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

a reply to: boymonkey74

How can you make that claim that my posts are fueled by the hatred of the roal family??? Where is this hatred i have displayed? Can you give me any proof of this? No, because it is not true.

So please show me where i have displayed this hatred...........

originally posted by: MRuss
a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Bravo. I wish I had seen your post earlier.

I don't know what's wrong with some of these ATS'ers. How can they possibly dismiss this so out of hand? Especially when they know what a serious problem this is--across the globe?

Is it okay for women and children to be raped, to be made as sex slaves, for young girls and boys to be kidnapped from their families for the misguided and criminal pleasure of someone else?

This is a huge problem, and anyone here who doesn't step up to the plate of humanity and admit this is not well, IMHO.

What is this backlash about people? Defending your country? Defending men? Why are you protesting so much what seems to be a very serious situation?

We need to applaud the people who come forward and bring these things to light. How many stories do you need to be convinced? There are hundreds upon hundreds of stories that highlight these criminal acts by powerful people.

I thought this website stood for truth.

I am so disgusted by some of the comments on here that I am sick.

And to make false allegations of rape is just as serious.

But let's look at this rationally, shall we?

1: The girl was allegedly a sex slave and travelled around the world without her parents' knowledge of it.
2: The girl was still high school age, how did she travel around without missing school?
3: No one reported her missing to the police.
4: How was she available to be approached?


See, in the sordid world of sex trafiicking of children, those children are either kidnapped, run away or sold into slavery by their parents. As this girl's parents never reported her missing, that she apparently never missed school and that the police were not looking for her just indicates to me that she was not kidnapped, she did not run away and never implicated her parents for selling her.

So that leaves the other alternative, that she either went along willingly or that Epstein paid her parents off pretty well. Which do you think it is?

Think rationally and logically without the knee jerk reaction.

originally posted by: MRuss
a reply to: liteonit6969

Well, the attitudes some of these posters have about this subject is EXACTLY WHY the problem exists.

So many of these cases have come to light only to disappear or be forgotten about or ignored by the mainstream media. Or the whistle blower is demeaned and ridiculed---that's a common response.

I'm not sure how anyone can be blase, for example, about a six-year old girl being kidnapped from her family and initiated into a sex ring. How can you contemplate that and not want to throw up?

Sex rings, pornography, sexual slavery...all just a side of the same coin. 17 years old, 10 years old...what's the difference? As long as people are willing to exploit others for sexual gain, these problems will never go away.

And as long as there are people like here on ATS who can be so ignorant of the truth---we're not likely to see these idiots prosecuted and put away. No, our society gives them permission by turning the other cheek.

The difference is...the law allows a 17 year-old girl to have sex.

Excuse me, but what was the deal about Miley Cyrus and Robbie what's his name? Oh yes, a young girl performing a sexual act on stage for an older man.

Let me ask you this, since this is about sexual exploitation, how many actresses do you watch in steamy roles? How many musicians do you listen to that are sexually suggestive? Britney Spears wasn't exactly a grown up when she blew it all out for grown men to buy her albums.

But since sex slavery, sex trafficking and sexual exploitation are such a big problem for you, then tell us that you have issues with Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, and a whole bunch of other teenage girls? Party in the USA, Miley was on a stripper pole, how much more worse can you get?

But here's also another thing, who condemns teen porn when we know that teen porn is exploitation and many of those teenagers really were taken advantage of, runaways or kidnapped. But while the detractors are on here demanding Prince Andrew's head for something that isn't proven yet, they don't say a word against modern pop culture sex attitudes. And here is the biggest sexual exploitation ever, telling young boys and girls that they are homosexual, burdening children with an identity crisis, before they are even old enough to know what sex is.

Sexual exploitation, not only in high society, but in every low part of society as well. But when the rich do it, suddenly it's a problem? Pardon moi, hypocritical much?

seeing how the media is pretty much at there fingertips, just makes me wonder if theres more to this..

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

Here we go proves your hatred for the royal family.
Accusing the family of being involved of pedophilia when this case is nothing of the sort.
Even If Andrew had sex with her it is not pedophilia but you allege that he and the family are all involved in it.
Liar.
Anyhow enjoy your lynch mob you helped create and I really hope you never get falsly accused of something because Karma can be a bitch.
I'm out.

originally posted by: Tangerine
The notion that being royal means that you are a degenerate criminal is not all that different from racism in which your moral character is judged not by your individual behavior but by an accident of birth.

That poor man, facing discrimination his whole life im gonna stop donating money to anti-racism groups and just write Andrew a cheque


a reply to: MRuss
At least one poster in this thread recommended legalising porn of 15 year olds so, yeah no hope for humanity

originally posted by: Ridhya

originally posted by: Tangerine
The notion that being royal means that you are a degenerate criminal is not all that different from racism in which your moral character is judged not by your individual behavior but by an accident of birth.

That poor man, facing discrimination his whole life

im gonna stop donating money to anti-racism groups and just write Andrew a cheque


a reply to: MRuss
At least one poster in this thread recommended legalising porn of 15 year olds so, yeah no hope for humanity

Poor anyone who is accused of a heinous crime and is innocent. It's one thing to envy, even hate, someone because they're rich and famous. It's quite another to accuse them of a crime, especially a crime of this nature. It's this desire for the accusations to be true that is shocking. Has it really reached the point where some people hope this woman was trafficked just so a Royal can be kicked down the steps?

originally posted by: LongishLongo
seeing how the media is pretty much at there fingertips, just makes me wonder if theres more to this..

What does that mean?

a reply to: boymonkey74

How can you claim that my complete argument is fueled by the hatred of the royal family with one quote that doesnt even prove what you have stated?

What has fueled my comments and this thread is that Andrew along with other high profile names have been alleged to have been involved in sex crimes, not my words but every msm or article out there has put it. Like i have explained 3 times in 3 seperate posts the definition of pedophilia, which isnt the main talking point here, applies to this girls age. Because she was A CHILD. Like others have said it doesnt matter in the laws eyes if she is 6 or 16, she is still a child.

Its not likely your methods would work in any other criminal actions.

Judge: your guilty of armed robbery.
Accused: But i only had a hammer and only stole a few quid.

The law is the law.

Also you are missing the main words in the op, ALLEGED. He HAS been named in this case documents, against a convicted pedophile. So how have i created this myself to satisfy my needs. Do you think i have created this problem for these people accused? No, they have created it themselves.

And like i have repeated for the millionth time, but i dont think its going to matter how many times i say it or other people say it. We are not saying he is guilty!!!!!!!!!!!
We are saying there should be an open investigation to get to the bottom of this, for the alleged victims and the alleged attacker. So the truth can come out.

So again out of around 50 posts in this thread, you are so lazy that you go to the first post to try to make a point that is not true. So im asking you again, back up your claims that this thread has been fueled by my hatred of the royal family, and not the ever prominant news of allegations against Andrew?

a reply to: liteonit6969

Last post from me here.

From you.


"Also this has everything to do with the scum that are the royal family".

"and how they have tortured murdered enslaved the mass to feed their thirst for power"

It is obvious you already hated the royal family and obvious your OP you want to tar the whole family as pedos.
Oh and not saying he is guilty...you sure are implying it.
Goodbye.

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: HumanPLC

She may well have been involved in illegal activities and had a right to plead the fifth to protect herself. It doesn't mean that another party was guilty of illegal activities, although they may have been. I enjoy debating with you.

The question they pleaded the Fifth to wasnt about activities in the wider sense, it was about one specific activity, Andrew.

lol, youre not to be either me ole sausage.

You do baffle me though, youve got a good writing style and say some interesting things sometimes, but the rest of the time you talk so much crapola... Lmao

Im guessing by now you know im pulling your leg, lol

a reply to: Tangerine
Now you're accusing the victim of hating him because hes wealthy? That contradicts your assertion that she was in it for that exact lifestyle of world travel.

Has it really reached the point where you want her to be lying so bad you'll accuse her of a history of lying and then not back it up with evidence? Yep.

The very BEST case scenario, is that Andrew got an erotic massage from an underage prostitute and supported a sex offender in his court case. And you're still defending that.

double post

originally posted by: Tangerine

Why would you like to believe her claim?

I used the wrong phrase. Forgive me. I was exhausted. I tend to believe her. Being a survivor, it's inherent in me to side with victims until proven otherwise. The media has a tendency to bash victims nowadays pretty poorly, which I find abhorrent. My own example? I was 7 and made to feel I brought it upon myself. By 13, I was suicidal and told no one. By the time my parents were in marriage counseling, I told the counselor and she helped me to see there was no way a child of that age could bring something of that nature upon themselves. That I was in no way at fault. It has been 37 years and sometimes I still feel the guilt because it is something that is very hard to shake.

And in my case, it was a minor power play as well. He was the son of a fire chief in town. It's all in who you know.

Dershowitz is being countersued

Two lawyers representing a woman who claims to have had sex as a minor with prominent U.S. criminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz have filed a counter-defamation lawsuit against him.

In their lawsuit, Cassell and Edwards said Dershowitz defamed them when he accused them of 'deliberate misconduct and unethical behavior warranting disbarment' during several interviews with U.S. and international media outlets.

Cassell and Edwards said Dershowitz made defamatory statements in 'reckless disregard' in order to support his claim of innocence.

Sex Slave would be "looked after" if she kept quiet

The ‘sex slave’ who claims she was forced to sleep with Prince Andrew was promised she would ‘be looked after’ if she kept quiet, bombshell court documents allege.

Virginia Roberts said she was contacted by lawyers acting for billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein just a week after she was interviewed by the FBI about allegations of sex abuse at his Florida mansion.

Epstein’s legal team ‘tracked her down’ to Australia, leaving her ‘terrified’, before apparently trying to secure her silence, according to a transcript of a telephone interview she had with lawyers in 2011.

Miss Roberts said she was warned any of the victims who did not comply would be smeared as ‘drug addicts and prostitutes’

‘Apparently there was an investigation being held about some of the girls who had come out and said that Jeffrey had sexual contact with them under the age of a minor and that he was discrediting lot of these girls and making them out to be drug addicts and prostitutes so they wouldn’t be looked upon as worthy in the court’s eyes.’

Miss Roberts claims she told Epstein she did not ‘want to be a part of it’ and would not speak out.

The comments were made in a telephone interview from April 2011 with lawyers acting for Epstein’s victims, who were gathering evidence after the billionaire’s legal team mounted a counter legal action.

A further document uncovered by the Mail shows how Miss Roberts was ‘terrified’ after being tracked down by the lawyers.

In a ‘complaint and demand for jury trial’ filed in May 2009, lawyers acting for Miss Roberts stated: ‘Suddenly, in 2008, [Miss Roberts] received numerous phone calls from the defendant’s agents. ‘Terrified by [Epstein’s] demonstrated ability to track her down on her cell phone number halfway across the world, [Miss Roberts] attempted to reassure [Epstein’s] agent that she would remain quiet. [Epstein] himself spoke on the phone and thanked her for not getting involved.’

In the document, Miss Roberts’s lawyers claimed she was abused by ‘royalty’, ‘politicians’ and ‘academicians’ who were friendly with Epstein.

At one stage, he even ordered a pilot to re-direct his private plane because he was concerned the FBI were looking for one of the girls on board.

He allegedly told his victims ‘bad things’ would happen to them if they spoke out.

The lawyers, meanwhile, were accused of carrying out a campaign of intimidation, using ‘aggressive witness tampering’.

A girl approached by Florida detectives investigating Epstein in October 2005 told them she had already been approached by a private investigator working for Epstein.

‘[The girl] provided no additional information as it appeared her responses were almost scripted,’ a police affidavit stated.

originally posted by: Ridhya
a reply to: Tangerine
Now you're accusing the victim of hating him because hes wealthy? That contradicts your assertion that she was in it for that exact lifestyle of world travel.

Has it really reached the point where you want her to be lying so bad you'll accuse her of a history of lying and then not back it up with evidence? Yep.

The very BEST case scenario, is that Andrew got an erotic massage from an underage prostitute and supported a sex offender in his court case. And you're still defending that.

No. You misunderstand. I'm saying some of the accusers on this board hate him for that reason. The woman who accused Prince Andrew in her lawsuit (but, you'll note, did not sue him) is likely motivated by the publicity accusing him will provide. And it has worked in spades.

I'm not defending any illegal behavior but none has been proven on the part of anyone but Epstein. I also don't defend people who falsely accuse others of heinous crimes.

Your lack of concern about actual evidence is puzzling. I should think that would be a mandatory requirement to conclude that someone is guilty of a crime.

originally posted by: Anyafaj
Dershowitz is being countersued

Two lawyers representing a woman who claims to have had sex as a minor with prominent U.S. criminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz have filed a counter-defamation lawsuit against him.

In their lawsuit, Cassell and Edwards said Dershowitz defamed them when he accused them of 'deliberate misconduct and unethical behavior warranting disbarment' during several interviews with U.S. and international media outlets.

Cassell and Edwards said Dershowitz made defamatory statements in 'reckless disregard' in order to support his claim of innocence.

That's good news. This will go to court where it should be decided rather than in the media. However, it's better to use legitimate sources not the notorious Daily Mail.

originally posted by: Anyafaj
Sex Slave would be "looked after" if she kept quiet

The ‘sex slave’ who claims she was forced to sleep with Prince Andrew was promised she would ‘be looked after’ if she kept quiet, bombshell court documents allege.

Virginia Roberts said she was contacted by lawyers acting for billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein just a week after she was interviewed by the FBI about allegations of sex abuse at his Florida mansion.

Epstein’s legal team ‘tracked her down’ to Australia, leaving her ‘terrified’, before apparently trying to secure her silence, according to a transcript of a telephone interview she had with lawyers in 2011.

Miss Roberts said she was warned any of the victims who did not comply would be smeared as ‘drug addicts and prostitutes’

‘Apparently there was an investigation being held about some of the girls who had come out and said that Jeffrey had sexual contact with them under the age of a minor and that he was discrediting lot of these girls and making them out to be drug addicts and prostitutes so they wouldn’t be looked upon as worthy in the court’s eyes.’

Miss Roberts claims she told Epstein she did not ‘want to be a part of it’ and would not speak out.

The comments were made in a telephone interview from April 2011 with lawyers acting for Epstein’s victims, who were gathering evidence after the billionaire’s legal team mounted a counter legal action.

A further document uncovered by the Mail shows how Miss Roberts was ‘terrified’ after being tracked down by the lawyers.

In a ‘complaint and demand for jury trial’ filed in May 2009, lawyers acting for Miss Roberts stated: ‘Suddenly, in 2008, [Miss Roberts] received numerous phone calls from the defendant’s agents. ‘Terrified by [Epstein’s] demonstrated ability to track her down on her cell phone number halfway across the world, [Miss Roberts] attempted to reassure [Epstein’s] agent that she would remain quiet. [Epstein] himself spoke on the phone and thanked her for not getting involved.’

In the document, Miss Roberts’s lawyers claimed she was abused by ‘royalty’, ‘politicians’ and ‘academicians’ who were friendly with Epstein.

At one stage, he even ordered a pilot to re-direct his private plane because he was concerned the FBI were looking for one of the girls on board.

He allegedly told his victims ‘bad things’ would happen to them if they spoke out.

The lawyers, meanwhile, were accused of carrying out a campaign of intimidation, using ‘aggressive witness tampering’.

A girl approached by Florida detectives investigating Epstein in October 2005 told them she had already been approached by a private investigator working for Epstein.

‘[The girl] provided no additional information as it appeared her responses were almost scripted,’ a police affidavit stated.

Again, you're using the equivalent of a tabloid for a source.

The woman in question previously referred to Epstein as her mentor and raved about the gifts and world travel he lavished on her. He even financed her travels on her own. Sound like a case of trafficking? Scroll back through this thread and read what she said about Epstein.

originally posted by: HumanPLC

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: HumanPLC

She may well have been involved in illegal activities and had a right to plead the fifth to protect herself. It doesn't mean that another party was guilty of illegal activities, although they may have been. I enjoy debating with you.

The question they pleaded the Fifth to wasnt about activities in the wider sense, it was about one specific activity, Andrew.

lol, youre not to be either me ole sausage.

You do baffle me though, youve got a good writing style and say some interesting things sometimes, but the rest of the time you talk so much crapola... Lmao

Im guessing by now you know im pulling your leg, lol

The reason (the only legal reason) one can plead the fifth is to avoid self-incrimination. In other words, if she answered the question, she would be implicating herself in a crime.. The fact that she pleaded the fifth implies that she was committing a crime for which she was legally culpable. Being the victim of sex trafficking is not a crime.

Imagine this possible scenario: She solicited sex from Andrew, for money or not, telling him that she was of legal age. She did so for purposes of blackmailing him in collusion with Epstein, the man she called her mentor. Whether or not Andrew actually had sex with her or whether or not he paid her, she was committing a crime. That would be ample motivation for her to plead the fifth. Again, this is just a possibility but it would explain why she used the fifth.