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: I did not suspect Epstein's behaviour

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
There is honestly no reason to ask.

There is, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. You just have to read a few more posts to see my reason.




posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: projectvxn

I do.

Don't you think it would make a difference if someone entered the jet knowing it had that nickname or not?


Didn't seem to stop some that there were underage sex slaves on the plane.


edit on 8 24 2019 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: projectvxn

So if Prince Andrew was just having fun with some post 18 year old girls where's the issue?



We all know that's not what Epstein was selling.



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
So if Prince Andrew was just having fun with some post 18 year old girls where's the issue?

Nowhere, but the accuser was 17 at the time, so if things did happen like she says there's an issue, right?



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
Didn't seem to stop some that there were underage sex slaves on the plane.

That's why I think it's (relatively) important to know when and by whom was that nickname given to the jet, as if the name was already in use at the time it shows that the people that used it could be aware of it and didn't worry, which, to me, would show they thought they were above the law, making them even more guilty (if possible).



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
We all know that's not what Epstein was selling.

This second accuser the article talks about says she was 21 at the time.



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: FieldMarshalMatt
Also sorry to say the unsealed documents , the links we had here for them have been smashed . The documents are either missing , cut off mid run (eg 500 instead of 2024 pages) or just largely completely blank pages . OP link is to an (useless) article , not the documents

That's why I always download documents I think are important.


Are you talking about this?


One other thing , why are there now two threads on the exact same topic of today's statement from Prince Andrew ?

I don't know why, but there's no problem with one thread on a news board and another on a non-news board about the same topic.



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Yes. And the others? How many are there that we don't know about?



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
So if Prince Andrew was just having fun with some post 18 year old girls where's the issue?

Nowhere, but the accuser was 17 at the time, so if things did happen like she says there's an issue, right?


Well that is all cool
For the life of me being a Brit we ahve a rule of being able to make love to someone when they are 16 years old............ So Randy Andy was going with a lady legal in his eyes



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
So if Prince Andrew was just having fun with some post 18 year old girls where's the issue?

Nowhere, but the accuser was 17 at the time, so if things did happen like she says there's an issue, right?


Andy' got confused because in Britain you can pork a 16 year old it is legal at least that is what I think it is, a long time ago btw
but can remember some good old times back in the day



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: projectvxn
Didn't seem to stop some that there were underage sex slaves on the plane.

That's why I think it's (relatively) important to know when and by whom was that nickname given to the jet, as if the name was already in use at the time it shows that the people that used it could be aware of it and didn't worry, which, to me, would show they thought they were above the law, making them even more guilty (if possible).


If anyone could find the information I would think it would be you.





Epstein also owns a Boeing 727-200—a passenger jet with a seating capacity of nearly 200, modified for private use, including a Bloomberg terminal that lets him conduct much of his finance work while airborne. Locals dubbed Epstein's 727 the "Lolita Express" due to the frequent arrival of apparently underage women to Little Saint James, a nod to the Vladimir Nabokov novel about a middle-aged literature professor who justifies the repeated rape and sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl.

www.newsweek.com...
edit on 24-8-2019 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

The Prince is a lying sack of sh!t.



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Kind of unbelievable if you look at the pictures
of Prince Andrew with his arm around the
young girl, with Ghislaine right behind them.

www.cbsnews.com...

Then there is the new video of Andrew inside
Epstein's house, standing inside the front
door and waving to young women as they
come and go.



www.newshub.co.nz...


edit on 24-8-2019 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
Yes. And the others? How many are there that we don't know about?

If we don't know about them we cannot do a thing, right?

Or are we now going to accuse people of what they could have done?



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

I saw that reference, but only one reference is not enough for me to believe it.



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

That made me look for the age of consent in the US, and in the state of New York its 17, so if the accuser was 17 at the time it was legal (if consensual) for him to have sex with her in New York and in London, but not on the US Virgin Islands, where the age of consent is 18.

The fact that Prince Andrew kept in contact with Epstein after he was convicted shows that he either knew what was going on or that he is a complete idiot.



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 08:57 PM
link   
So I guess anybody that hung around with Jeffrey Epstein was just there for the drinks.



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: projectvxn

So if Prince Andrew was just having fun with some post 18 year old girls where's the issue?



Then why does Prince Andrew keep apologizing for associating with Jeffrey Epstein? He apologizes and then attends Epstein's "parties" again.

From 2015 "I'm a Fool!": www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Sorry Randy Andy..not buying it!



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

That made me look for the age of consent in the US, and in the state of New York its 17, so if the accuser was 17 at the time it was legal (if consensual) for him to have sex with her in New York and in London, but not on the US Virgin Islands, where the age of consent is 18.

The fact that Prince Andrew kept in contact with Epstein after he was convicted shows that he either knew what was going on or that he is a complete idiot.


Exactly
As long as Andrew kept it legal there can be no demonising of him. He is afterall human and sought to reproduce with females, if he kept in legal then all is cool but the media in the UK will demonise any Royal any time they can even if it all turns out to be rumours. They destroyed Diana and William and Harry are still scarred to this day. The media in Britain always attempts to destroy, whether Andrew has acted wrongly or rightly, he is being demonised by out press right now on our front pages of tabloid papers. If he has acted wrongly fair dos he should face the consequences but hes gonna be demonised trial or no trial like a witch hunt of old



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join