It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 22
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:34 AM

originally posted by: liteonit6969
I created the thread and have constantly had to argue against posts from the same people trying to make claims that arent true

Funny that, in your first post you made a claim that was not true!

the British Royal Family are finally being exposed for what they are, and one of those things is involved in pedophelia.

You are the one making a claim about pedophilia, but that has nothing at all to do with anything here.... So why did you make that false claim?

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:35 AM

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: Tangerine

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.

Age of consent in the UK is 16. Fairly basic and well known fact, it's been 16 (between a male and female) for several decades.

And it's where this allegedly happened - unless you are privy to information to prove otherwise.
edit on 6-1-2015 by uncommitted because: added second paragraph

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:52 AM
a reply to: stumason

I could have replied to a number of posts talking about her age. I do believe the problem is that it was alleged rape, and not consensual sex. I am appalled at the ho hum attitude. Let's say she was 30 yrs old and used as a sex slave, does that make it less criminal?

This is not the first time the upper class has been pointed at by children or adults for rape and slave treatment for sexual purposes. Anyone remember Boys Town? I will bet nothing comes of this and it's all just forgotten very soon.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:08 AM

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: Tangerine

You are still doing it arnet you? You're throwing in facts that are just not true!

Doesn't it raise any suspicion for you that she had neither sued him nor did she present evidence when she could have to have him charged with a crime?

To be fair mate, it wasnt just you... A few people on here have made similar comments. So, again... To clear this false information up:

Its believed the reason the others have not been charged is because of the non prosecution agreement that was negotiated.

Documents filed as part of the Florida legal action related to the Epstein case, in which the Duke of York has been named but not as a party to the action, allege that Epstein negotiated the "non-prosecution agreement" using his "significant social and political connections" — which included former US President Bill Clinton who, it is said, worked to get Epstein a "more favourable" deal. The reported deal would mean that those named in the court documents, including Prince Andrew, are unlikely to face legal action over allegations, including that The Duke of York had sex with a teenager who it is claimed was being used by Epstein – a convicted sex offender former friend of the Duke’s – as a "sex slave".

Source: s-9956295.html


Negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with whom and for whom?

Are you suggesting that Epstein negotiated an agreement with prosecutors in two countries to not prosecute Prince Andrew, Dershowitz and the others? Where is the evidence that that happened?

Even if it did happen, it has zero to do with civil lawsuits and does not explain why the woman did not sue Prince Andrew and Dershowitz and the others.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:14 AM
a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

I think you are correct in the points you make. However I think when you say 'forgotten' hopefully you are wrong. This may well be one of those things that will simply keep running and running until it gets dealt with - despite the obvious black out about Andrew on our media services.

Clearly queenie has spoken and she has considerble power if you think about it - how can the Crown V the Crown? But its time the public woke up because it is our national reputation and manipulation by foreign powers over this country by blackmail that are also for me as important an issue as the terrified victims. Both need to be redressed and it seems people are not thinking past sensationalism.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:19 AM
a reply to: Shiloh7

I came across a wonderful quote the other day most here have seen before. I believe it sums up how justice will be achieved if at all with these psychopath self important little gods in their sad little minds and that quote it this:

"War is when your government tells you who the enemy is. Revolution is when you figure it out for yourself!"

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:26 AM
Hey I just noticed something.

Buckingham Palace has said "any suggestion of impropriety with under-age minors" by the duke was "categorically untrue".

Categorically. The category being, under-age minors. And according to their rules 17 not included. So maybe not an outright denial.

In psychological warfare, wording means everything.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:39 AM
a reply to: Tangerine

Negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with whom and for whom?

Mate, Ive just provided a valid source. Go and read the extract again, then follow the link and read that.

Where is the evidence that that happened?

Well im not privvy to the court documents, but the evidence it happened is right there in that article.

Mate, you are right out of 'evidence or it didnt happen' chips. Im still waiting for you to supply a valid source for your claim that she had made stuff like this up before.

As far as im aware, you made the original claim:

nor did she present evidence when she could have to have him charged with a crime?

Which i then challenged by supplying a creditable source:

The reported deal would mean that those named in the court documents, including Prince Andrew, are unlikely to face legal action over allegations

Now its your turn, if you want to challenge it then supply something to back it up; dont just say things for the sake of it. Its already been shown that you are making factually incorrect statements on this thread and so this time, i think you need to back up what you are saying if you want any weight attributed it it.

edit on 6/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:41 AM
Great quote there I might borrow that if you don't mind
there maybe a few that follow..a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:59 AM
a reply to: HumanPLC

I clicked on your link and it didn't open to the story you referenced.

I don't understand how "The reported deal would mean that those named in the court documents, including Prince Andrew, are unlikely to face legal action over allegations" translates to the woman having presented evidence at a time when he could have been charged with a crime. Could you explain how the one thing translates to the other? What is meant by "reported deal"? Does that mean there's evidence that such a deal exists or that it's reported to exist and, if so, by whom?

No, I don't have to present evidence proving that such a deal never happened.It's impossible to prove a negative. Surely, you know that.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 06:08 AM
Whether or not Prince Andrew was involved knowingly or unknowingly in underage /slave scenarios is yet to be established for certain.

However E*pstein, it appears, according to reports, paid off a lot of witnesses. And also Andrew's notorious ex Fergie's (the Royal Family hasn't been the same since) debts.


The Duke of York's former friend Jeffrey Epstein used "aggressive witness tampering" on employees who later refused to answer questions about whether the Duke slept with underage girls, according to US investigators.
Epstein is also said to have bankrolled the legal fees of witnesses who invoked their right to silence to avoid answering whether young girls were “provided for sex” to the Duke.
Lawyers representing women who were sexually abused by Epstein have complained bitterly that it became “impossible” to gather evidence from vital witnesses because so many of them had legal representation paid for by Epstein, a billionaire investment banker.

Sarah Ferguson was once given £15,000 from paedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein to pay off her debts.
The deal was struck in December 2010 after months of negotiations with the disgraced tycoon who insisted on helping with her financial troubles.
It came within days of the Duke of York flying out to visit Epstein in New York, fuelling speculation he had smoothed the path for his ex-wife to take the money just 18 months after he was released from jail for soliciting prostitution from under-age girls.
The Duchess of York later claimed her judgment had been 'clouded' by her desperation to get out of her £5million debt and vowed to repay the money.

Read more: e.html#ixzz3O2gwpuXY

The two photos capped months of negative press coverage of Andrew, which began when an undercover reporter, posing as a businessman, secretly videotaped an interview with Andrew’s ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, 51, who divorced the prince 15 years ago but still shares a home with him. The hapless Fergie was caught on tape demanding $821,000 in return for business access to her ex-husband, who is Britain’s special representative for international trade and investment. “If you want to meet him in your business, look after me, and he’ll look after you,” Fergie was heard saying on the video. “You’ll get it back tenfold That opens up everything you would ever wish for. And I can open any door you want. And I will for you.”

Under a torrent of criticism, Sarah Ferguson offered an abject public apology, returned the $40,000 down payment she had received, and offered to move out of Andrew’s home. However, her claim on the video that Andrew had advance knowledge of her attempted shakedown—an accusation categorically denied by Buckingham Palace—focused renewed attention on the long charge sheet against the prince.

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

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 06:10 AM
a reply to: liteonit6969

what do you expect all royals are perverts

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 06:11 AM
a reply to: TryAndStopTheFuture555

I thought it was common knowledge that rich and powerful have sex slaves

special clubs for that kinda stuff too

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 06:12 AM
a reply to: uncommitted

Read my post again, i did not say she was below the age of consent. Which as you point out in the UK is 16 and in the island where some of this happened is 17.

I was merely satisfying the argument that this can be viewed as a case of Pedophilia. This has nothing to do with age of consent. This has to do with what has occured as a fact that Epstein and his gang had underage girls as young as 14 at the request for sex.

Now the idea that there is an issue of Pedophilia involved comes down to the definition of a Pedophile.

It is by definition a sexual desire "towards children." Those exact words.

Now the definition of a child is "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

The legal age of majority in the uk is 17.

Now i dont understand you can get confused with me not understanding the age of consent in regards the laws against underage sex, and the definition of Pedophilia.

Does that clear up the misunderstanding? and do youa agree/disagree with anything there?

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 06:25 AM
a reply to: Tangerine

Ive fixed the link now, you were right, it didnt work.

No, I don't have to present evidence proving that such a deal never happened.It's impossible to prove a negative. Surely, you know that.

Well i would say thats very convenient!

What is meant by "reported deal"?

This is what the whole case and related information is about!

Does that mean there's evidence that such a deal exists

Epstein spent only 13 months in prison because of the deal/plea bargain that was made. Of course it exists!

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 07:27 AM
a reply to: Tangerine

I berlieve there are two way of telling when a dodgy legal deal has been carried out - either there re documents specially worded to obscure the intent with another intent or there is simply a wall of silence.

With Andrew we have the virtual wall of silence and no investigative journalism happening, especially with his past behaviour and dealings.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 07:29 AM
a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Hopefully many more brits will have discovered the truth behind the power of the throne today, which they clearly were oblivious to. Brilliant saying - thanks for that.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 07:35 AM
a reply to: Tangerine

I think one question you should be asking yourself is, are you happy with wealthy and powerful men being able to acquire very young and children to enjoy sexual exploits with - especially when they are married and may well have mistresses in tow also?

This is above the normal moans about the powerful that rule us, its about a sickness within our society that we need to address. Thjere are victims here and should we treat themwith less respect because the perpetrator is an elite? We are diligent in going after the John Smiths' of the world.

Slightly off topic, if you ever watch world news channels in India they are having to face the idea of police raping women and then when told about it, having to hunt for their missing police - that is currently going on there. So the world is waking up to this particular abuse of power and we should surely be reminding those who benefit from positions of power, that they have a responsibility of duty to give of their best, not their sleaziest.

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 07:43 AM

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: HumanPLC

Clarification! Prince Andrew is not a convicted sex offender!

I know you meant the other chappy, but this thread is about Andrew and there is no evidence and no prior form, so judging him on the actions of a friend is laughable to the extreme.

Many feel Andrew intervened on his friend's behalf and got him the light sentence. The main controversy is many victims were not consulted in the plea bargain, something not usually done.

Did Andrew Intervene?

Quote from The Telegraph
Sex Abuse Claim Won't Go Away

The “lobbying for a favourable plea deal”

Four of Epstein’s victims are taking legal action against the US authorities, claiming their victims’ rights were violated when Florida prosecutors cut a plea deal with Epstein without any consultation with his victims.

As part of that legal action, which has already rumbled on for seven years, the women have demanded access to documents which, they claim, will show that Epstein’s powerful friends, including the Duke of York, lobbied the US Government on his behalf.

Court papers seen by The Daily Telegraph state: “These documents…might bear on the way in which Epstein used his powerful political and social connections to secure a favourable plea deal…

“One clear example is Request for Production No. 8, which seeks documents regarding Epstein’s lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favourable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts on his behalf by Prince Andrew.”

Buckingham Palace has responded to the claim by saying that members of the Royal family would never intervene in an ongoing court case.

(Also, even though rape victims are not usually named in papers, she allowed herself to be named because she was pissed over constantly being told she was lying, so according to on article I read, she decided to come forward and give up her anonymity.)

Why Jane Doe #3 revealed her identity.

What do the accuser's lawyers say?

Edwards and Cassell did not return calls, but Edwards told CNN in an e-mail that the lawyers "carefully investigated all of the allegations before filing court documents."

They also included a statement from Roberts in which she called herself an "innocent victim" who is being "victimized again."

"These types of aggressive attacks on me are exactly the reason why sexual abuse victims typically remain silent and the reason why I did for a long time," her statement read. "That trend should change. I'm not going to be bullied back into silence."

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 07:56 AM
a reply to: Anyafaj

Nice and concise overview there mate!
I was just gonna sit down and put one together myself so thanks for that, you saved me the trouble, lol.

top topics

<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in