Prince Andrew: I did not suspect Epstein's behaviour

originally posted by: projectvxn

Clearly, all accused are innocent until proven guilty and I am not one to convict with my opinion. But Prince Andrew has some questions to answer and he should not, in my opinion, rest easy while his name is spoken in connection with the abuse of young girls.

originally posted by: projectvxn

If we believe Trump is the only billionaire friend of epstein who didn't participate, even though documents and testimony show some recruitment of 'girl masseuses' took place at the Mar a Lago, then we don't have to scrutinize anyone else who claims not to be involved in any way.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Anything for a cheap political point?

There is no evidence at all that Donald Trump was involved in this.

Cant always talk in absolutes no matter how much you like someone, I think Andrew has questions to answer and we are basing it on photos and association with Epstein, I am sure you will dismiss this out of hand and claim i have TDS, yet there is as many accusations and photos of Andrew as there are Mr Trump

originally posted by: carsforkids
I was trying to be polite but I do have a word for it. Naive, redundant, ignorant, worthless, all when it comes to this context. Okay more than one.
What's the difference? What's your point?

My point is that you said that my "type of thinking is fully anticipated like the sunrise" and I wanted to know what that type was. I like clear situations.

If you knew I did something and couldn't prove it legally the last thing on your mind would be how I feel about it.

That's not what I meant. What I wanted to say was: how do you feel if someone accused you of being a child molester without proof, just because they were sure you were? Wouldn't you like that person to present the proof or stop accusing you of something you didn't do?

My point of view is that we should use proof as a basis for our actions that affect other people and not base those actions on our feelings.

If prince Andy raped you a year ago and you just yesterday realized it was him. You wouldn't have any proof.

But I would know because I was there. What I mean is that people like you and me, that were not there and can only base their opinions on what they read or watch on media sources (created by people that may or may not have their own bias and influences, making it difficult to get clear and accurate reports), need proof to try to get to the truth.

So please for the love of God, help me understand what you're saying so I'm not struggling to be amicable with you because right now I'm about to go thru another computer.

I try, but not "for the love of god", as I'm an atheist.

I know i have pimples on my ass and the only proof I have is the pimples.

That's different, as you're talking about something that, supposedly, still exists, not about an event that, supposedly, happened years ago, it's possible to get someone to see if that's true or not or to get photos showing it (although I'm not interested in seeing them, for obvious reasons).

PS: sorry for my harsh post yesterday, I was slightly angrier than usual and didn't noticed.

If he is guilty, of course he will not answer for his crimes. None of the ones will

a reply to: ArMaP

I try, but not "for the love of god", as I'm an atheist.

Well I can help you that to if you like?

Look I understand perfectly where you are coming from. What I'm trying
to make you understand is that obviously law is easy to circumvent.

Do you disagree that proof is a fickle thing in presence of the power to
make it disappear?

originally posted by: carsforkids
Well I can help you that to if you like?

I'm not interested, but thanks.

Look I understand perfectly where you are coming from. What I'm trying to make you understand is that obviously law is easy to circumvent.

And what I am trying to make you understand is that I am not talking about law, I'm talking about basing our personal actions (like "lynching a dozen or so", like you said) in unproven things. I have little problems with people acting against a criminal based on concrete proof.

Do you disagree that proof is a fickle thing in presence of the power to make it disappear?

No, I do not disagree with that, I only think that we shouldn't do any thing against other person(s) based only in rumours or hearsay.

a reply to: ArMaP

I have nothing further your honor.

originally posted by: projectvxn

Prince Andrew has defended his former friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, saying "at no stage" did he "see or suspect" any criminal behaviour.

Prince Andrew: I did not suspect Epstein's behaviour

He says this as he is accused by more than one Epstein victim as shown in court documents.

As we can see, those involved are scurrying about trying to explain why they all hung out with pedophile sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, taking trips to a private Island on a jet called the "lolita express".

Clearly, all accused are innocent until proven guilty and I am not one to convict with my opinion. But Prince Andrew has some questions to answer and he should not, in my opinion, rest easy while his name is spoken in connection with the abuse of young girls.

Update 8.8.2021

Virginia Roberts prepares to file suit against Prince Andrew.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

One has a medical condition brought on by PTSD that doesn't allow one to sweat. So it wisnae me.

a reply to: carewemust

He did not suspect anything because all of his friends surround themselves with underage girls.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

His PTSD stands for
Pretty, Teens, Sex, Disorder

a reply to: projectvxn

One rule for some and another for the rest.

He's not going to find himself in court or land in gaol in any nation on Earth.

Why?

Coz Mummy is the Queen and by far the world's largest landowner, who owns or holds sway over or there about 12% of the land on Earth.

In case im not being clear, that's a licence to touch what ever the feck you wish, including wee lassies, or anything else on the planet that takes his fancy.

So nothing to see here people, move along now quietly.

here is another one of Andrew's friends in the same line of business as Epstein. Peter Nygard. he is being extradited to America.
Peter Nygard

Canadian fashion designer Peter Nygard has consented to extradition to the United States, where he faces sex trafficking and racketeering charges, lawyers for the prosecution and defence said at a hearing on Friday

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Must have been one of the coke and hookers parties he loves to go to. Here's a pic of his ecstacy antics.



I find it difficult to believe UK intel had no suspicions about Epstein and they would have to inform Prince Andrew if they did have the slightest concern for national security and avoiding national embarassment.

originally posted by: plutoman
here is another one of Andrew's friends in the same line of business as Epstein. Peter Nygard. he is being extradited to America.
Peter Nygard

Canadian fashion designer Peter Nygard has consented to extradition to the United States, where he faces sex trafficking and racketeering charges, lawyers for the prosecution and defence said at a hearing on Friday

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Birds of a feather. It sure is interesting seeing this development. Proves it is a factual conspiracy and not just stories.

He got away with it the slimy toad.

Met Police DROPS investigation into Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein committing alleged sex crimes in London

Disgusting, wonder what the reason will be. If this all really did happen, then it's Virginia i feel sorry for.


.

So, an update on the story says,

First related to grooming and abuse of young women in Britain by convicted paedophile Epstein and second into rape claims made by Virginia Roberts-Giuffre against Andrew in New York and at Mayfair house.

Andrew, 61, still faces civil lawsuit in the US after Ms Giuffre accused him of 'rape in the first degree'

And to be honest i don't think she'll be successful on the rape charge either


.

originally posted by: Moohide
He got away with it the slimy toad.

Met Police DROPS investigation into Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein committing alleged sex crimes in London

Disgusting, wonder what the reason will be. If this all really did happen, then it's Virginia i feel sorry for.


.

The "fix" is in.

a reply to: projectvxn

paedo boy andy should be forced to pay all the victims and their families with all his stolen wealth from the UK tax payers
then he should be stripped of his titles, walked through public and shamed in the stocks for a few days
on display for everyone to fling # at him
then sent to a lovely prison with hardened convicts.

and never see the light of day again ,
then we can look at how much of this the monarchy has known about for decades and their involvement in the cover up of some of the worlds highest profile power paedos and get rid of the royals while we are at it. Serial abusers the lot of them
a power paedo is someone with access to vast wealth and or power in the form of public office.
There are loads and still in operation to this day.

Paedo's in power all over the world

a reply to: Soloprotocol

dropped the invstigation because it opens the can of worms to exactly how big and bad and how many paedos there are in the world in positions of power.
The Royals , most of the government all raping children

this is how we are ruled by child rapists and murderers
and they can shut it down any time they like

cut their #ing heads off