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

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
Read about that earlier.

(I considered posting it but wondered if it was worth it. I consider it brave that you did. Too many things have happened to me in the past for speaking out about such things.)

Please could you elaborate. Firstly, this sounds very interesting indeed if true. If not, who's to say that you are spreading fear to prevent others from speaking out ?

edit on 2-1-2015 by sayzaar because: mistake with quoting text.

The latest legal issue refers to the terms of the deal Epstein is believed to have struck with US prosecutors.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... html#ixzz3Ng8X6Hs0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

utoh

a reply to: stumason

Like most other normal people, then?

But he isn't most other normal people is he ?

a reply to: stumason

What do you mean embarrassing? It isnt just sex.....it is rape...sex slave. This was without consent and is a crime. Anyone else would be in custody. I am sure alot more is going to come to light. I also remember that epstein had tried to hide his links to the Prince, now i see why.
Also Epstein has been linked to abusing children and thus by association Prince Andrew will be too. Thats why to attempt to cut ties and hide all.

a reply to: stumason

Yes it does stink...but for the reason not what you suggest. It to me looks that these girls were maybe intimidated into not going to court, as looking at previous atempts to expose these people the victim is treated at the criminal.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Pretty much anybody can name anybody in a lawsuit. Being named in a lawsuit is a far cry from being "exposed." It's being named in a lawsuit.

What happens next will be far more telling than simply being named in the suit.

What? Like someone dying in a car crash in some tunnel?

Or crashed Cesna.

Or drowning on a fishing trip.

Or most probable couldn't stomch herself from all the lies and commits "suicide" exonerating her accuser.

I think it's worth pointing out this story has nothing to do with the alleged paedophile ring in the upper echelons of the British establishment. That's another matter completely.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I think it's worth pointing out this story has nothing to do with the alleged paedophile ring in the upper echelons of the British establishment. That's another matter completely.

I'd disagree. I see it as directly related, just like a homicide unit works up a profile. There appears to be a long standing correlation to those who views others as less equal and actions perpetrated against said "unfortunates ".

One rotten apple spoils the bunch it seems.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: stumason

What do you mean embarrassing? It isnt just sex.....it is rape...sex slave. This was without consent and is a crime. Anyone else would be in custody. I am sure alot more is going to come to light. I also remember that epstein had tried to hide his links to the Prince, now i see why.
Also Epstein has been linked to abusing children and thus by association Prince Andrew will be too. Thats why to attempt to cut ties and hide all.

Correcting, it is an alledged instance of being a sex slave and she hasn't gone to the Police, she went to a Lawyer running a civil suit against a friend of Andrew.

So, wind your neck in and save your feigned indignation. Like I said in my post you're replying to, this is a civil suit for one and you haven't even heard the details of the accusation, much less the defence and you're acting like he is guilty.

And you cannot say simply because one man admitted to trying to solicit sex from a 14 year old (so again, not a paedophile as the Mirror claimed) then anyone he associates with is also guilty. It is precisely for that reason both sides distanced themselves, as I am sure you would if a good mate turns out to like them young!

Let's hope if you get accused of a crime in future, and the accuser instead of going to the Police goes a Lawyer to wring money out of you, that the jurors on the panel that day don't leap to the same conclusions you quite clearly have.

a reply to: gortex

Why not? A weird thing to say considering the prevailing feeling on ATS is that the Royals should be "despised" for holding themselves above us (they don't..) and now you're doing exactly that!

I'm just concerned by mixing up the two, neither get the full attention they deserve a reply to: Rosinitiate

a reply to: stumason

Why not? A weird thing to say considering the prevailing feeling on ATS is that the Royals should be "despised" for holding themselves above us

They should be "despised" for what they are , part of a ruling elite dynasty that feed off of the blood and sweat of the people they lord it up over.
I have no time for any of them and Randy Andy is the bottom of the pile.

with the revelations of his apparently indefatigable search for the finest golf courses around the globe, during which he has clocked up substantial travel costs. Palace accounts show that in the 12 months to April, the 44-year-old prince spent £325,000 on flights, including £2,939 on a helicopter to make the 120-mile round trip to Oxford, and RAF planes to fly to St Andrews for two golfing jaunts.

Last week, in the eyes of the tabloids, the shameless scion of Windsor was at it again: taking an RAF jet to Northern Ireland, where he squeezed in a round of golf before arriving at a royal garden party several hours after it had begun.
www.theguardian.com...

The argument for keeping them is like the one for staying in the EU ... False.

Michael Jackson was exposed at least twice. The victim was paid off and he is still treated like royalty instead of the child molester he was.
this will be a repeat scenario most likely even if he is innocent.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: gortex
but my mate woke up in the morning with a 15 year old and she started claiming she was raped (she was more than willing the night before though)

She was right, It would have been rape! She was below the age of consent and therefore unable to give her constent even if she wanted to. Whether she was perceived willing or not is not relevant in any way.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Michael Jackson was exposed at least twice. The victim was paid off and he is still treated like royalty instead of the child molester he was.
this will be a repeat scenario most likely even if he is innocent.

Actually, no criminal charges stuck and he settled out of court which proves nothing other than his "victims" were willing to be paid a large sum of money rather than seek justice, which speaks volumes.

The same applies here - if there was any evidence, then surely criminal proceedings should be sought, not a civil trial were it seems at least some of the "victims" of this "abuse" were content to be paid off.

I don't know about you, but if I was raped as a youngster, I'd want Justice to be served, not a pot of cash.

a reply to: HumanPLC

That would be statutory rape not actual rape and any conviction would be for sexual activity with a minor, not rape. Also, if the girl is over 14, she has to make the complaint (not her parents or someone on her behalf) and without it, no action can be taken.

MSN Article

Always interesting who comes to the defence... justification of minors? Sick.

This is a case of wealthy old criminals taking advantage of poor underage girls, plain and simple.

a reply to: stumason

Ohhhh, you mean good rape... Not bad rape???

Thats all news to me, where is the UK Legislation that says this?

Sorry mate but its rape, plain as!

a reply to: stumason

First of all i like your picture. Sums up your stance before you even comment on the matter. Your arguments all sound rediculous. When you put yourself into a situation with a girl who is underage you are opening yourself to those kinds of accusations. A bit of advice.....dont get into bed with a minor and dont claim a friend was innocent when was clearly guilty. It doesnt matter what the young girl did or said, he is the adult and thus should know better.

Also this has everything to do with the scum that are the royal family. The are a family who live of the backs of hard working people in ways that people should not live. Private jets, mansions too big for 100 people never mind 3. People need to wake up to the crimes these people commit

Your opinions are the product of the brainwashing that the media facilitate along with the education system (non education system should i say).

Finally when someone settles out of court, why would it suggest they are lying. Their lives have been ruined by these monsters and the choice of getting money to help with living or the process of going through the corrupt courts and pay for legal fees with money you have not got for a result which probably go against you.

Money and power talk.
Unfortunately fools dont listen, they obide.

originally posted by: HumanPLC
a reply to: stumason

Thats news to me, where is the UK Legislation that says that?

Its rape mate, plain as!

No, it isn't. It is called statutory rape because it is rape by legal definition, because one party cannot legally give consent but it is not actual rape. The offence by which someone would be prosecuted is Sexual Offences with a Child under 16, not rape.

And with regards to the 14+ thing, this was what was in effect back when this happened - the girl has to make the complaint not another adult - I don't know if this has been changed in 2003 with a new Sexual Offences Act - I stopped caring about whether girls were old enough by then.