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: 18
71
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

peadophilia is actually a sexual interest in pre pubescent children, not teenagers.




posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   

An ‘army of legal superstars’ persuaded prosecutors to sign a controversial agreement which may have given Prince Andrew protection from prosecution, it is claimed. Highly-paid lawyers for Jeffrey Epstein – some of whom had links to the White House – secured an extraordinary deal which guaranteed ‘potential co-conspirators’ would not face criminal charges relating to his activities. They had spent months delving into the private lives of state prosecutors to establish if they had any ‘personal peccadilloes’, in a desperate bid to defend Epstein against claims of abusing scores of under-age girls at his Florida mansion. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... z3NxVEjVgh Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


well something was going on



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: liteonit6969

Can you show me
A) The age of consent is 18.
B) He knew she was not 18.


A) Her claims make her below the age of consent but thats irrelevant as she claims she was forced.

B) Not knowing someones age is not a valid defense, the law (In the UK anyway) requires a person to go to reasonable lengths to verify someones age.

Also, there are reports already linked on this thread of eye witness accounts that have spoken about how young some of these girls at the resort looked. You can see the girl in question in the pic of him and her, c'mon lets be straight, its not like we are talking about someone who looked in there 40's are we, she did look young, even a few years later (when the pic was taken).



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: HumanPLC

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: liteonit6969

Can you show me
A) The age of consent is 18.
B) He knew she was not 18.


A) Her claims make her below the age of consent but thats irrelevant as she claims she was forced.

B) Not knowing someones age is not a valid defense, the law (In the UK anyway) requires a person to go to reasonable lengths to verify someones age.

Also, there are reports already linked on this thread of eye witness accounts that have spoken about how young some of these girls at the resort looked. You can see the girl in question in the pic of him and her, c'mon lets be straight, its not like we are talking about someone who looked in there 40's are we, she did look young, even a few years later (when the pic was taken).



This seems to be like flogging a dead horse, and at the moment there is nothing but unsubstantiated claims, but in the UK she wouldn't be underage - assuming anything did actually happen and I've not seen in any article a claim that the person you seem to think is the defendant - Prince Andrew - applied any force. What does 'looked in there (sic, you meant 'their' I think) 40's have to do with anything? Does that mean a cougar lady should automatically be seen as a child sex offender?

Someone has made a claim, not under oath, they have made similar claims against others in the public eye in the past that appear from what I've read to have been groundless but you keep infering something here - have you a particular axe to grind?

Personally, if there is evidence that shows it's more likely than not that a crime took place then the guilty party should be punished - but simply making a claim is by no means enough.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Age is irrelevant (to a point) when you are a person of power/authority abusing said power/authority.

Some of you patriotic freaks had better think about who makes your morals... the lawmakers or your own brains?

It's legal for me to have sex with a 19 year old girl - but that doesn't make it right. It's easy for me to manipulate a 19 year old girl given that I earn a bit of wadge and have some flash friends.

She may even consent!! DOES THAT MAKE IT RIGHT?

Use your brain, not the one given to you by the government.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Prince Andrew may have been secretly filmed with underage girl he is alleged to have abused



The six-year-old papers, seen by the Sunday People, state: “Some of the photographs in the defendant’s possession were taken with hidden cameras set up in [Epstein’s] home in Palm Beach. “On the Day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of ­underage girls on a computer in the defendant’s home.


www.mirror.co.uk...

They add that Roberts’ claims that she was forced to tell Epstein all about her sexual encounters so he could use the information to “blackmail” the royal. She further claims she was sex-trafficked to “many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well known Prime Minister, and other world leaders”.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
For what it's worth I think the real story here is that, regardless of whether or not Andrew Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is or isn't guilty of these allegations (only those involved know that at present), this is different to the usual Royal stories which are neatly hushed-up by the deferent UK media. This one has the potential to 'run-and-run' in that there is a very real possibility that Andy will, one way or another, find himself dragged through the US legal system and may well have to endure his past and current lifestyle examined in excruciating detail. It's the fascination of our American friends in all things Royal that gives these parasites so much of the legitimacy that they rely on for their continued existence. It will be interesting to see how the US media, in particular, reacts if and when some of the Royals' less pleasant pastimes are placed under the spotlight. The very fact that this story remains splashed all over both the tabloids and broadsheets several days after it broke says something about the level of interest in these particular claims. Blimey- even the Beeb have been reporting on it.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Do you REALLY think this will go ANYWHERE??
If they are so powerful and corrupt, they can surely "crush" the story or make it a non story. Wait and see. I seriously doubt we will see the dismantling of the monarchy over this "scandal".

These types of accusations has been thrown all over. All of our highest political figures (USA) have been accused also. Nothing ever happened. Nothing will happen in the UK either, even if, God forbid, it's true.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: wrkn4livn

If they are so powerful and corrupt, they can surely "crush" the story or make it a non story.


Well that was my point, sort-of. A quick Google of UK newspaper front pages today and over the last few days would suggest that this story doesn't appear to have been 'crushed' and there's no sign at present of it turning into a non-story either.

The conspiracy theorists amongst us may even wonder if Andrew is being thrown to the lions to hide an even bigger Royal scandal because, surely, if 'they' are as powerful and corrupt as you suggest then we wouldn't have heard of this story at all if 'they' hadn't wanted us to have.
edit on 5-1-2015 by RonPalmer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: RonPalmer
Thats what I suggested
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It's a psychological warfare tactic.

In that same thread the poster claimed that they did try to ignore the headlines even though they were supposed to be reading them all out, so there is at least a mild suppression going on - and the royal public relations originally said they dont comment on investigations or w/e, then followed up with a strong denial. That sort of flash about-face is indicative that they're in panic mode



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted



Personally, if there is evidence that shows it's more likely than not that a crime took place then the guilty party should be punished - but simply making a claim is by no means enough.


Have you not read my previous posts. Im paraphrasing, but i specifically stated that this alone is not an indication of guilt!



Have you a particular axe to grind?


How do you know about my axe? I only normally get that out when people point out my grammar/spelling mistakes!

Seriously though, Yes, i do have an axe to grind... I believe, as i have already stated, that this allegation against Andrew should be investigated in the same way it would be if it were you or i named in that document.



at the moment there is nothing but unsubstantiated claims


Of course the claims against Andrew are unsubstantiated... Just so we are on the same sheet so to speak, unsubstantiated means: not supported or proven by evidence.

How can her claims be supported by true evidence, non has been collected yet, thats what would happen if we had an investigation, which, again is what im saying should happen.

What i would say is that we do have what i would call potential evidence in the form of eye witness interviews, accounts, etc and on the surface they do seem to suggest that there may be some weight to the girls story. Certainly enough to warrant an investigation where this evidence could then be tested.



I've not seen in any article a claim that the person you seem to think is the defendant - Prince Andrew - applied any force.



In the US court papers, the woman, reported to be Ms Roberts, claims that between 1999 and 2002 she “was forced to have sexual relations with this prince when she was a minor


You're thinking of actual physical or mental force being applied directly arnet you? You do understand that no 'force' is needed. If Epstein forced her to do what she is alleging with Andrew then it would still be against her will and non consentual.



Someone has made a claim, not under oath


Where you getting that from? Arnet these court documents, i thought this would have been under some sort of sworn testemony.



they have made similar claims against others in the public eye in the past that appear from what I've read to have been groundless


Can i have a link to that please, im not being funny or anything; i would really like to read that.



Does that mean a cougar lady should automatically be seen as a child sex offender?


What in Holy Hell is a Cougar Lady?

For some reason I imagine her to be a bit like Panthera (from Thundercats) and im not gonna lie to ya uncommitted, im thinkin this is a lady i'd like to be meeting. Do you have any pics of this Cougar Lady you speak so fondly of? For research, obviously!

lol, sorry, im just lightning the convo a bit



edit on 5/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Still waiting for something concrete on this.

Still just seeing ifs, buts and maybes and claims from speculators and people with axes to grind, but nothing tangible other than chinese whispers.

Not, of course, that a lack of evidence matters now the allegation has been put out there in public. As anyone who reads this thread can see, people have already decided that the man is guilty when actually they know nothing other than the initial claim.

Its an interesting study in media perception. A modern day witchunt.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: uncommitted




What in Holy Hell is a Cougar Lady?

For some reason I imagine her to be a bit like Panthera (from Thundercats) and im not gonna lie to ya uncommitted, im thinkin this is a lady i'd like to be meeting. Do you have any pics of this Cougar Lady you speak so fondly of? For research, obviously!

lol, sorry, im just lightning the convo a bit




Cougar, it's a term for middle aged ladies who like young lads. It's hardly a secret term. Not quite sure where I spoke fondly or otherwise though, I would be way too old for one, lol.

All I'm saying is with no proof this is just a story for the tabloids to make a lot of money from.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Sorry nerf, i have the upmost respect mate but i do think youre wrong on this one.

I have made it clear that for me its not about guilt, its about this allegation regarding Andrew being properly investigated to establish and test any evidence.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

lol, i was just messing with you mate..

Do you have that link i asked for though? I asked as you stated it was something you had read and so i assumed it was online.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Seems that Bill Clinton might be involved.




A new lawsuit has revealed the extent of former President Clinton's friendship with a fundraiser who was later jailed for having sex with an underage prostitute.

Bill Clinton's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who served time in 2008 for his illegal sexual partners, included up multiple trips to the onetime billionaire's private island in the Caribbean where underage girls were allegedly kept as sex slaves.

The National Enquirer has released new details about the two men's friendship, which seems to have ended abruptly around the time of Epstein's arrest.


Not too surprising, Bill Clinton involed with a procurer

Makes sense, given Bill's well known sexual shenanigans.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: WilsonWilson

There are some varying definitions of pedophilia. One as you say is the attraction toward prepubesent children. Also it says the attraction to children. The correct definition of a child is a young person below the age of consent. That is fact. Not what i want it to be. Do the research.

Now those who claim that it is by the definition of prepubesent children. Can anyone give me the age ofd a prepubesent child? There are children who enter puberty at 11 and younger. Is it not pedophilia to have sex with these children? Another example is my 6 year old daughter who has hydrocephalus has started puberty due to a hormone imbalance caused by the Hydrocephalus. Are you saying that law allows this. Ridiculous.

Now il repeat again for the millionth time as others have stated. This thread DOES NOT SAY PRINCE ANDREW IS A PEDOPHILE. He is named in a case concerning it. Against a man who has prior convictions for underage sex (14).

There is also news of video proof of the acts occuring. If that is the case then i find it very suspicious and would question the motives of this. Blackmail as one, as there is a big advantage of having the name of the royal family in your pocket.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

I dont think the way the thread has developed suggests that people have decided that he is guilty. Far from it i think. The major concencus is that when allegations like these come along, with apparent pictures etc then he should be investigated like any one else. Being rich and powerful does not make you above the law.
Furthermore i have seen a continuing idea that people have decided his guilt which have been continuously responded to by saying the thread title does not claim he is a pedophile, no has said he is guilty etc.
Granted there is the usual royal family and elite bashing, which i feel is part of the topic here given that someones position or status at times saves their bacon from prosecution.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: wrkn4livn

no it is not going to go anywhere



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: wrkn4livn

no it is not going to go anywhere

Just a feeling that the prince is not guilty



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join