Prince Andrew On Front Pages of British Tabloids.

Last night I watched the Sky Press Review Where we had the Royal Commentator as a guest with another journalist reviewing the front pages of the british newspapers.

Gues What? Althouth they did show the papers with the sensational Prince Andrew and the Queen in talks on their front pages, not one mention of this matter was covered last night - so if you haven't seen censorship before - you have now on Sky! Is its boss after some kind of gong from the british honours list? Would he deserve it anyway for the number of repeats he sells to us viewers and when he bows to buckingham palace's demands for censorship.

This is about Andrew's relationship with Epstein and the embarrassing problem of Epstein being a buddy of Jimmy Saville and the scandal of sexual abuse - somthing icky for our royals. Birds of a feather flock together and that's something the british public will think. One newspaper said that Andrew is seeking diplomatic protection so he may be excused from being dragged over to the USA kickinbg and screaming although I thought our government gave the Yanks the right to grab british citizens for trial in the USA so will he be interviewed and prosecuted? You have to ask yourself why a young American girl, with no link to the british royalty, should have singled him out. Also why would he choose to be a buddy of Epstein's as well as Saville although whom were into young boys as well as saville's girls.

It has long been known to those who are interested or dislike the royals, that a member of the royal family has had rumours circulating for a number of years - so now Andrew has popped into the frame and we have a clue as to which one it is. I expect he has a lot of explanations for his mother, whom will no doubt slap as many D notices or whatever immunity she can get her paws on to protect her privilege and keep them all sitting pretty.

Linking Andrew to Saville was being accepted but when you bring in Epstein and the possible procurement of young girls for sexual abuse, although Epstein would have had no interest in them, this revellation makes one look a layer deeper at Andrew - whom is the main liability after his elder brother to the rspectability of british throne as his scandals regularly occur but are kept as quiet as possible.

Philip Schofield gave cameron a list of paedophiles on which a member of the royal household was named. Cameron was furious about this and has done nothing about it. I hope he rethinks his lack of action as this is not going to go away despite the elephant in the room on last nights Sky's Press Review - which was so awkward it was embarrassing to watch. Two intelligent people reviewing the same stores again and such trivial matter makes it not work watching sky news at all. I am now wondering about my Sky payment and will probably swop in disgust - either do the job you have forced yourself into or get out murdock if it gets too hot for you. ~People deserve a good investigative press which is something that has died recently and I would have thought you would have wanted to bring back to put you on the top again.

Tip of the iceberg!
But will we ever get to see its size or any of it.

When you look at the circle of "friends" of Epstein and the glowing praise they heap upon him, you start to wonder what he has on them and what services he provided for them as his guests.

As I understand it, he was also originally charged with trafficking, which carries a very hefty jail term, but the charges were dropped in a plea deal which had him serve only 13 months. I bet he had a lot to say that made a lot of people very nervous at that time, hence the paltry sentencing.

So, Prince Andrew, a well known money grabbing, morally corrupt toff and friend to anyone he can squeeze for a bung to help them make money, is accused of using one of his buddy's "sex slaves". It wouldn't really surprise me at all given the backgrounds of the people he mixes with and corrupt world he is a part of.

Will he ever face charges? Absolutely not. I can see witnesses being bought off or committing suicide long before someone of his ilk ever has to answer for their actions. I am surprised a flurry of D Notices have not already been issued, although it was probably a bit late for that once the word got out. Still, they can sure try hard to bury it from this point onwards and find some celebrity news or other manufactured events to take the heat off him.

The emperor has no clothes figuratively and otherwise.

Who would have thought that expression would have so many meanings directed towards the same group. It's curious and very frightening to think how massively intertwined throughout the globe this could be. Not even just ruling elites but religious leaders as well well beyond the catholic sex abuse scandals, which by the way im sure they're relieived to be out of front a center.....for now.

What does this leave us with? I mean really? The world's "leaders" being this "corrupt" is no accident. There is clearly an evil so profound infiltrated into every corner and bowels of our accepted reality. There is something very, very wrong here.

a reply to: Britguy

One weakness to the truth is that Cameron is a cousin of the queen's and so its all within the family - so to speak.

No wonder he hated Philip Schofield giving him that nasty little list of offenders, who should all be named and shamed - his own words for the ordinary people who offend, but not for him and his ilk and paedophelia upon which all the public are united.

This is coming up close to an election and its why we do need a huge change within british politics to get the hands of the rich and perverted off britain's government.

a reply to: Shiloh7

You know, we get taught in history and told all the time that the royals do not have any say in the politics of the country and remain on the fringes at best. Well, with years (decades) of having watched from the sidelines all I can say is, what utter rubbish! They have a much tighter control on things than people perhaps realise.
With all their many overseas investments, as well as those closer to home, it would be ridiculous for them to leave everything up to a bunch of politicians operating for the people.

If they're smart they will deny to the death until solid evidence is unveiled. Then, they will all act shocked and oblivious, turn him into a sacrificial lamb, and cast him out of the privileged life. Everyone will breathe a collective sigh of relief and believe that all the evil has been excised, while it continues on in secret.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Very, very eloquently put.

Its strange how ordinary people hate this type of crime, yet its so prevalent within the ruling and powerful classes? I am puzzled because its something I would never have contemplated it simply wasn't ever on my radar. I suspect this is true to many people.

It wasn't until I sent my son to a private school that he came home with tales of a daddy fiddler on one of the girls in his class. She has never achieved poor little thing I can see why - yet she was clever and had the brains to do well.

This whole matter needs to be publically aired and for once in my life I do think the archbishop in the protestant religion, may be a man to start this one up - he can't be unaware of what is happening, but I do believe the queen can sack him were he to do this - although on this matter it would only bring it more into the focus of the public. Its public awareness of this that needs to get out and on the front of two british papers today I hope it will.

Prince Andrew was also a good friend of saville as was Charles.

He even sent hand written christmas cards to him with pictures of his young daughters.

He was also caught hushing up trips to visit Gaddafi on more than one occasion and he has also been accused of abusing children.

There is more to this than it first appears in my opinion.


a reply to: Shiloh7

a reply to: Shiloh7

You've hit the nail on the head. Sky are trying to swerve this as they are hoping it will all go away once the victims are silenced and they can get back to reporting their brain washing dung to the doped up masses. I mean doped up on propaganda by the way.

I have two words for the Sky Scum -

Vested interests, vested interests, vested interests.

Okay so that's six but you get my point. This is too risky for them to highlight just now. It's good that the tabloids are reporting it even if their agenda is selling papers with scandal. Keep talking about it people, keep digging, keep raising awareness.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Child abuse sadly happens everywhere and is indifferent to class. However this organised abuse and sex trafficking is most likely more prevalent in the elite because their minds and egos are deluded and corrupted with power, greed and a feeling of being above the law.

So everybody agrees Prince Andrew is a paedophile, then?

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

a reply to: Shiloh7

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


If UK citzens can be dragged to the USA for things not even crimes in the UK the our royals should be.


Sick of US extridition treatys and sick of double legal standards.

originally posted by: Astyanax
So everybody agrees Prince Andrew is a paedophile, then?

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

The thing is, as this case has been brought about in the U.S, it's difficult for them to get to the victim and hush them up. It's not really about guilt or innocence at this stage, it's why Sky chose to ignore the headlines and deal with other stories contained within Sunday's papers.

The next thing we'll hear is that the victim has been offered an all expenses paid for vacation in Paris which includes a chauffeur.

originally posted by: Astyanax
So everybody agrees Prince Andrew is a paedophile, then?

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Doesnt matter.

UK citzens are always being extridited to the USA for non crimes under poor evidence.

Think its time the establishement felt the effects of this treaty.

I think it is more a case of is he to elite for the question to be asked.

As others have stated this is not a new allegation and he hardly has a squeaky clean history.

a reply to: Astyanax

a reply to: Britguy

A long time ago I worked for the police and we were a traffic dividion. The most time given to a royal was for margaret who uyse to love driving as fast as her car let her and when one guy complained that she shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Her excursion wa`s reported in some of the papers and he thought it should be raised in parliament how much they abused the law.An older officer told him to forget it, as queenie has the power of veto over whatever is discussed in parliament. I have never heard of anything changing this and I can see why they are unanswerable to anyone as it would probably be parliament in the first place.

a reply to: crazyewok

Let them face what they made law in the first place - I doubt they expected it would be one of their own though.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

A somewhat unusual sense of humour may I say, Its terrible and something I feel strongly about, but I couldn't help but laugh as to your solution.

a reply to: daftpink

You hit the problem with Epstein right on the nose. He was to have faced charges of trafficking, which is an extremely serious charge with a long sentence, but was allowed to plea to a lesser crime and got off with something like 14 months in jail.

I think we all know that the people in our establishments are hiding a lot of secrets, but for them the times are changing as those who hold or are party to some of these secrets are slowly coming to the surface, such as Epstein.

I suspect, we don't only have to face the battle of getting those of our establishment who are paedophiles to court despite theresa mays efforts to delay it all and also, the ones that have deliberately concealed their disgraceful behaviour, but also more importantly the defence by those, who already know these secrets and have been benefitting from using them to their full advantage, such as foreign governments and the aid and help given to them, which the British Public are not behind and don't want their tax revenues wasted upon.