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

a reply to: Stormdancer777

That was an eye-opener in more ways than one! Looks like Epstein and Maxwell were her pimps. At one point she admitted so much that she was being trained to be a prostitute when she first met them. And she was. And she became one, enjoying a very opulent lifestyle, of private jets, yacht's, private island's, and the like.

I don't know anything about the pimp/ho relationship, other than what I've seen in movies. But according to current laws she was too young to make that judgment. It will be interesting to see where this case goes legally because morally and ethically, it certainly does suck.

I wouldn't call this pedophilia either, or "sex slavery". One gets the impression she could have walked away at any time.

Statutory rape at worse.

So any interest in Andrewsother involvements or just decided she was a whore?

No interest in the Gaddafi eliment? or his friendship with Saville ?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

a reply to: nonspecific

Right.

Wow the old one word answer eh?

You sure did nail your point with a clever rebutal and some cold hard evidence there then.

I feel a little foolish after such a clever repost.

Said no ATS member ever.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

a reply to: nonspecific

lol! I see you have an interest in investigating these "royal" cases, for whatever agenda you might have. Curiosity I guess, who knows. I just read an article and commented on it. Not committed or dedicated to taking it on as a career.

If you get your little group together to investigate, and you post it here, I'm sure I'll read it with interest.

Until then..........

Right and right.

This is actually like a dream do you realise this.

A poster trying to claim that theres nothing to see here with a topic about Prince Anybody with a name like....

No hold on this is just....

Oh my deary lord does one not see the incredible.....

I can not even say it......

He never did nuffin yur orurrrr.....

Said his.........

Gooodnight.


a reply to: ladyinwaiting

a reply to: nonspecific

I am not a moderator here, but perhaps you and your lady should join the ATS live chat to continue.

well keep that up with your refusal to give anything other than a no word answer but you have to admit you name does nothing for you credibility?

Go on at least admit its funny?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

It's okay I just found humour in someone fighting for a prince with such a name, back on topic I promise.

a reply to: corsair00

Gawd. That was my way of saying I have no further interest in this topic until there are new updates, news wise. No research. No debate. Storm's link scratched my itch about it.

And I'm not 'his' lady, thankyousoverymuch.

Anyway, no worries. Time to walk the dogs.

good evenin'

a reply to: liteonit6969

Oh please. 17 is not f*ing paedophilia. Stop pretending like it is. You are just using it as an excuse to rant against someone you clearly hate and who i might add, has not been found guilty of anything yet. Disgusting.

You didnt call him a pedophile? Really? You said:

"Here we have it...the British Royal Family are finally being exposed for what they are, and one of those things is involved in paedophelia"

And what would someone involved in pedophilia be called?...hmmm....let me put on my thinking cap

You must admit it looks funny though?

Him and you a lady in waiting and all... no?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

And the other dude that comes to your rescue for no real reason like a puppy dog?

Nope just me

Don't forget to try and make me look bad about this after the meeting tommorow, I could give you a few tips if it helps?

a reply to: corsair00

a reply to: liteonit6969

Can you show me
A) The age of consent is 18.
B) He knew she was not 18.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: 3danimator2014

First of all i didnt say Prince Andrew was a pedophile, i said he is NAMED in a pedophile and sex slave case. You say she was only 17 and just below the age to make porn??????????? are you serious??????????

Id love to hear that excuse in court. ha.

Pedophile is the correct definition.--------having sexual feelings towards children.

Child definition-------a young person below the age of majority.

The age of majority in this case is 18.

This is a case of a Pedophile, sex slave etc.

Now you should be ashamed of yourself instead of making excuses and focusing on a headline you should be looking at the issue here, how a young girl not only is allowed to be in the position she was, but how she was taken advantage of and yes raped and treated as a slave. Disgusting but to be honest im not surprised that these people in high places conduct themselves like this.

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Do you know what pre-pubescent means? This most definitely is not a pedophilia case, much as many people here would like to make it one. I have noticed multiple threads about pedophilia and the great enthusiasm with which many discuss it. It has reached the point where I wonder about their motives. Be assured that I am not speaking about you, specifically, in this regard.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Sorry she got paid.
In my book she took the cash so is not a slave.
Like someone else said she is a prostitute.

originally posted by: corsair00
Get all of the best psychologists of the world together to vote on a worldwide legal age of consent for in-person and online sexuality and straighten out the laws concerning recorded/digitized imagery i.e. pornography. Adolescent sexuality cannot be made illegal - that's like making biological life illegal. Widespread proliferation of downloadable content should be decriminalized and legal focus centered on more pressing concerns.

I hope im reading you wrong, internet porn of sexual adolescents should be decriminalised? Regardless, it shouldnt be. The age for porn should remain at 18, legal adult status.

The definition of pedophile doesnt mean they have to act on it, if the person fantasizes about children they are by definition a pedophile. If they are attracted to children they are a pedophile.

That was never the point of the whole issue, but people keep making the straw man that Andrew is not a pedophile - thats not the claim, as the title states he was named in a pedophile case, he is close friends with a convicted sex offender, he had relations with a 17 year old, what exactly we dont know. But she claimed she was forced to have sex with him. There is photographic evidence they knew each other. The only thing actually in question is how far they went and whether it was consensual.

a reply to: Ridhya

Who forced her is the better question. If the other guy forced her, and as far as Andrew knew she was a cute girl and was consenting, there is no crime by Andrew.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Ridhya

Who forced her is the better question. If the other guy forced her, and as far as Andrew knew she was a cute girl and was consenting, there is no crime by Andrew.

I wouldn't bet the bank on it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Ridhya

Who forced her is the better question. If the other guy forced her, and as far as Andrew knew she was a cute girl and was consenting, there is no crime by Andrew.

I wouldn't bet the bank on it.

I don't need to bet anything. We either have evidence of it or we don't. Even what the girl has said personally does not point at any crime committed by Andrew.