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

Well it certainly seems to be coming to light regarding the royals and it can't come soon enough.

This has been known about for years by the likes of David Icke and I just hope people will delve into the wide range of study He has brought forward.

As others have already said,this case is far from conclusive..but..anyone with a dash of common sense can see the writing on the wall.

It is 'interesting' how a certain few have jumped in defense of these individuals in this thread,could it be said the Masons are trying to protect their own interests?..tsk tsk..Oh and by the way rape is indeed rape and is despicable!

The royals are true scum fact! But this is not isolated to just them,all/most people in these circles globally indulge in these heinous crimes.It is amazing how most people in England dote over these psychos and never question who they are,where they come from and why they consider themselves supreme and ultimately rule over us..the answers are all there to see if people so choose.

Let's hope justice is done.

a reply to: hellobruce

The real issue here is someone has made a accusation, without any evidence, and some people have got a lynch party already!

I can only speak for myself but thats not how i feel.

I see it as: An accusation has been made, which in itself is evidence that a crime may have been committed. No one should be lynched, but if there is a belief that a crime has been committed then it should be investigated to establsh the facts and determine if its true.

If it were any of us, thats what would happen, but sadly, if you are a person in power, it seems that the rules are different.

originally posted by: HumanPLC

originally posted by: Tangerine
Shouldn't this be posted in the Lynched Without A Trial forum?

Its nothing to do with a lynching, its just the trial that people want. A fair and unbias trial where the factual evidence is laid out and you are judged by your peers on the strength of this evidence. Pretty much the same as what us 'common' folk could expect if we were accused in the same way as some of these people have been.

No, a number of people in this thread seem to now think that a female, aged somewhere between 15 and 17 was raped by a prince and that this is a fact. That is because this is a conspiracy forum and some people would rather go with what they would like to believe rather than any facts. Prince Andrew hasn't been charged of anything, he is named as others have been in an American civil case.

Doesn't matter though does it? That will just be classed as the 'official story' that the 'sheeple' believe. WTFDIB

a reply to: rickymouse

Do people in the UK also not understand what they read?

The girl is going after Epstein, not the prince.

a reply to: EndOfDays77

Your ignorance of our historical land just shows how inept you are of providing an argument. How are Royals scum (fact you said) What fact that they are scum? The royal history of our land provides secure income and patriatism amongst those of us that are intelligent enough to know where their linage came from and why they are still monachs of our realm.
As for this accusation, lets wait for the facts to come through before jumping on the media bandwagon.

a reply to: HumanPLC

If its documented in an American court trial then you do have a witness - which means evidence.

The original list for Elm Grove that I think MI5 had included 'a member of the royal household' and that is the main reason why this investigation in this country has stalled - its not only the high profile of people from institutions that were put in place to protect childrenm the police themselves, MP's and ministers at that, but its the royal household that will cling like a leach to the british tax income they derive and the position of priviledge no one else gets in the world unless they are oil shirks. At last we have the name of the One who mustn't be named albeit a girl.

I remember Andrew being reported as telling Koo Stark that she couldn't touch him nobody could touch the british royal family. I dare say with information coming out, now he's named, perhaps more will come forward. Its a difficult position for them because members of the police force don't seem to be trustworthy and also involved, even if they were employed to protect the man involved, so they knew what he was doing… So how could anyone with evidence trust the police to look after their safety? Theresa May needs to buck up her ideas and get sorted out.

Many people won't say boo to the royals because of the prestige of some title coming their way and most people are snobs whether they like it or not.

originally posted by: EndOfDays77
Well it certainly seems to be coming to light regarding the royals

What are you babbling about? Which "Royals" are you on about, only 1 has been mentioned....

This has been known about for years by the likes of David Icke and I just hope people will delve into the wide range of study He has brought forward.

So you think people should investigate Icke's silly claim that the Queen is a lizard....

anyone with a dash of common sense can see the writing on the wall.

So when you see graffiti you think it must be true....

The royals are true scum fact!

Based on what exactly?

It is amazing how most people in England dote over these psychos

The only psychos here are those believing Icke's silly claims!

why they consider themselves supreme

Why do you think that they consider themselves supreme?

and ultimately rule over us

The only one doing any ruling is QE2, and she only rules over the UK with very limited powers.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
I remember Andrew being reported as telling Koo Stark that she couldn't touch him nobody could touch the british royal family.

Care to back that claim up with some evidence?

Of course you ignore facts like this....
news.bbc.co.uk...

Princess Anne has been fined £400 after admitting driving her Bentley at 93mph on a dual carriageway in Gloucestershire. Cheltenham magistrates also gave her a five-point endorsement on her licence and ordered her to pay £30 costs.

a reply to: uncommitted

Mate, we must be perceiving this thread differently as im really not feeling that vibe on here. I have seen a few comments that may suggest such a thing but i would say they are in the minority.

The way i see this is that a legal (i assume sworn) testemony has been submitted in the USA that contains many allegations, one of these being that this girl/lady was forced to have sex with Andrew.

Whether it would be seen as rape would be down to where it happened and the laws that were in place at the time.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: HumanPLC

If its documented in an American court trial then you do have a witness - which means evidence.

The original list for Elm Grove that I think MI5 had included 'a member of the royal household' and that is the main reason why this investigation in this country has stalled - its not only the high profile of people from institutions that were put in place to protect childrenm the police themselves, MP's and ministers at that, but its the royal household that will cling like a leach to the british tax income they derive and the position of priviledge no one else gets in the world unless they are oil shirks. At last we have the name of the One who mustn't be named albeit a girl.

It was a member of the kitchen staff in Buckingham Palace, if you are going to make such comments, the facts are actually in the public domain. If I remember rightly even that was a claim that was made, the person wasn't named as it was a claim only with no evidence with which to actually back it up. As for "If its documented in an American court trial then you do have a witness - which means evidence." No you don't, at that point you have someone making a claim. That doesn't automatically mean they did witness something.

Sheesh, myself and others in this thread seem to be seen as 'apologists' for no reason other than we have stated facts rather than emotion or contempt for people we have never met. Deny Ignorance is supposed to mean exactly that.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Interesting.

I ought to point out for the record, that the victim who has made these allegations against the prince is 29 years of age, and was 17 during the period referred to in the allegations. So, in the case of any events which may have transpired between Prince Andrew and herself on British soil, the allegation that underage sex was occurring cannot be accurate, since the age of consent in this country has been sixteen years of age since 1885.

As for anything that happened else where, I cannot possibly comment, because I know not the merest thing about the law in the other locations mentioned.

a reply to: Shiloh7

I agree completely.

What concerns me is that we already have evidence that 'something' has gone on. Not neccesarily with the royals, but most certainly within the higher echelons of our establishment.

I mean we already have:
> Big names linked to known establishments
> Survivors coming forward and naming these people
> Missing dossiers (that named some of these people)
> Ex Police Officers coming forward and stating that these investigations were halted by powers above.

There is much more, but just with those facts alone, it astonishes me how someone can look at that and still think its all just a big coincidence.

Prince Andrew is not Pedophile and like all 17 year old boys he likes to sow his seeds so his handlers paid for a hooker because he cannot just walk into any bar without getting mobbed or set up by some young girl on the make who then says he raped her.

The hooker is being a bitch and wants to up the charges using blackmail and in any case her wages are now being included in the GDP figures to make it look like the UK is on the up.

Leave him alone and go after him if he does do something real bad.

a reply to: stumason

There is something bias about you I just can't put my finger on it?

hmmmmmmmm....

Wow, what a very dramatic headline.

Yeah, because Prince Andrew is the only man on the entire planet attracted to those barely legal (or barely not legal, whatever the case may be) and because entire, legal industries don't make trillions off of or exploit this penchant. This thing has blown up more because of who he is than what he did. Kind of ridiculous to even comment beyond this until all the facts come out, if they ever do, which is a whole other discussion and also probably not as dramatic as the headline.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: rickymouse

Do people in the UK also not understand what they read?

The girl is going after Epstein, not the prince.

You actually raise an interesting point... If, in some sick way it was actually fame or notoriety that this girl was after wouldnt it have been more effective for her to go after the Prince directly? "The Prince of England Raped Me" would make a much more sensational headline than "I Was Epsteins Sex Slave"

Im leaning towards the thought that if her allegations were for an untoward reason then this is what she would have done.

Who's her legal reperesantitive? has anyone looked into him/her? Do they have a history of going after the big sensational cases?

Im just thinking out loud really, but i'm sure her legal rep, at some point, must have advised her about the possible repercussions of her statement. I cant see how this would have been taken lightly.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
This thing has blown up more because of who he is than what he did.

To be accurate, it' what Prince Andrew is alleged to have done, something which he denies. Seems to me that there's a lot of people deciding he's guilty, even though there is a good chance that this is a sensationalist accusation from a young woman who sees a chance at celebrity and riches. To balance that statement, there is a chance it's true, but then that's for the courts to decide.

Pity the accusation was not made at the time it happened.

Either way, the lawyers representing will get rich.

Regards

a reply to: Tangerine
You're gonna have to try harder than that!

Literally the fourth paragraph into that Guardian article:

The document – a motion to expand an ongoing lawsuit relating to prosecutors’ handling of Epstein’s case with two new plaintiffs – alleges that the woman “was forced to have sexual relations with this prince when she was a minor” in London, New York and on a private Caribbean island owned by Epstein.

The lawsuit is against Epstein not Andrew, but she DOES name him in her court documents as an abuser.

a reply to: TrueBrit

That's been noted plenty of times in this thread, but it detracts from the fact that girls claimed to be forced to have sex with him, and that Epstein "loaned" her to him, as if she is property.

a reply to: paraphi

Thanks for that "alleged." I usually am pretty careful about sticking that word in (plus it is kind of very, very clearly implied in what's real about this story) but haven't had enough coffee yet this morning so probably shouldn't be typing at all.