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

a reply to: Tangerine

Have you found the link that backs up the claims you made against the girl. However the link you provided gave a good account of the story. What strikes me is that not only are those who speak out against these people treated like criminals but also the lawyers who take their case are threatened by one of the biggest political commentators and law in the US to have them removed from their job.

And on the small scale there are people like you who try to prevent an open conversation about this by making assumptions and false claims.

Also again you contradict yourself and use the same ideas that you claims other made. Such as saying that people are making false accusations towards those involved, and in the next sentence you allege that this girl is a liar. Are you doing this on purpose or are you seriously that transparent?

So can you provide the link to the ACCUSATIONS that the girl is a repeated liar.

a reply to: hellobruce

That is the most childish response i have read yet, reminds me of when i was back in nursery.

"YOUR UGLY"

RESPONSE "NO YOU ARE".

How am i derailing a thread that i created? Talking about teenagers taking pictures of eachother has nothing to do with exploitation of children by the rich and powerful in this case (and anyone else).

Yes you are right this is a thread about a girl who has made accusations. But you say there is no evidence to back the claims up, how do you know this? Because they arent presented here in a discussion thread? Or on the front page of a newpaper?

If there is proof i assure you her case will be built around it as will the other girls who have no started to come forward. So it is not an isolated case, but maybe they are all lying. Why? Because every fact is not presented in a thread for us to read.

All that the majority of people on here have expressed is a desire that an open investigation is carried out against the prince. If the accusations are false, then i agree the accuser should be dealt with accordingly. But in the case of everyone of us, when these accusations are made and with apparent photgraphic proof and other accounts coming forward i assure you they would be investigated.

Also are you going to make an actual point on the topic or just make false claims and assumptions on a developing story you obviously have not researched?
sorry am i derailing again?

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: Tangerine

Have you found the link that backs up the claims you made against the girl. However the link you provided gave a good account of the story. What strikes me is that not only are those who speak out against these people treated like criminals but also the lawyers who take their case are threatened by one of the biggest political commentators and law in the US to have them removed from their job.

And on the small scale there are people like you who try to prevent an open conversation about this by making assumptions and false claims.

Also again you contradict yourself and use the same ideas that you claims other made. Such as saying that people are making false accusations towards those involved, and in the next sentence you allege that this girl is a liar. Are you doing this on purpose or are you seriously that transparent?

So can you provide the link to the ACCUSATIONS that the girl is a repeated liar.

People who make false accusations of trafficking and sex crimes should be treated like criminals. Lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits that are absolutely without foundation are subject to losing their licenses and should be. You don't seem to understand that the accused suffer damages even if they are absolutely not guilty. The taint of the allegation is heinous in itself. You forget that it was Dershowitz who was initially threatened. He is simply responding in a legal manner as he is entitled to do so. Dershowitz has no power to disbar an attorney. He is simply pointing out that that will be the end result if the attorney proceeds and the accusation is without merit.

No, I am not trying to prevent an open discussion. After all I am participating in one. I have simply pointed out that many people participating in this thread clearly want the crimes to have occurred and have openly expressed hatred for Prince Andrew. You have certainly expressed contempt for Dershowitz in your characterization of him. One person went so far as to bring up Andrew's German ancestry by referring to him as Andrew Saxe-Coburg-Gotha which is not even his name.

The accuser has used a scattergun approach to her accusations while, at the same time, only bringing suit against one person. If the others she accused actually did commit crimes against her, why isn't she suing them, too? Why isn't she suing Prince Andrew? I can think of a very good reason. Can't you? I don't recall having said she is a liar. I absolutely did imply that her accusations are suspicious for the reason I just explained and I did ask for the evidence.

a reply to: Tangerine

You claim that people have made their minds up that the men named are guilty without evidence and a trial or investigation. But then immediately claim that the lady is a liar: "People who make false accusations of trafficking and sex crimes should be treated like criminals".

Do you not see what you have done here? You have contradicted yourself and commited the same crime you accuse other of (without actual evidence).

You have now many time openly stated AS FACT that the girl is making FALSE accusation. How can you claim this when the case is still on going? where is the evidence for this? It is rediculous that you even try to make these arguments.

When you say she has used a "scattergun approach" to her accusation i dont get what you mean. Are you suggesting that because the media report different high profile names that are name in her case that she is just randomly throwing names out there?

You ask why isnt she suing the other too? You have just displayed that you have not even researched the story which you have so vehemently fought to stand up for a man accused of "child sex crimes" (those were your words). There are now 2 other girls who have come forward and the case is now in the process of becoming a wider case involving the other names in the documents.

Finally i have not expressed contempt for Dershowitz. Where have you gotten this from. I have mentioned him in one post above where he openly stated that a lawyer should disbarred for representing these people who make these accusations.

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT ANY CASE INVOLVING ABUSES OF THIS NATURE BEGIN WITH ACCUSATIONS?

Then in the words of Dershowitz those lawyers should lose their jobs for representing them even before they have been found out to be lying or telling the truth?

Does any of this make sense?

It doesnt matter how much you try to talk around it, Prince Andrew is very much going to be involved in his own case. Then any evidence will come out and the required process will begin.

Also you finish by saying "and i did ask for evidence". It was you that was asked to provide evidence for your claims about this thread. You clearly are not reading the thread, developing info or even your own posts.
By any chance are you some piece of software? Because i cant understand how you dont even know what you write between lines?

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Prince Andrew is very much going to be involved in his own case.

Exactly which case is that?

a reply to: hellobruce

A briefcase.

Are you serious? What do you think? Read the information about what is developing and come to the conclusion yourself. Its not hard to work out. More girls have come forward with claims that are the same as this girl. Also the process has started to expand the current case to those people named, which included andrew.

a reply to: Nochzwei

I think you would make a good judge "i just have a feeling the prince is not guilty".

Your input was invaluable. I think we may as well finish the discussion here because Nochzwei "has a feeling" he is not guilty.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Read the information about what is developing and come to the conclusion yourself. Its not hard to work out.

It is very easy to work out....

Miss Roberts is writing a memoir but could be tempted to speak out in the coming days after receiving large financial offers from newspapers and TV stations.

www.telegraph.co.uk...
It is all about the money this prostitute can get.

edit on 6-1-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

a reply to: hellobruce

Do slaves get paid?
Or do prostitutes?.

a reply to: liteonit6969

There have been so many countless accusations and legitimate sex crimes, particularly from the UK as of late, that my analysis is broad-spectrum. In fact, most of my post replies on ATS could be turned into their own separate threads!

I am basically so sick and tired of hearing about these cases that I am trying to formulate a solution. That seems more productive than endless bad news and losing faith in humanity.

Maybe it is what it is. Perhaps humanity is on a steep decline anyways and changing laws won't make any difference. I am not sure...

a reply to: Tangerine
You said

Apparently, she has a history of making false allegations against many people.

and then couldnt back it up. You posted Dershowitz' claim that she has a history of making false allegations, which you claimed without evidence to back it up.

While you know, hypocritically calling the girls claims invalid without evidence.

a reply to: corsair00
No dude, it shouldnt be decriminalised! It is a violation of privacy. Hence why the government of Canada started commercials saying that it is illegal to share "intimate photos" without consent.

What you're saying is nonsensical, because if the photos were kept private, no one would even know. These little #s are spreading nude photos of female classmates and ruining the GIRLS' lives, and that is the hotbutton issue right now.

No teenager gets charged with pedophilia for having nude photos of their gf. By definition, both legal and DSM, there has to be at least a 5-year difference in age. So its a wrong argument you're making.

I switched on the news this morning and see that Sarah Ferguson has come out of the woodwork to defend prince charming. That should go down well given her reputation as a cash for favours money grabbing bitch. One newspaper headline quotes her as calling him 'the world's greatest man'!

There is no doubt in my mind that Andrew had sex with this young woman and that it was illegal. Prostitution is illegal here in the UK for anyone under the age of eighteen. Do we really believe that he was unaware of what was going on.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Again i am shocked and slightly bemused by the need to jump to the conclusion that this girl is lying. It is like an ATS mini smear campaign . If this evidence comes out to show her to be telling the truth you will indeed look very silly and in being such a recognised member of ATS you should be more careful with your comments.

There has been no attack of prince Andrew on this thread, yet there is an ever growing effort to dirty this girls name and sate as fact she is a liar and manipulating the situation to make money.

Finally il repeat myself:

Do slaves get paid?

YES.

By way of maintaining a slave they were provided food, clothing, housing etc. Id this a way of payment? Of course it is.

Can the way this girl claims to have been treated be seen as treated like a slave? Yes. She ws merely given money to maintain herself for these highclass people, who wanted her in best of clothes and well "maintained".

Again i find it surprising from a high profile ATS'er to make such assumptions and statements when she is very possibly a victim. I suggest you rethink your stance as it could come back with egg on your face.

a reply to: corsair00

But that is easy for those who havent been the victim of such abuse. I find it infuriating that you can say that you are sick of hearing about these stories, are you serious? Unless i misunderstand you in that you are sick in hearing how disgusting society has become.
I dont think a victim of such abuses even think about or worry about whether a similar story had come out the week before. Their experience is paramount in their lives and they deserve a fair chance to speak up and have an investigation without being labled a liar and money grabber.
If the victim is found to be intentionally lying for financial gain then that person should be prosecuted. But i dont write the laws.

originally posted by: Ridhya
a reply to: Tangerine
You said

Apparently, she has a history of making false allegations against many people.

and then couldnt back it up. You posted Dershowitz' claim that she has a history of making false allegations, which you claimed without evidence to back it up.

While you know, hypocritically calling the girls claims invalid without evidence.

Do you understand the unfairness that is happening in this situation? She has sued one person but made vile accusations against a number of others in the lawsuit. The one she sued can go to court and defend himself. The others, because they weren't sued, can't defend themselves in court. Because they were accused in the suit (but not sued) rather than in public, they can't even sue her if they want to claim her accusation is false.

If she wants to claim that they committed the crime against her, she should sue them directly. That's only fair. I can think of only one reason why they were accused but not sued and that is because they are not guilty yet the case gets massive publicity and increases her change of being paid off so she will recant. Don't you see the inherent unfairness in this?

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: Tangerine

You are contradicting yourself its unbelievable. Do you not understand the thread because i feel you are confusing yourself. Il take it step by step so it is easy to understand and there is no confusion, because it seems that people are trying to create confusion over the situation.

First of all you say pedophilia is sexual feelings towards pre pubescent children. There is no law saying this, this is your own perception of things. Prepubescent varies from child to child with some as young as 6 as i have shown. Therefore it is impossible to create a law around something like you say. The definition of pedophile is sexual feelings towards CHILDREN. not prepubescent etc. And to repeat a child is below the age of majority, not what you think is socially accepted in your area, but THE LAW. which in the UK is 17 and on the island where this happened IS 17. Therefore BY DEFINITION THIS IS ACTUALLY A CASE OF PEDOPHILIA.

.

Pedophilia is a mental disorder/sexual deviancy. It is not, in itself, a crime. The crime is having sex with someone who is underage, or rape, or sex trafficking. However, I suspect that this will not change your mind.

a reply to: Tangerine
Most people are confused about that. Pedophilia is not an action, it is a sexual attraction.

This article here attempts to explain the difference.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Have you even read the thread? No attack on prince andrew?.

.
Why did she do it many times?.
Why didn't she tell her story sooner?.
Sorry she may have acted like a sex slave but so do many....by choice.
Lets wait and see if she accuses them publicly.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: Tangerine


...

Finally after going through all of your posts trying to claim that this is not a case of committing sexual crimes against children, you then try to reverse on posts who want a fair investigation that THEY WANTED THIS TO HAPPEN in order to satisfy their grudge against the rich.

There are two points in what you have said:

1) We the people who post here did not want this to happen or even have any hand in it happening. It happened regardless of what we say. And to try and label those who are for an investigation as cruel etc is a very silly and very easy to see though your intentions.

2) After saying this was not a about sex crimes against children.....you then suggest that people wanted this to happen.....which as you state....sex crimes against children. You contradict yourself.

Finally throughout your posts you offer NO EVIDENCE in your claims AS FACT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID. However you in doing so MAKE MASSIVE ASSUMPTIONS AND TRY TO INTERPRET WORDS TO FIT YOUR AGENDA.

I think it is best if you go back to the start of the thread and reread because you have obviously become confused and thus are starting to confuse other readers.

You can pick out some spelling mistakes or whatever you tfeel is neccessary to derail a SERIOUS AND ILLEGAL ACT that prince andrew has been ACCUSED of.

You have mischaracterized my posts. I never once said that this is not a case about someone committing a crime against a child, that is someone underage. This is a civil lawsuit against someone accused of doing just that. Screaming in all caps does not make your argument convincing.

The person bringing the suit did not sue Prince Andrew or Dershowitz or a number of other people she named. If she had, they would have had an opportunity to defend themselves in court. Instead, she sued one person and slurred the names of the others by accusing them of heinous crimes. She (her attorneys, actually), used the protection of the lawsuit to do so. As you will see, I predict they will not have the integrity to sue Prince Andrew or Dershowitz or the others or stand up in public and make those accusations against Prince Andrew or Dershowitz and the others because, if they do, they will be sued, likely successfully, and likely disbarred. If they have evidence against those people, perhaps you would like to explain why they don't stand up in public and accuse them.

If you were accused, wouldn't you want your day in court to defend yourself?