willing" participant being brought back to somewhere. How many underage girls do something they regret after a Friday night out on the town in the UK - a lot, I can tell you. It was a minefield when I was a lad as you couldn't tell if a girl was 14 or 21, once they have the makeup on, the clothing etc.

Just what the level of coercion was, or in fact if there was any at all, is a mystery and many here are assuming total guilt without even so much as hearing the victims testimony, much less any defence. I also still think it stinks that no criminal charges have been sought - it's part of a private lawsuit.

God forbid any of you get given Jury duty.