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

Cant see if it was mentioned already but in terms of Princess Di there is one very curious outstanding question that relates to the "SquidgyGate" tapes and how they became public knowledge.

Official story was that the calls were intercepted by amateur Ham radio enthusiasts ( even though they were made from a landline on a "secured exchange".
On further examination it seems there is/was no accepted technical mechanism for this to happen unless the calls were recorded then re-broadcast by a third party.

All the other stuff is hard to believe but I cant find one technically sound explanation of how 2 people listening at 2 different times on ham radio in 2 different parts of the country would record the same conversation.

a reply to: Ridhya

At some point in this thread we were discussing the laws in regards to legal age of consent and digital images, especially as it relates to teenagers. You were basically saying that my comments made you lose all hope in humanity and called teenagers who share sexual images "little #s" and supported legal action. You also said it was always boys involved.

Well, here is a story for you to check out: www.theprovince.com...

This is a situation where a female teenager got in trouble for having a sexual image of her boyfriend, and her parents and everybody involved are trying to change the law itself stating that it is unconstitutional to charge a teenager for a pedophilia crime. Which it is. Common sense, no? But this is happening worldwide and I can guarantee you that it is wreaking holy havoc on the sexual development of countless young people. In fact, it effects ALL of them, because now they have to live with the same type of fear and repression as a criminal sex offender.

There is a new campaign of commercial advertisements out showcasing how hard it is to be a teenager and how the suicide rates for young people is very high. Might all of this nonsense about sexuality, social networks and the law have something to do with that? Lives are ruined by this stuff. If we were all more tolerant and less fire-and-brimstone in our approach to social problems, life would be much simpler for ALL of us!

The judge in this case didn't have the balls to set a new legal precedent. She probably just wanted to wrap up her paperwork, go home and make spaghetti and watch Dancing With the Stars...

Looks like our westminster and that includes royalty and Andrew, is coming back again into the public arena as people protest and we get into the Dolphin Square scandal and whether young children died there.

I find this all very shocking because I had a friend who lived in those flats and to think she was bringing up her small daughter there is horrific if the investigation ever gets going and we find out exactly what happened.

Public pressure will keep this going and going and many are not going to let this disappear off the radar for long.

Surprises me just how many people want to slander the royal family. Mostly because they perceive the Windsors to be leeching British taxes and being a huge waste and cost to upkeep. Quite the contrary...they bring in billions only through tourism. Not to mention all the help they give to poor countries through hundreds of charities and organizations. Compare them to the Saudis and these people are worthy of worship.

a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

they perceive the Windsors to be leeching British taxes and being a huge waste and cost to upkeep. Quite the contrary...they bring in billions only through tourism.

To quote my mate Tangering.. Have you got a source for that?

I only ask because this is a popular argument used by those in favour of the royals, but its just not true!

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

they perceive the Windsors to be leeching British taxes and being a huge waste and cost to upkeep. Quite the contrary...they bring in billions only through tourism.

To quote my mate Tangering.. Have you got a source for that?

I only ask because this is a popular argument used by those in favour of the royals, but its just not true!

The keeper of the privy purse has noted a massive decrease in spending steadily over the years by the royals. Secondly the British Tourism Agency estimates a conservative 800 million a year from tourism thanks to the Royals and the visitors they receive. If you factor in their diplomatic and charitable presence in the world they are doing much more good for Britain than people think.

a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

Some figures from a quick Google:

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace.

First thing that brought this up on Google
So that's £500 million.

The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy is £299.4m, around nine times the official figure published by the royal household.

Source
So we're left with about £200 million profit.

I don't know how accurate these figures are. I imagine the Royal family spend more, possibly cost less... impossible to tell how much they bring in from tourism.

I will say though, they're a seedy bunch of inbred oddballs.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

Some figures from a quick Google:

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace.

First thing that brought this up on Google
So that's £500 million.

The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy is £299.4m, around nine times the official figure published by the royal household.

Source


I will say though, they're a seedy bunch of inbred oddballs.

Inbred most likely, but a tradition worth keeping. Royal house is the reason why there are common standards and close relationships between commonwealth nations, probably the first example of free trade amongst a tight knit block of countries. Since money isn't that big of an issue and the royals stay away from important political matters, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Lots of blood on their hands for sure though don't get me wrong, but they are absolutely harmless today.

a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

I fear they are not harmless from a conspiracy theorist's point of view. I would also argue that free trade only advantages bigger companies, under the illusion that it is a good thing.

I can see you support them or at least don't have a negative view on them. I respect that opinion. Despite having close links to them I do not support them, I feel they are evil and devious in a way most people could not tolerate.

Except for the younger Princes and Kate I have no time for the Royals.

a reply to: corsair00
My god dude, you'll even lie to promote your wish. The girl shared nude photos of HER BOYFRIEND'S EX, so she is violating someone's privacy out of jealousy, and sharing underage porn. This was not consensual! Read your own article:

The girl, who cannot be named under terms of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, shared nude photos of her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend. The pictures were sent to the boyfriend and another friend.
During the girl’s trial, court heard that the situation started when the boyfriend broke up with his old girlfriend and moved to Victoria. The girl testified that her boyfriend was still in touch with his former girlfriend and she didn’t like it. She tried to mock and ridicule the ex-girlfriend by sharing the naked photos.

So you have still to refute my previous point. I already said, if things were kept private there wouldnt be a problem, but here's a jealous girl ruining someone else's life. She should be charged to the fullest extent. Did she spread child porn? Technically yes! And she did it for malicious reasons.

a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

I don't get it? Where in those figures does any of the profit they make from tourism go to charities?

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

I fear they are not harmless from a conspiracy theorist's point of view. I would also argue that free trade only advantages bigger companies, under the illusion that it is a good thing.

I can see you support them or at least don't have a negative view on them. I respect that opinion. Despite having close links to them I do not support them, I feel they are evil and devious in a way most people could not tolerate.

Except for the younger Princes and Kate I have no time for the Royals.

Could you elaborate on their evil and devious ways, I'm open minded and I also respect the other perceptions of them out there. The fact is that I am a Canadian and I would be lying if I said I didn't swear an oath to the Queen. The fact that many hundreds of millions of people are binded by sworn oaths also complicates this realm but I will stand by my firm belief that in today's world they are powerless and bringing in tons of tourists and giving a sort of fiber and doing a service for English culture and history. Getting rid of them will cause nothing but bloodshed I'm afraid, brother against brother type of bloodshed.

originally posted by: Flesh699
a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

I don't get it? Where in those figures does any of the profit they make from tourism go to charities?

Their charitable work is not included in the figures, but you can read about their charitable involvements here.

Royal Involvement with Charities

a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken
Forgive my turn of phrase but: Why on Earth would you swear an oath to a woman you had never met?

Also - why on Earth would you feel you are binded by something you have said to someone you have never met!

And - an oath... in this day and age... to the Queen? I think whoever is promoting the Royal family in Canada is doing a great job!

Sorry to come across like a t**t but you've just blown my mind!

a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

Sorry, I should have added this as well, regarding evil ways.... Now I'm not saying this information is true, or that the source is viable but I said "from a conspiracy theorist's point of view"... So read on:
Link

a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

If you think you can compare an ancient royalty from the UK to a comparatively recent-rich royalty in saudi you are mistaken.

Exactly how much do the royals earn this country in comparison to what they actually cost it? Add that the the scandals of our so-called first family and you will see family values are as disregarded there with even less regard that in the general public.

I would be interested in the queen's personal donations as you put it also. As far as I am concerned we could have another 40,000 nurses in the NHS for the normal money she is given each year, something that would bene fit the poeple of this country and that doesnt include the odd millions cameron awarded her on the sly.

You want the royalty you are welcome to them and prince andrew whose past speaks for itself with its scandals is the epitome of the lawlessness they hold themselves to live in. That family would be of precious little importance had it not been able to wiggle onto the british throne, which should have ended when the last one abdicated.

a reply to: and14263

I read your link with a sad heart in truth. Thank you for putting it on as its something every brit should read because of the disgusting behaviour of this ghastly so-called family.

I do agree with the similarity of Kate of Diana. Both women are/were very pretty and bound to appeal to the public's naive idea of a young princess, however we all saw the torment Diana suffered and Charles's lack of interest in her. Kate is yet another clothes horse to roll down the road on her royal husband's arm. I rather think that after the royal visit to New Zealand she has been told to reign in her charm and taking the lead in things, especially she told him she was going in the plane up front - I caught the look on his face before he smiled and I suspect he was unsure of being eclipsed a bit. I did hope they would be happy but think that it is probably just the public's anticipation of that - we will find out in due course.

I was surprised about the Queen as my step father was a reporter on the new york times and he concentrated on the duke's affairs when he travelled abroad, telling us around the dinner table how many times Dukie had had to be recalled from his travels. People forget the past very easily but I remember that it was reported periodically how miserable the queen looked and that she rarely smiled. When she did she was obviously not thinking of the duke! I was told by a naval friend queenie and dukie even had separate bedrooms on Britannia which - when one is on holiday with the wife is not the usual way people holiday. But there we are. The sooner they go and are exposed the better. Their real behaviour is totally unacceptable to the public who would, despite their own misdeeds, be shocked.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Like I say I don't know how true any of it is but it's worth a read.

As for Kate... She can be compared to Diana however the situation between Will and Kate is a bit more modern. Less for show and more about love. Kate is a modern woman and Will is a normal guy (as normal as a Prince can get!). I don't predict anything dodgey or seedy in their lives. I honestly believe they are a couple in love and Kate will get away with more than your average married in Royal when it comes to doing her own thing.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Shiloh7

Like I say I don't know how true any of it is but it's worth a read.

As for Kate... She can be compared to Diana however the situation between Will and Kate is a bit more modern. Less for show and more about love. Kate is a modern woman and Will is a normal guy (as normal as a Prince can get!). I don't predict anything dodgey or seedy in their lives. I honestly believe they are a couple in love and Kate will get away with more than your average married in Royal when it comes to doing her own thing.

Give it a few years.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

I know what you're saying but I honestly believe this time it is different. Cliche alert