It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 10
71
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
Hey, you know that I respect you dearly, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I know its because of the law differences, but here 17 is considered a minor. Besides, even so we're not talking about a random 19 year old sleeping with a 17 year old at a party; we're talking about a disgusting loser in his 40s and his pedophile friend exploiting an underage girl in high school.

At the very best, he slept with an underage (by north american laws) girl at his pedophile friend's house, a guy who got off easy due to his friends in high places. The name of this thread is NOT misleading, because Andrew WAS indicated in a pedophile case, as he was mentioned in documents the accuser submitted as part of the evidence for the previous case against Epstein, which she is trying to extend.




posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: VirusGuard
a reply to: beansidhe



She is claiming she was forced to have sex. Forced sex is rape. She is claiming that she has been raped.


She was forced OK, forced by the size of his cheque book and not his manhood.




How dare you.
The woman said she was forced to have sex with Andrew, when she was a minor. The comment you made was disgusting, absolutely disgusting.

She didn't say she was paid, she said forced.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: HumanPLC

originally posted by: tomcat415
a reply to: liteonit6969 grow up you idiot do you always accuse people before a court date just shows how sad sick and a very little iq you have



Sorry to be a bit anal, but a person who was awaiting a court date, technically would be the accused!

Seriosuly though, cant we just stop the name calling and stick to gathering some facts, for and against


Sorry, but you are the one that seems to be throwing mud hoping it will stick. Would you like to go and gather facts - not speculative articles from newspapers that infer but offer no facts - then report back, or would you rather state your own opinion and treat that as a fact? Seems a lot of people on here would rather do the latter.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: HumanPLC



And there we have it ladies and gentleman; the award for the most ignorant comment ever made on ATS goes to this user!


Don't know M8 but you seem to know how a rapist would act better than i know how me or my mates would act on a night out.

WAP



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: tomcat415
So your argument is basically something bad happened to you so it must be the same situation happening to Andrew? What say you about his pedophile friendship with Epstein? It sucks that that happened to you, but this is a different case. Andrew already admitted to being in the pedophiles mansions for parties and receiving massages, which have been proven to be more than that (in the original court case against Epstein).


a reply to: VirusGuard
What a friggen ignorant bunch of comments. MysterX answered the worst one. I hope you never have a daughter.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: beansidhe

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: uncommitted

My point earlier was solely to clarify the misapprehension between rape and statutory rape. I haven't commented on the OP.



The word rape is not used anywhere I have seen, rather that she was a sex slave


Sex slave? Oh, that's ok then. That would imply equality, respect and consent. Would it?

Andrew has chosen to remain freindly with a Schedule One offender, even after charges had been brought, according to the Guardian article. That is interesting, I would say, although not proof of anything.


No, I'm not suggesting for a second the term 'sex slave' is ok, that would be ridiculous. I was referring to the fact that the woman has not said she was raped.


She has.




A woman has alleged in papers filed in Florida that she was forced to have sex with Andrew when she was 17, which is under the age of consent in the state, according to the Guardian.


www.heraldscotland.com...

She is claiming she was forced to have sex. Forced sex is rape. She is claiming that she has been raped.


Technically he hasn't been accused of anything, she also appears to be saying a third party forced her to have sex with others, rather than the person who allegedly had sex with her. That would be like someone telling me I must visit someone else and have sex with them. Would that mean the person I had sex with raped me, or that the person who told me to go there actually committed the crime?

I can't really answer the legal complexities of that, not sure if you can, but as at the moment these are allegations only it's nothing more than an exercise in understanding how that would be interpreted legally.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

I there was solid evidence then he would be in jail. Im not here to bring solid evidence, im just trying to offer info which is very important. Also any underage sex slavery is vile so people need to stop trying to pick at the semantics and discuss the real issue in exploiting young girls.


Sex slavery is a very serious accusation to be making.

The gentleman in question is innocent unless evidence can be provided to the contrary. Testimony is not proof, it has to be corroborated with evidence. That is my point. I was not saying that the concept of sex slavery is not heinous.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate


I've just seen enough to know that your daughter is in great risk and your casual acceptance is most repugnant.....carry on.


She's at great risk of what?

And why would my daughters be at greater risk than a son?

It's all just double-standards and cultural morality. Girls can only be put in "compromising situations" because we teach them that sex is bad and women who like sex are whores.

We also place an arbitrary amount of stock into the idea that women are weak and vulnerable and easily manipulated sexually.

I'm sorry, but I am not going to raise my daughter to be a victim.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted




That would be like someone telling me I must visit someone else and have sex with them. Would that mean the person I had sex with raped me, or that the person who told me to go there actually committed the crime?


Technically two crimes have been committed and so both parties could be charged, if you went to the police and reported the offence.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Michael Jackson was exposed at least twice. The victim was paid off and he is still treated like royalty instead of the child molester he was.
this will be a repeat scenario most likely even if he is innocent.


Exactly right.

Not only that, there were more than two children who said Michael Jackson slept in the bed with him and even Michael Jackson said that. But how many people thought it was soooo cute that he acted like a little kid when talking about it. He was a pedophile and got out of it.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Ridhya

As I thought I had made clear, I am in no way defending the Prince's honour here, because clearly even if he is not a child abuser by the standard of the nation of his birth, he is a lecherous scumbag, with no personal honour or sense of chivalry what so ever, and his conduct is unbecoming of his station.

However, I still maintain that a)

Unless a case is bought against him, the allegations where they specifically refer to him breaking the law are at the very least questionable, and that any case based on what we know at the moment, would be circumstantial in its entirety.

b)

That Prince Andrew is not a child abuser, and I will not believe that he is unless I hear of a case involving his person, where the victim was considered by British law, to be a minor.

c)

That a persons name should not be bought up publicly in a court document or in evidence, unless they are a material part of any proceedings and more specifically in this case, unless they are actually being accused and warrants issued for their arrest based on evidence beyond witness testimony alone.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: uncommitted




That would be like someone telling me I must visit someone else and have sex with them. Would that mean the person I had sex with raped me, or that the person who told me to go there actually committed the crime?


Technically two crimes have been committed and so both parties could be charged, if you went to the police and reported the offence.


Not sure, are you a lawyer? If I was in a hotel room and someone knocked on the door and offered their services (I would personally say thanks, but no thanks, but that's because I'm happily married and wouldn't consider such a proposal for a second, not saying I have any moral highground on those that would), would that make me a rapist? If you believe the answer is yes, then please tell me why, this is after all a hypothetical question.

Let me be clear because I'm not sure you have got this. If rape occurred and can be proven rather than an allegation that currently has no actual foundation, then the guilty parties deserve every year they will serve for their crime. People on this thread are already talking about 'victims' and 'survivors' with no actual proof that anything happened.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted



Sorry, but you are the one that seems to be throwing mud hoping it will stick.


Am i throwing mud, i dont think i am, i carefully gathered some facts relating to the relationship between Andrew and Epstein and relayed them. Lets be honest, if i wanted to throw mud i would have a field day, there is a lot of it about.



Would you like to go and gather facts - not speculative articles from newspapers that infer but offer no facts.


All of those excerpts are based on fact, in fact i took great care when quoting to ensure that any relevant point that followed it was also included... Like this one.



Last night, the royal aide admitted for the first time that the Duke had also received massages at the Florida mansion, but said that they had no sexual overtones.


See how i included the part in bold, if i was throwing mud or distorting facts then i could have just left that out.

Look, i dont wanna derail this thread. If you do have a genuine issue then why not start a new thread about it. I will be happy to come over and participate


edit on 3/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: VirusGuard
a reply to: HumanPLC



And there we have it ladies and gentleman; the award for the most ignorant comment ever made on ATS goes to this user!


Don't know M8 but you seem to know how a rapist would act better than i know how me or my mates would act on a night out.

WAP



Were gonna need more awards

edit on 3/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: daftpink

Plenty has happened to me but ATS and the public arena is not the place for telling it all.

Thanks for the offer of PM but I don't feel all that safe talking about it anywhere.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: HumanPLC

I don't have any issue, you have quoted from the Guardian where it even appears to use the phrase 'randy Andy' and then makes not so subtle inferences with no facts behind them. He's a single man, if the people he is said to have been in the company of are of above the age of consent and were not coerced into performing any kind of act with him then personally I couldn't give a fudge what he does, whether I find it tasteful or not.

Anything over and above that is mere speculation, why treat it as something more?



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: liteonit6969
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


The Mirror really is one of the worst newspapers in the UK....try The Guardian instead although details will be sparse (another poster commented that there are no names etc) simply because this is all being covered up and kept hushed.

Don't be scared to post these things! ! Jeez get this info out and shared there is nothing to fear.

Guardian link -

www.theguardian.com...


There is a lot in that article that makes you go,
hmmmmmmm



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted



Anything over and above that is mere speculation, why treat it as something more?


I dunno pal, is it only speculation? Lets not forget the fact that there is now a sworn witness statement that alleges his involvment in this. Obviously this alone is not, and should never be, enough to convict anyone; however, it should be enough to warrant further investigation into this.

edit on 3/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

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

Did you miss the point that says she was forced and used as a sex slave? That's not shady that's abuse of the most appalling nature.



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.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

If the girl in question said ok its not rape. Morally its still wrong, but with her "consent" its not rape. Depending or course on the age of consent in that country.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join