Prince Andrew's military titles revoked

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

well if you can take a bravery medal away for actions years later and unrelated to the act.
Why not avoid the scandal by only awarding medals posthumously or 50 years after the fact.

What do I approve?
I approve 17.75 year old girls being fully able to think for themselves and be able to make decisions that they think are cool and exciting but in hindsight aren't.

Do you think young women are not able to think for themselves?

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

well if you can take a bravery medal away for actions years later and unrelated to the act.
Why not avoid the scandal by only awarding medals posthumously or 50 years after the fact.

What do I approve?
I approve 17.75 year old girls being fully able to think for themselves and be able to make decisions that they think are cool and exciting but in hindsight aren't.

Do you think young women are not able to think for themselves?

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Try addressing "sex trafficking" and the Ghislaine connection, for a change?

That cool with you?

a reply to: puzzled2

Epstein and Maxwell used their position, connections and wealth to traffic young girls - some underage in the US - for themselves and others.
They manipulated and exploited these girls.
That's why both were convicted in US Courts of Law.

Given Andrew's close relationship with those two - despite his denials I feel there's sufficient evidence to believe there was a close relationship - I firmly believe Andrew was more than aware of what they were up to.
And its more than likely that he availed himself of the services they provided.....all for his own sexual gratification.

Did he break any laws either here in the UK or in the US?
I don't know, but that's why he should be co-operating fully with the FBI's investigation.
He isn't.

As a member of the British Royal Family I personally think he is honour bound to conduct himself in a certain manner.
He hasn't.

I'm no legal expert, all I can really offer is personal opinion.
So when it comes to legal matters, given personal experience within the legal system, when it comes to such matters I'm inclined to bow to the more informed insight given by members of the legal profession.....like carpy.

Anybody who thinks that there will be a paper trail (or any reporting) of any rich powerful or royal people are either gullible, stupid or being intentionally trolling. How many times have incidents been reported after they were found out months or years later. A prime example is Andrews wife having her toe sucked on the Riviera. And that came from an Italian publication yet the British press knew.
No newspaper in the world is going to report ANY details of ANY sexual encounter even if the have proof. As for evidence (unless there is a secret video) it is his word against her and others. But don't hold your breath for him because his only defence is "I've never met her" or "I don't remember" when clearly there is a photograph of him with a "protective" arm around her.
I grew up in the "swinging sixties", yes there were a lot of willing young girls, BUT, the operative word there was willing. This girl was trafficked and made to perform against her will. A very big difference in the wording.

a reply to: Freeborn

That's a very good and truthful speech on the situation based on today's knowledge.

Now go back 20 years and you can't say the same things.
There was and still is plenty of golddiggers out their willing to use sex to get what they want. Not everyone sees the act of sex as a sacred loving event many will see it as nothing more than a goodtime. There's even legal websites out there.

The trouble as always is differentiating between victims and players.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

So your changing the subject yet again - the question -
is a 17.75 year old girl fully able to think for herself and be able to make decisions that she thinks at the time are cool and exciting but in hindsight aren't?

What was the consequence of not doing what she did?
Not being taken around the world or worst?
The reports don't seem to show she was bundle around in the back of a van with a hood over her head, do they?

So until we know the consequences - how do we determine the level of issue from party girl to victim of cruel sex ring?

Hopefully to determine what Andrew's crime is, will depend on what decision she made on getting there and how much Andrew knew about her before her arrival.

a reply to: puzzled2

So your still and advocate of 40 year old men and under 18 year old girls

Would you let 40 year old men date and sleep with your 17 year old daughter or would you want to punch him the moment he knockced on the door and your daughter walked downstairs in a miniskirt?

I see you like victim shaming also, stating some women who get sexually abused could be golddiggers, no wonder only 2% of rapists get prison time

a reply to: puzzled2

I have no doubt that one of the primary motivations behind this girl pursuing a Civil case against Andrew is financial reward.

That doesn't excuse Andrew's behaviour and actions both back then and now.

ETA

So until we know the consequences - how do we determine the level of issue from party girl to victim of cruel sex ring?

Hopefully to determine what Andrew's crime is, will depend on what decision she made on getting there and how much Andrew knew about her before her arrival.

So, until Andrew co-operates fully with the FBI investigation we'll never fully know the truth....but he's more or less point blank refusing to co-operate.
Is it any wonder people think the worst?

a reply to: UpThenDown

Not victim blaming you're assuming she was a victim without evidence. It is reported she said at the time I slept with him and it was cool. So who am I to judge 20 years later when she changed her mind.

Perhaps your personal bias needs a reality check on happiness and ages. 69 Celebrity Couples Who Make It Work Despite Huge Age Gaps
We're talking 16+ years...

originally posted by: Byrd


I agree that something like this isn't a token slap... it's a very harsh censure in ways that people who aren't part of that sphere might not understand. There'll be a loss of a lot of things along with those titles.

what kind of 'Losses' .... No more Invite to the Bilderberger meet-up every year ?

and the Gal involved should of gotten a 'Sybian Machine' if she sought satisfaction for the cravings

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: UpThenDown

Not victim blaming

YES you ARE !

Just as supplying Alcohol to a minor
is a crime even if the girl is consenting
Just as is human-trafficking, IT's against the law !

Looks as if you triggerd your defense mode,
been there done that perhaps ?

As for :

originally posted by: puzzled2
. . . you don't like Andrew because he is a royal

Andrew's mummy approved taking away his military titles,
Take up your grievances with her

Btw
You do know that his Federal crimes were committed on
u.s.a. soil don't you ? andrew is not above
the laws. Why shouldn't andrew be extradited, if
assange can be .

psychopaths see no wrongs but feel entitled

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: UpThenDown

Not victim blaming you're assuming she was a victim without evidence. It is reported she said at the time I slept with him and it was cool. So who am I to judge 20 years later when she changed her mind.

OR, she grew up, realised she had been trafficked and coerced and had not made a rational decision.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: puzzled2

And its more than likely that he availed himself of the services they provided.....all for his own sexual gratification.

The British royal family are extremely well known for being a bunch of up tight emotionally repressed prudes.

The guy barely touched his own wife, and there's no record of him being a playboy Prince. Quite he opposite, a lot of people suspected that he is actually gay. So the idea of him hooking up with a kid in a seedy nightclub supplied by an international fixer is ... well ... let's just say that it's completely out of character and goes against what people know of him and what people suspect of him.

In real life the British royal family are a bunch of old boring rich people. They don't lead exciting lives, and when they do cheat they cheat with people like Camilla Parker Bowles.

As a member of the British Royal Family I personally think he is honour bound to conduct himself in a certain manner.
He hasn't.

There's no actual evidence against him apart from the say-so of a woman who has every reasons to hold a grudge against him purely because of his contacts with Epstein. The only people who can seem to remember where he was on those dates just so happen to remember dates that were in the British tabloids. Things get fuzzy when they're asked about dates or places that weren't in the tabloids.

Did he break any laws either here in the UK or in the US?

If he had sex with her, then yes to both of those. In both the UK and the US it's illegal to have sex with someone who has been trafficked for the purposes of sex. She claims that Epstein took her across state lines, which makes it a federal crime in the US, and international borders to the UK which makes it human trafficking under British law.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Anybody who thinks that there will be a paper trail (or any reporting) of any rich powerful or royal people are either gullible, stupid or being intentionally trolling. How many times have incidents been reported after they were found out months or years later. A prime example is Andrews wife having her toe sucked on the Riviera. And that came from an Italian publication yet the British press knew.
No newspaper in the world is going to report ANY details of ANY sexual encounter even if the have proof. As for evidence (unless there is a secret video) it is his word against her and others. But don't hold your breath for him because his only defence is "I've never met her" or "I don't remember" when clearly there is a photograph of him with a "protective" arm around her.
I grew up in the "swinging sixties", yes there were a lot of willing young girls, BUT, the operative word there was willing. This girl was trafficked and made to perform against her will. A very big difference in the wording.

The problem here is that there IS a paper trail, and that it's been public knowledge for over a decade.

His movements were widely reported in the tabloids, so literally anybody who can read a newspaper archive knows where he was during that period of time. Saying that you saw him at X location when a picture of him there was on the front page of half a dozen newspapers isn't proof of anything except that you can read English.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
That is a shame. Have you any idea how much he sweated to earn those Military gongs.

As I posted, he was a pretty good pilot. Some of those "gongs" came from some good flying in the Falklands.

Care to elaborate.?

JIMC previously stated that he had flown with him.

He was co-pilot for Search and Rescue missions when the British ships were under attack, while the attack was going on. He flew Medevac flights, including landing on a burning, sinking ship and as was mentioned he flew flights with Electronic Countermeasures Equipment designed to make Exocets lock on to his helicopter instead of ships. The trick was to learn when to turn the gear off. Too soon and the missile could reacquire a ship. Too late and the missile would hit the helicopter.

I was in a training squadron when he visited. He flew with us for a few weeks and explained the decoy system to us. I was an aircrewman and went on two flights with him. We spoke at briefings and debriefings, including instruction him on our SAR procedures in the event we went into the water.

originally posted by: crayzeed

No newspaper in the world is going to report ANY details of ANY sexual encounter even if the have proof. As for evidence (unless there is a secret video)

The British paparazzi reported on the affairs of both Princess Dianna and Prince Charles without merci.

The picture is also highly suspect. It was claimed that it was taken by Epstein himself, yet the full - uncropped - version of the picture shows that whoever took it had their thumb partially in frame. This is a common problem with cheap cameras of the time period with separate lenses and viewfinders, and which have a flat front with no external lens. It's easy to get your finger in front of the lens because what you're seeing through the viewfinder isn't exactly what you're taking.

Now, why would Epstein be using a film camera in 2001 when digital gamers and mobile telephone camera's were common?

better yet, why would he be using something so cheap when he's a multi milionare?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
Now, why would Epstein be using a film camera in 2001 when digital gamers and mobile telephone camera's were common?
better yet, why would he be using something so cheap when he's a multi milionare?

Lack of technical knowledge. Printers weren't the greatest then. Also to eliminate the claim of digital manipulation of the photo. Experts at that time could tell when a photo on film had been altered and/or retouched. Kind of helps in the event of blackmail.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

so that's a no then. Why not go start a thread on a local grooming gang and exposed all those that paid for the services?

Andrew will have everything removed to protect entity - By the time he gets to court he will own nothing be entitled to nothing have access to nothing of value for any legal reason will do the same as the Maxwell brothers and be happily living in luxury but own none of it.

So if the civil court finds him guilty her will have nothing to pay her with.

Apart from £17 mil from the sale of his Swiss Chalet, proceeds of sale of his old gaff, arms deals, etc etc.

a reply to: JIMC5499

The picture was supposedly taken in 2001, not 1991. Digital photograph printing was fairly common as even dumb phones had cameras on by then. You could take a CD full of pictures down to Walmart and they would print them off for and the only limiting factor would be the quality settings on your camera.

A digital camera in 2001 was usually very easy to use. You set them on to Automatic and they're virtually indistinguishable from a cheap instamatic camera. Back in 2001 the vast majority of flat faced film cameras with a separate viewfinder would have been dirt cheap. I find it hard to imaging that Epstein would have owned a sub $100 film camera in 2001.

Experts at the time were never able to look at the original photograph, or even the negatives, it's a copy. Which is even more suspect. It could easily have been taken on film, scanned, edited and then printed back on to photopaper.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Might it have been her camera?