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

a reply to: Ridhya

I completely agree that if there was indeed any form of coersion involved, then there is something distinctly awful about the whole affair, and the persons who were involved need to be bought to account. However, the allegations specifically refer to Prince Andrew, as having had sexual relations with an underage girl, which clearly is not the case. Am I saying that there is a difference between sexual abuse of a child, and forced sexual labour? Yes. Yes I am. They are both serious, but one, in my opinion, speaks to an entirely other level of depravity and debauchery than the other.

As wrong as it is, the powerful in society have their ways of getting what they are after, and if a powerful person wishes to have sexual relations, they have systems in place, contacts that they know, who get them what they want, and are paid a commission for their efforts. Unless we can say for sure that Prince Andrew had something to do with the force that was allegedly applied to the female in question, then he is guilty of nothing more than a common John would be. As despicable as that is, especially for a man in his position, it is NO WHERE NEAR as terrible as the sexual abuse of a minor, which the individual in question was most certainly NOT.

I am not saying that there is anything good, noble, or in any way acceptable about his alleged use of the services provided by Epstein, but we need to be absolutely clear about what he is being accused of, and the headline of this thread, and indeed the media publications which dealt with this topic today in the news, have been patently flawed, and inaccurate, and misleading in this case.

Here are a few snippits of interesting info, its an article from the The Telegraph, written around the time of Epsteins release.

So much so that as recently as December the Duke flew to New York and stayed with Epstein for four days, attending a party that followed his release from jail.

another photo, taken in 2001 but which only emerged last week, of the Duke with his arm around the waist of a 17-year-old "masseuse" – who later accused Epstein of sexual exploitation – was frankly calamitous.

The case against Epstein began when, in March of that year, a woman contacted Palm Beach police concerned that her 14-year-old stepdaughter had been taken to Epstein's mansion and paid $300 (£185) to strip while he performed a sex act.

This is the same Florida mansion where the walls were decorated with pictures of naked girls; where even the soap in bathrooms was shaped like male and female genitalia and where until 2006, when the allegations against Epstein began surfacing, the Duke was a regular guest. Indeed in 2000, Epstein and Miss Maxwell had been guests themselves at Sandringham, the Queen's estate in Norfolk.

Last night, the royal aide admitted for the first time that the Duke had also received massages at the Florida mansion, but said that they had no sexual overtones.

Source

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Is it fair to now say that it has been admitted that Andrew did attend the Florida home of Epstein and receive massages?

a reply to: liteonit6969 grow up you idiot do you always accuse people before a court date just shows how sad sick and a very little iq you have

originally posted by: tomcat415
a reply to: liteonit6969 grow up you idiot do you always accuse people before a court date just shows how sad sick and a very little iq you have

Sorry to be a bit anal, but a person who was awaiting a court date, technically would be the accused!

Seriosuly though, cant we just stop the name calling and stick to gathering some facts, for and against

a reply to: theabsolutetruth why do you have on your pic the Absolute truth but agree on something that is not the truth or at least NOT gone to court to be seen true or fake I think you need to look in the mirror or change your words to (the absolute nonsense) next you will say they eat babies I find 99% of the time when people put find the truth on there profile will believe in anything even if the cat told the dog and the dog told the rabbit

a reply to: HumanPLC Am all up for facts and weeding out the truth I for one when I was teenager and lived in a bedsit I was robbed of 1,000 pounds and told by the women if I told the police she would say I rapped her well I went to the police and told them what she did and what she said well for a year I was treated as a criminal and the court case dropped I never even got my money back so I have first had experience at fake claims and I can tell you as a man and treated that way is not nice

a reply to: tomcat415

Im truly sorry to hear that mate!

Thats what i see this thread as being about though, its about us finding out the facts (if we choose, obviously) and then presenting them in this forum in the hope that it will help someone interested form an opinion; be it for or against.

Hope you are cool now anyway matey... All the best for 2015

I don't like the Royals at all after the death of princess Di but if I was rich and young like him and my body guards paid a girl to give me a good time for the night then would i offended the young girl by saying no or would i do like most boys would do at that age.

She is a hooker, was well paid and now wants to blackmail extras for dropping her pants because he did not marry her after he told her that he loved her between grunts.

a reply to: VirusGuard

I think you are a bit late to the party matey, the trolling section is back on page two. Were past that now and discussing facts

a reply to: tomcat415

Learn to read.

There sure is a lot of outing of the upper echelons of society for such crimes and whilst I am not saying he did, it is good that people are speaking out and naming those that need to be named.

Bit more info, including witness accounts regarding Epsteins 'welcome home party' that we know Andrew attended.

During his New York visit, Randy Andy, 51, chilled for four days at Epstein’s East 71st Street pad, where the 58-year-old businessman reportedly threw his own welcome-home bash for stuffed-shirt glitterati, including Katie Couric, Charlie Rose and George Stephanopoulos.

Neighbors told the paper they witnessed a parade of stunning beauties come calling at Epstein’s door during the prince’s stay, the tabloid reported.

And once, Andrew was even spotted kissing a glammy brunette on the doorstep.

Source:
nypost.com...

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: uncommitted

My point earlier was solely to clarify the misapprehension between rape and statutory rape. I haven't commented on the OP.

The word rape is not used anywhere I have seen, rather that she was a sex slave

Sex slave? Oh, that's ok then. That would imply equality, respect and consent. Would it?

Andrew has chosen to remain freindly with a Schedule One offender, even after charges had been brought, according to the Guardian article. That is interesting, I would say, although not proof of anything.

No, I'm not suggesting for a second the term 'sex slave' is ok, that would be ridiculous. I was referring to the fact that the woman has not said she was raped.

She has.

A woman has alleged in papers filed in Florida that she was forced to have sex with Andrew when she was 17, which is under the age of consent in the state, according to the Guardian.

www.heraldscotland.com...

She is claiming she was forced to have sex. Forced sex is rape. She is claiming that she has been raped.

a reply to: HumanPLC

The problem with this story is that they are attempting to make it into an 80's style sex scandal, when that's not what this should be about.

The story is not about whether adults had sex, or what they got up to at parties where everyone was legal, nor who was involved in it. The story is about association to the sexual exploitation of children by wealthy and powerful people.

The Daily Heil has even been mentioning that the couple had sex toys, paid for massages, had parties where some people were naked, and that they had numbers for politicians and celebs in their phone book... this is all irrelevant, but it shows that these tabloids are more interested in gossip and titillation than actual NEWS about the actual ACCUSATIONS.

It's not a criminal offense to have parties where people are naked, nor is it criminal to own sex toys, nor is it criminal to have massages, or to know a politician, or to know a celebrity, or to have their phone number...

The confusion of this story to make it more about the salacious sex lives of others is irresponsible, insulting to the victims of abuse, and diverting the attention from the ACTUAL CRIMES of the man involved and damaging the potential for investigation of others who knew and were perhaps involved too.

The irresponsible media and their gossipy fans are damaging a serious investigation with all this BS and noise.

a reply to: Rocker2013

I agree, it is being portrayed like this, but lets be honest, sex scandals sells papers! (on the sea shore? lol) I would be the first to admit that its not ideal, but i will take it in whatever shape or form if it helps get the word of the abuse survivors out.

By comparison, look at previous investigations that were blocked in the past, details of these are only just coming out. They were able to get away with sweeping those under the carpet because they were not in the public eye due to the limited coverage by the media. This time, the media, regardless of their objectives, have it out there. By this they are helping to ensure that this will not just be swept under the carpet again.

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

The Mirror really is one of the worst newspapers in the UK....try The Guardian instead although details will be sparse (another poster commented that there are no names etc) simply because this is all being covered up and kept hushed.

Don't be scared to post these things! ! Jeez get this info out and shared there is nothing to fear.

Guardian link -

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
Read about that earlier.

I considered posting it but wondered if it was worth it. I consider it brave that you did. Too many things have happened to me in the past for speaking out about such things.

There sure is a lot of outing of the upper echelons of society for such crimes and whilst I am not saying he did, it is good that people are speaking out and naming those that need to be named.

What exactly happened to you? PM me if you prefer

I really wouldn't worry as this story was actually brought to attention in the UK by The Guardian newspaper which is one of the largest, most respected broadsheets in the UK. It currently has 12000 shares after being published for four hours.

a reply to: beansidhe

She is claiming she was forced to have sex. Forced sex is rape. She is claiming that she has been raped.

She was forced OK, forced by the size of his cheque book and not his manhood.

Why would you rape someone if you had all the money in the world to buy a girl for the night ?

This type of crap will only stick to people like Wikileaks Julian because the entire justice system is bent.

a reply to: VirusGuard

Why would you rape someone if you had all the money in the world to buy a girl for the night ?

And there we have it ladies and gentleman; the award for the most ignorant comment ever made on ATS goes to this user!

a reply to: VirusGuard

Why would you rape someone if you had all the money in the world to buy a girl for the night ?

To properly answer that question, one would have to put oneself into the mindset of a rapist, which i'm loathe to do.

But the generally accepted view is one of domination and display of absolute control and power over the victim.

It's a violent sexual act motivated by corruption due to a sense of power and entitlement...psychopathy in other words.

If a rapist went and simply 'rented' a willing partner, that domination and control, even in a BDSM scenario would be absent and basically become a role play situation.

That's the difference.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: HumanPLC

The problem with this story is that they are attempting to make it into an 80's style sex scandal, when that's not what this should be about.

The story is not about whether adults had sex, or what they got up to at parties where everyone was legal, nor who was involved in it. The story is about association to the sexual exploitation of children by wealthy and powerful people.

The Daily Heil has even been mentioning that the couple had sex toys, paid for massages, had parties where some people were naked, and that they had numbers for politicians and celebs in their phone book... this is all irrelevant, but it shows that these tabloids are more interested in gossip and titillation than actual NEWS about the actual ACCUSATIONS.

It's not a criminal offense to have parties where people are naked, nor is it criminal to own sex toys, nor is it criminal to have massages, or to know a politician, or to know a celebrity, or to have their phone number...

The confusion of this story to make it more about the salacious sex lives of others is irresponsible, insulting to the victims of abuse, and diverting the attention from the ACTUAL CRIMES of the man involved and damaging the potential for investigation of others who knew and were perhaps involved too.

The irresponsible media and their gossipy fans are damaging a serious investigation with all this BS and noise.

I have to disagree. These revelations about a global elite child abuse cover up have been circulating the internet for almost a year (to my knowledge).

Certain websites i was viewing the revelations on were continually taken down. People on twitter were also trying to raise awareness.

The MSM had not reported on anything until quite recently. (See Jill Dando case for an understanding why).

But the beauty and the power of the internet society has succeeded in these stories seeing the light.

The fact that newspapers are reporting on this is HUGELY positive and for people who have been trying to get these types of stories out - a small victory which is another step closer to justice and truth.

Yes newspapers use sensationalism to report it as they still have an agenda to sell papers. And unfortunately the OP chose one of the worst tabloid newspapers in the UK as a source but search The Guardian for a more balanced reporting view. I have already posted a link but here it is again -

www.theguardian.com...