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: 29
71
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
My own views on the whether we need Royals are based on simple logic.

Imagine you had a handfull of money that you have to give away.

Now, you have two choices:

1. Give that money to help a sick and/or starving child enjoy a better life.
2. Give that money to a person who already considers themself above me, and who will use it to further enjoy a life of priviledge and luxury.

The choice is obvious, thats how simple it is!


edit on 10/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: HumanPLC

An interesting story I came across today...

www.theguardian.com...

People need to realise that IF the allegations in the OP are true they WILL be covered up. See this article as an example. By discussing and disseminating all the info we can find on it we have a chance of understanding the TRUTH.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: midicon

originally posted by: RifRAAF
a reply to: Tangerine
Ok, why I thought Wessex was because I saw Edward Wessex for Prince Edwasd on a documentary credits I once saw. Thanks for the clarification.


It has been reported in the Sun today that Andrew and Fergie have bought the holiday chalet that they have been renting. It was also mentioned that the signature on the mortgage agreement reads Andrew York. It does make one wonder at the paltry sum given to Ferguson and why they would need it.

That's not his legal name so either the report is wrong or he's using a made-up name. Perhaps the Sun isn't a credible source.




posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: HumanPLC

Uh..when you hold someone against their will, you've kidnapped them. When their sexual services are sold against their will for sexual purposes, they are sex slaves. When they moved from place to place international being sold, often repeatedly, they are sex trafficked. I would think that kidnapping is always a part of sex slavery and sex trafficking. Warmindy is correct.

Can you describe a situation in which a woman is a sex slave but is not held against her will (ie. kidnapped)? I can't. Number 4 in your list ("physically constrained or has restrictions placed on his/her freedom of movement") is kidnapping.

I'm unaware of any evidence that this particular woman was held against her will. If she was not held against her will, she was not a sex slave nor was she sex trafficked.

What year(s) does she allege that she was sex-trafficked to Dershowitz and Andrew? In what country/state was she sex-trafficked to them? What year was she born? The answer to those questions will tell you whether she was underage.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: daftpink

a reply to: HumanPLC

An interesting story I came across today...

www.theguardian.com...

People need to realise that IF the allegations in the OP are true they WILL be covered up. See this article as an example. By discussing and disseminating all the info we can find on it we have a chance of understanding the TRUTH.


Let's start at the beginning. List the exact allegations made against Dershowitz and Prince Andrew.

Explain how you will be able to distinguish between the allegations being false and the alleged crimes being covered up. It seems that this is a situation in which you will determine that Dershowitz and Prince Andrew are either guilty by reason of evidence tested in a court of law or guilty by reason of lack of evidence. Is that really the legal system under which you want to live?

Are you unaware that Dershowitz has set in motion a legal process by which the accuser will have to either present evidence proving he committed the crime(s) or remove his name from mention in the suit?



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: RonPalmer


I would question that because I happened to read an article just today about him buying a new 13 million pound ski chalet.

The title deed named him as Edward York so although | am not arguing with you it appears that legally he is named as such.


Legally he is. Prince William and Harry called themselves William and Harry Wales at school. Prince Andrew's kids use the surname York. They also have various titles and other surnames they can use such as Windsor. Basically they are above their STRAWMAN and so legally they can do pretty much anything.
edit on 10/1/2015 by daftpink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm looking at the bigger picture and from every angle. I don't care much for the current legal system but I really don't have to explain why here.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: RonPalmer


I would question that because I happened to read an article just today about him buying a new 13 million pound ski chalet.

The title deed named him as Edward York so although | am not arguing with you it appears that legally he is named as such.


Legally he is. Prince William and Harry called themselves William and Harry Wales at school. Prince Andrew's kids use the surname York. They also have various titles and other surnames they can use such as Windsor. Basically they are above their STRAWMAN and so legally they can do pretty much anything.


That would, indeed, be remarkable if a deed (which I'm guessing you haven't seen) listed Andrew, Duke of York as Edward York. Remarkable, indeed.

"Legally he is". Legally who is what? What is your source for the claim of legality regarding the Duke of York being Edward York?

Prince William, now the Duke of Cambridge, and Prince Harry were called William and Harry Wales at school for convenience, at their request or Prince Charles' request, not because that is their legal name. Just so you know, their first names aren't Prince, either.

I'll confuse you further, Diana was never Princess Diana.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: daftpink

a reply to: Tangerine

I'm looking at the bigger picture and from every angle. I don't care much for the current legal system but I really don't have to explain why here.


What bigger picture? I'm not even sure to what you refer. TItles, names, crimes, allegations?



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: RonPalmer


I would question that because I happened to read an article just today about him buying a new 13 million pound ski chalet.

The title deed named him as Edward York so although | am not arguing with you it appears that legally he is named as such.


Legally he is. Prince William and Harry called themselves William and Harry Wales at school. Prince Andrew's kids use the surname York. They also have various titles and other surnames they can use such as Windsor. Basically they are above their STRAWMAN and so legally they can do pretty much anything.


That would, indeed, be remarkable if a deed (which I'm guessing you haven't seen) listed Andrew, Duke of York as Edward York. Remarkable, indeed.

"Legally he is". Legally who is what? What is your source for the claim of legality regarding the Duke of York being Edward York?

Prince William, now the Duke of Cambridge, and Prince Harry were called William and Harry Wales at school for convenience, at their request or Prince Charles' request, not because that is their legal name. Just so you know, their first names aren't Prince, either.

I'll confuse you further, Diana was never Princess Diana.

No i haven't seen the deeds it was another poster that was talking about them.
What i mean is he can call himself anything. He can be out the system or in it. You don't have to patronise me but look up strawman legalities and you will get the gist.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: daftpink
You don't have to patronise me but look up strawman legalities and you will get the gist.


rationalwiki.org...


trawman theory (Also called the Strawman illusion) is a pseudolegal theory prevalent in various movements such as sovereign citizen, tax protestor, freeman on the land, the redemption movement and various "get out of debt free" scams. The theory holds that an individual has two personas, one of him or herself as a real flesh and blood human being and the other, a separate legal personality or person (usually written in CAPITALS) who is the "strawman". The idea is that an individual’s debts, liabilities, taxes and legal responsibilities belong to the strawman rather than the physical individual themselves, conveniently allowing one to escape their debts and responsibilities.[1] Strawman theory should not be confused with the actual legal concept of a strawperson, with which it only bears a tenuous similarity, or with the logical fallacy known as a straw man argument. The strawman theory is recognised in law, but only as a scam: the FBI considers anyone promoting it a likely fraudster,[2] and the IRS considers it a frivolous argument that will get you a $5000 fine if you use it on your tax return.[3]


The gist is that the "strawman legalities" is just a freeman scam.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

edit on 10/1/2015 by daftpink because: wrong post oops im tireddd



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I would hope you would dig deeper than one link
but really, I would go into it here buts its lengthy and off topic so thats why i said to look it up instead.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


I would think that kidnapping is always a part of sex slavery and sex trafficking. Warmindy is correct.


I'm unaware of any evidence that this particular woman was held against her will. If she was not held against her will, she was not a sex slave nor was she sex trafficked.


There you go again, just ignoring the facts and the source that I have supplied because its convenient.

I have included it again below but this time i have deliberately omitted No4 to keep it simple for you.

Okay, look below... No mention of kidnap and yet any one of these can still be slavery... Magic, eh?



There are many different characteristics that distinguish slavery from other human rights violations, however only one needs to be present for slavery to exist. Someone is in slavery if they are:

1. forced to work - through mental or physical threat;
2. owned or controlled by an 'employer', usually through mental or physical abuse or the threat of abuse;
3. dehumanised, treated as a commodity or bought and sold as 'property';




Can you describe a situation in which a woman is a sex slave but is not held against her will (ie. kidnapped)?


That question tells me you didnt even read the link. If you had you would have seen the plethora of examples given.

One obvious example is Prostitution!

How about you provide a few facts now matey, youve been called out a good few times on this thread over disinformation but you have still failed to deliver.


edit on 11/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
Can you describe a situation in which a woman is a sex slave but is not held against her will (ie. kidnapped)? I can't.

Really? You cant think of battered wives? Countless women across the world are loyal to their abusive husbands. Sex slaves who werent kidnapped.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ridhya

originally posted by: Tangerine
Can you describe a situation in which a woman is a sex slave but is not held against her will (ie. kidnapped)? I can't.

Really? You cant think of battered wives? Countless women across the world are loyal to their abusive husbands. Sex slaves who werent kidnapped.


We're talking about trafficked women here, not battered wives, but battered wives are also held against their will. Ask them. They're threatened with a horrible fate if they leave their abusers. In this situation, the woman traveled without Epstein and even married. She later referred to Epstein as her mentor. Batterers keep a tight leash on their victims and their victims do not later refer to them as mentors and brag about the gifts and world travel lavished on them. Also, the topic of this OP is Prince Andrew not Epstein. There isn't even an accusation that he trafficked this woman or held her against her will in any way. The fact that many women are abused and trafficked does not automatically mean that this woman was trafficked. Her story smells and it's only her story that should be judged.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ridhya

originally posted by: Tangerine
Can you describe a situation in which a woman is a sex slave but is not held against her will (ie. kidnapped)? I can't.

Really? You cant think of battered wives? Countless women across the world are loyal to their abusive husbands. Sex slaves who werent kidnapped.


And some men...I was one
three times...



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Actually warmindy and i were discussing the definition of a sexual salve and then you butted in, didnt read any links, ignored the facts, got it all wrong and ended up looking a bit silly again.

By the way, were all still waiting for you to provide some facts to back up the repeated false stetements you have made throughout this thread.

edit on 11/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: Tangerine

Actually warmindy and i were discussing the definition of a sexual salve and then you butted in, didnt read any links, ignored the facts, got it all wrong and ended up looking a bit silly again.

By the way, were all still waiting for you to provide some facts to back up the repeated false stetements you have made throughout this thread.


This is an open forum and anyone can respond to any post. I understand that my posts annoy you. I imagine they'll continue to annoy you. In fact, I rather hope they'll continue to annoy you.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: Tangerine

Actually warmindy and i were discussing the definition of a sexual salve and then you butted in, didnt read any links, ignored the facts, got it all wrong and ended up looking a bit silly again.

By the way, were all still waiting for you to provide some facts to back up the repeated false stetements you have made throughout this thread.


I have been gone three days without internet and am back tonight to see you referenced me in a comment.

The traditional definition of sexual slavery is exactly what Tangerine and I both have proffered. While people want to throw battered wives in the mix, one should consider domestic and family laws regarding that. While we might argue the definition on here, we have to consider what the law says.

Let's understand, sexual slavery in a situation that is not domestic, the victim is held forcibly or psychologically against their will, usually physical restraints are used primarily until the victim is compliant enough not to run away, which can take years.

Sex trafficking involves transportation of said restrained victim across state or national borders, for the purpose of selling the victim for sex.

In the traditional definition, Tangerine and I are both correct.

Fifty Shades of Gray is not sex trafficking and neither is it sexual slavery, even though the character was bound and tied for the purpose of sex, and this is the type of relationship Jane Doe claims to have, because she was freely allowed to move about under her own volition. So no, if she is capable of entering and exiting the relationship at will, then it is not sex trafficking and nor is it sexual slavery.

That's the point some people are missing,no one is a sexual slave that is trafficked if they are able to come and go as they please.




top topics



 
71
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join