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: 30
71
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

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.



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.

... until the victim is compliant enough not to run away, which can take years.

You're also forgetting the threats which go a long way to make someone stay.




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: daftpink

I would also add Stockholm syndrome as something to think about. Victim can come and go as they please if they are mentally captured.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


While we might argue the definition on here, we have to consider what the law says.


Excellent, we have some form of solid definition of what sexual slavery is then, which is what ive been looking for.

If we have to consider what the law says then could you provide a link and/or extract from the law(s) regarding sexual slavery.

Here is an example taken from English law in response to a few of your comments:



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.


Just to be clear, you are still saying (despite my previous source) that sex trafficking would always involves holding the victim against their will.

Here is an extract from a case study that was included in the Modern Slavery Bill written by Theresa May.



Two girls, aged 14 and 15 at the time, were identified by Border Force officers at Heathrow Airport in September and November 2011 using false passports showing they were adults.
In interviews with the Serious Organised Crime Agency’s Vulnerable Persons Team it became clear that the pair were being trafficked to mainland Europe for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

They were placed in local authority care but on 6 April 2012 were reported missing to Sussex Police by their respective foster carers.

Investigation revealed that contact had been made with the girls and Odosa Usiobaifo had collected them from a pre-arranged meeting point before they were given false passports and tickets and placed on a flight to Spain.

Usiobaifo was part of an organised crime group trafficking young girls for sexual exploitation.

In March 2013, Usiobaifo was sentenced to the (current) maximum 14 years for his involvement in the trafficking of the girls following a joint Home Office and Sussex Police investigation.

He was convicted of conspiring to traffick for the purposes of sexual exploitation and pleaded guilty to conspiring to facilitate illegal immigration.


No one was physically restrained or held against their will here. The girls were even placed in foster care where one could argue they were relatively safe.

If what you say is correct, then this could not have been a trafficking offence as they were not held against their will.


edit on 12/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


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.


Isnt that just trolling?

Im not annoyed; however i do think that its detrimental to the facts, this thread, and the general ethos of ATS when you repeatedly make unfounded comments and fail to back these up when challenged. Especially when you repeatedly call other users out over having no facts or evidence to back up their claims.

To knowingly provide false info is against the ATS terms and conditions, and rightly so!

Have you got those links/sources yet?


edit on 12/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/1/15 by HumanPLC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: HumanPLC

A definition is merely what is in 'speak vogue' at the time of printing, e.g. Gay use to be a girl's christian name, not now.

A prime example of why its hard, especially to defy a British royal and expose him - is Princess Diana.

Even if you can leave their circles, she was away from charlie boy in another country with another man and his body guards, she still ended up dead, done in the blatant limelight in suspicious circumstances so anyone giving information needs to be protected especially from the elite around the world and especially the royals of the UK.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7




A prime example of why its hard, especially to defy a British royal and expose him - is Princess Diana.

Even if you can leave their circles, she was away from charlie boy in another country with another man and his body guards, she still ended up dead, done in the blatant limelight in suspicious circumstances so anyone giving information needs to be protected especially from the elite around the world and especially the royals of the UK.


The inquest found it was an unlawful killing by following vehicles ... Immediately the MSM headlined blaming the Paparazzi ... this was a blatant lie ... The eye witness accounts spoke of a White Fiat Uno and motorcycles surrounding Diane's car...a blinding flash ... the rest is history ... The Paparazzi had been left far behind and each one was accounted for.
Diana had predicted her murder in a letter which never saw the light of day in the "Royal Courts" such is the conspiracy to protect the Royal Household ...

Expect no justice for any who take on the Royals ... Sad but true



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
The inquest found it was an unlawful killing by following vehicles ...


Wrong again, they actually found

On 7 April 2008, the jury concluded that Diana and Dodi were the victims of an "unlawful killing" by the "grossly negligent" chauffeur Henri Paul and the drivers of the following vehicles.[9] Additional factors were "the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol" and "the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not wearing a seat-belt,


So a drunk chauffeur, and Di not wearing a seatbelt. Also the cars following. Just think, if she had done what normal people do and worn a seatbelt she would still be here today.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I don't think she would be here today.

Ages ago I did a thread after I met with a private investigator about what the media know regarding Diana and what they are allowed to publish. I mentioned to the PI that I'd heard Prince Andrew was HIV positive, the PI agreed and told me about how Diana was going to blow the story open.

Looking back on what he told me I don't think the secret was him being HIV positive, I think it was something to do with this thread. Obviously I can't be sure but the hints she gave out before her death relate more to PA being involved with this sordid crap rather then him being HIV positive.

I'll try dig the thread out. I think the PI who I met became a member on here too.

EDIT:Here is the thread - I need to look over the Bashir interview again from a different perspective.
edit on 12-1-2015 by and14263 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




So a drunk chauffeur, and Di not wearing a seatbelt. Also the cars following. Just think, if she had done what normal people do and worn a seatbelt she would still be here today.
.

I see you only follow the official version ... It is fabrication ...
The evidence showed he was well under the limit having had only a couple of Ricards on his tab before leaving ...
also film footage shows him "Sober as a Judge" on leaving ...

The subsequent condemning blood tests were all found to be highly dubious ...
also 2 searches were done on his flat ... the first showed no signs of a heavy drinker ...
an unopened bottle of Champagne and a bottle of Martini ...
The second search found a load of booze of all descriptions ... How very curious they suddenly appeared ...

His blood samples were later asked for for testing independently ... Guess what .. They disappeared as did Diane's ... As for the seat belt it was found to be faulty ... or tapered with more likely ...

As I said ... expect no justice from the Royal Courts if you dare to take them on

Believe what you want but the majority of the British Public are not idiots and overwhelming know she was murdered


edit on 12-1-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Banned Worldwide: Princess Diana Documentary ‘Unlawful Killing’. Must See. - See more at: yournewswire.com...

yournewswire.com...


edit on 12-1-2015 by artistpoet because: title



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: RonPalmer

I am a little insulted, my family has been here less than theres but I am pretty sure I'm British, Maybe I'll ask my dad to make sure.

If charles is British then why would there be an issue with him being the Prince of Wales, You have lost me there aliitle if I'm honest.



There are 'degrees' of Britishness, clearly. If you just turned up five minutes ago (i.e. within the last century or so) you are most definitely less British than someone whose family have been here for millennia - wouldn't you say? It's all to do with the investment of blood, sweat and tears in one's nation.

There is an issue issue with Charles being Prince of Wales as he's Anglo/German and not Welsh. If Francois Hollande suddenly, and arbitrarily, claimed he was Prince of England, or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner declared herself to be the Duchess of London or somesuch - the English would be pretty miffed I should imagine.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: WarminIndy

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.

Uh..she didn't say. She traveled independently and married someone.

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.

... until the victim is compliant enough not to run away, which can take years.

You're also forgetting the threats which go a long way to make someone stay.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Shiloh7




A prime example of why its hard, especially to defy a British royal and expose him - is Princess Diana.

Even if you can leave their circles, she was away from charlie boy in another country with another man and his body guards, she still ended up dead, done in the blatant limelight in suspicious circumstances so anyone giving information needs to be protected especially from the elite around the world and especially the royals of the UK.


The inquest found it was an unlawful killing by following vehicles ... Immediately the MSM headlined blaming the Paparazzi ... this was a blatant lie ... The eye witness accounts spoke of a White Fiat Uno and motorcycles surrounding Diane's car...a blinding flash ... the rest is history ... The Paparazzi had been left far behind and each one was accounted for.
Diana had predicted her murder in a letter which never saw the light of day in the "Royal Courts" such is the conspiracy to protect the Royal Household ...

Expect no justice for any who take on the Royals ... Sad but true


And expect no actual evidence from you.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Watch the documentary I posted if you want evidence ...
but of course you won't because you are not interested enough ...
You only wish to derail and undermine in my opinion
You are like a broken record my friend



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: hellobruce

I don't think she would be here today.

Ages ago I did a thread after I met with a private investigator about what the media know regarding Diana and what they are allowed to publish. I mentioned to the PI that I'd heard Prince Andrew was HIV positive, the PI agreed and told me about how Diana was going to blow the story open.

Looking back on what he told me I don't think the secret was him being HIV positive, I think it was something to do with this thread. Obviously I can't be sure but the hints she gave out before her death relate more to PA being involved with this sordid crap rather then him being HIV positive.

I'll try dig the thread out. I think the PI who I met became a member on here too.

EDIT:Here is the thread - I need to look over the Bashir interview again from a different perspective.


Your link to the thread led to other links, none of which, as far as I could find, revealed the claims you just made. I see this as an attempt to legitimize your claims by posting a link in hopes that no one would actually read the links and simply accept your claims at your word.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Tangerine

Watch the documentary I posted if you want evidence ...
but of course you won't because you are not interested enough ...
You only wish to derail and undermine in my opinion
You are like a broken record my friend


No, you made the claim that there is evidence so it's up to you to cite that evidence and how it was tested. Note that claims are not testable evidence. I do look forward to finding out which evidence you will cite.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




Your link to the thread led to other links, none of which, as far as I could find, revealed the claims you just made. I see this as an attempt to legitimize your claims by posting a link in hopes that no one would actually read the links and simply accept your claims at your word.


I posted a link to a documentary that works just fine on my computer ... where are you at ...
The Documentary is entitled .... "Unlawful Killing"
And No I do not expect any to agree with what I write but the evidence is in the documentary you seem to be saying does not exist ...

Also I am sure other's can speak for themselves and even verify the link



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Tangerine




Your link to the thread led to other links, none of which, as far as I could find, revealed the claims you just made. I see this as an attempt to legitimize your claims by posting a link in hopes that no one would actually read the links and simply accept your claims at your word.


I posted a link to a documentary that works just fine on my computer ... where are you at ...
The Documentary is entitled .... "Unlawful Killing"
And No I do not expect any to agree with what I write but the evidence is in the documentary you seem to be saying does not exist ...

Also I am sure other's can speak for themselves and even verify the link


You watched the documentary and can't cite any testable evidence gleaned from it. That tells me that there likely was none in the documentary.

I have no interest in watching the dozens of videos posted in these threads every day when the person who posts them claims they're chock full of evidence yet can't cite any of it. Experience tells me that that is a sure sign that there is no relevant evidence contained therein but, rather, loads of unsubstantiated claims that the poster wants to pass off as testable evidence. Perhaps you would reconsider and list some of the testable evidence and explain how it proves your contention. By the way, exactly what is your contention regarding this whole situation? That Diana died in a car accident? That Diana was killed by MI6? That Diana was killed by Prince Harry? That Diana was killed by (fill in the blank)?



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Fact .. Evidence was withheld from the inquest ... A letter by Diane claiming her husband was going to have her murdered in a car accident ... but I will not waste my time with you



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Tangerine

Fact .. Evidence was withheld from the inquest ... A letter by Diane claiming her husband was going to have her murdered in a car accident ... but I will not waste my time with you


Her name was Diana not Diane. Where is the letter? Where is the proof that Charles had her killed?

What evidence was withheld from the inquest and by whom? Who ordered the evidence withheld?

I'm sure you won't be wasting your time with me because I'm not one of the people who confuses claims with actual evidence. Those who do are your target audience. Of course, I could be mistaken and you could produce the actual evidence. I guess we'll have to wait and see what your next post contains.

edit on 12-1-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join