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

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Tangerine
Most people are confused about that. Pedophilia is not an action, it is a sexual attraction.

This article here attempts to explain the difference.

Thank you but I fear it's hopeless. They do not wish to understand the distinction.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Prince Andrew is very much going to be involved in his own case.

Exactly which case is that?

I second that question: What case is that liteonit6969?

originally posted by: midicon

I switched on the news this morning and see that Sarah Ferguson has come out of the woodwork to defend prince charming. That should go down well given her reputation as a cash for favours money grabbing bitch. One newspaper headline quotes her as calling him 'the world's greatest man'!

There is no doubt in my mind that Andrew had sex with this young woman and that it was illegal. Prostitution is illegal here in the UK for anyone under the age of eighteen. Do we really believe that he was unaware of what was going on.

You're accusing someone of a sex crime against a young woman while calling another woman a vile name. Hmmm.

You're accusing someone of a sex crime against a young woman while calling another woman a vile name. Hmmm.

Perhaps you aren't aware of Ferguson's past and how her antics were caught on camera by an undercover reporter. Iceberg and tip spring to mind.

Go read up on Andrews association with Epstein amongst others. You would defend that?

Hmm

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: boymonkey74

.....
There has been no attack of prince Andrew on this thread, yet there is an ever growing effort to dirty this girls name and sate as fact she is a liar and manipulating the situation to make money.

There has been no attack on Prince Andrew on this thread??? Have you actually read this thread? The following are quotes from various posters:

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

"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. "

"I certainly hope you really don't truly believe what you just wrote. She did not "get involved with a prince." She was loaned out to be raped by a prince. Do you understand the distinction?"

"The royals are true scum fact! But this is not isolated to just them,all/most people in these circles globally indulge in these heinous crimes."

"Could Andrew be the reason that Paul Burrell's case mysteriously collapsed?"

"At the very best case scenario, Andrew supports this sick man and got erotic massages from a freaking high school girl and didnt ask questions as to how they met."

"For what it's worth I think the real story here is that, regardless of whether or not Andrew Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is or isn't guilty of these allegations (only those involved know that at present), this is different to the usual Royal stories which are neatly hushed-up by the deferent UK media."

"There is no doubt in my mind that Andrew had sex with this young woman and that it was illegal."

And, finally, you said, "“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."

originally posted by: midicon

You're accusing someone of a sex crime against a young woman while calling another woman a vile name. Hmmm.

Perhaps you aren't aware of Ferguson's past and how her antics were caught on camera by an undercover reporter. Iceberg and tip spring to mind.

Go read up on Andrews association with Epstein amongst others. You would defend that?

Hmm

How does that justify calling a woman a vile name, especially a gender slur?

a reply to: boymonkey74

Have you read the thread? I created the thread and have constantly had to argue against posts from the same people trying to make claims that arent true. But then themselves make assumptions about a girl based on guesswork and rumours.

a reply to: Tangerine

Are you serious, you say this but have also claimed a woman who may be a victim of sex crimes is a liar an extorting people for money.

What planet do you live on?

a reply to: Tangerine

I called her what she is. How is that a gender slur. I think you are clutching at straws and displaying a shallow attempt at deflection.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: Tangerine

Are you serious, you say this but have also claimed a woman who may be a victim of sex crimes is a liar an extorting people for money.

What planet do you live on?

Copy and paste the post in which I said the woman is a liar extorting people for money. I said she may be doing that and the method used is suggestive. That is not making a claim of fact that she lied and is extorting people for money. You do realize, don't you, that you just accused me of accusing someone of a serious crime?

Go ahead and repeat your claim that no one has attacked Prince Andrew on this thread. Your own words, which I copied and paste in a recent post, make it clear that you despise the Royal family. I can only imagine the enthusiasm with which you started this thread.

a reply to: Tangerine

From that short list i would agree that 3 of them are correct in that they are not warrented comments. The rest are just people opinions etc and can in no way be interpretted as an attack on him as an individual.

So all you can give me out of 21 pages of posts are 3 tiny quotes?

Talk about focusing on the minority. So if someone comes in and makes a random statement about a tree, you are going to throw out the baby with the bath water.

If i was Andrew or one of the men accused i really wouldnt want you defending his corner on a discussion forum. Your arguments are repetitive, weak and contradictory. And most of them revolve around picking out spellin mistakes. It shows how someone is reading important information when the basis of their argument is to ridicule someones spelling.


hmmmm

a reply to: Tangerine

Again its the way you misinterpret what people are saying to suit your needs, because i was not screaming i have a condition that i cannot control the level of my voice. And you are using it against me. That really is low

Again you are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions while slamming other people for doing the same.

How do you know she isnt going to sue these people? No one said she has or will, but you have stated she wont and if she did she would lose.

How can you claim to know this?

How?


(I have used double line spaces to make it clear and easy to understand, am i being patronising? Interpret it the way you want, as you have always done)

a reply to: Tangerine
Unfair? As unfair as diplomatic immunity from extradition? The case was re-opened because Epstein got off easy.

If they're not guilty they have nothing to worry about. The court would punish the girl which you are so eager to see.

Sex trafficking is a horrible crime and I find it repulsive that some of the people posting here are using the topic to attack those they envy. The enthusiasm with which they trash the people they envy far outweighs the revulsion they express for any crimes that may have been committed --and I emphasize may, there being no evidence to date have been committed. Personally, I don't think they give a damn about any actual victims. It seems to me that using this topic in such a manner is just another form of exploitation of women.

I do not intend this criticism to be directed at all posters. There are some who don't seem to be motivated by their lust to destroy people, without regard for evidence, simply because those people are wealthy and famous.

originally posted by: Ridhya
a reply to: Tangerine
Unfair? As unfair as diplomatic immunity from extradition? The case was re-opened because Epstein got off easy.

If they're not guilty they have nothing to worry about. The court would punish the girl which you are so eager to see.

IF they're not guilty they have nothing to worry about? You can't be serious. They've been accused of loathsome crimes and have no legal avenue to clear themselves. I am, of course, referring to the people she didn't sue. Can you honestly say you would have nothing to worry about if you had been accused of that crime and had no way to clear yourself?

You misunderstand the legal system. The woman (she is an adult now) can not be punished for filing a civil suit. As it stands now, she can not even be sued by the people she named but did not sue. Only if she makes the claim publicly and separate from the suit can she be sued by them. That is precisely why Dershowitz has dared her and her lawyers to accuse him in public.

As for diplomatic immunity regarding Prince Andrew, I don't think there's any certainty that he has it. Doesn't matter anyway because he has not been charged with any crime and she has named multiple people who can be called to testify who don't have diplomatic immunity. Doesn't it raise any suspicion for you that she had neither sued him nor did she present evidence when she could have to have him charged with a crime? Doesn't it raise any suspicion for your that she neither sued any of the other people (other than Epstein) nor presented evidence when she could have to have them charged with a crime?

a reply to: Tangerine

The same can be said with the comment you have made toward the girl.

You have conducted yourself in the same way that you criticise others of doing. Do you not see this?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Prince Andrew is very much going to be involved in his own case.

Exactly which case is that?

I second that question: What case is that liteonit6969?

I think we will be waiting a loooong loooong time for a answer!

a reply to: Tangerine
That's laughable at best. Epstein is actually a convicted sex offender and the worst that happened to him was losing a couple clients and serving a fraction of his sentence. And his high profile friends are still supporting him! Some loss. He was outed for what he is, and his clients have the right to end their contact with him.

This can only be good for an innocent Andrew - he'll get to dispel a myth. The scales are in his favour anyway, since he's innocent, there's no evidence in existence, right?

No it doesnt surprise me in the slightest she was silent. You seem to live in denial, because the reality is that Between 70-90% rapes thought to go unreported

Fear of not being believed, not wanting to get their attacker - who is often known to them - into trouble and a sense that they could or should have avoided the assault mean only a fraction of rape cases are being reported. Of those reported, 50-66% are dropped by police, and of the remaining cases that go on to be considered by the Crown Prosecution Service, 33-50% are discontinued.

About 14,000 cases were reported last year to police, but academics suggest there to be seven times as many unreported cases. Professor Jennifer Brown and Dr Miranda Horvath from the University of Surrey’s Department of Psychology have been examining the shocking statistics through funding made available by the British Psychological Society. They assembled a group of international academics to review current research findings relating to the problem of ‘attrition’ – when victims are reluctant to report rape in the first instance, police choose not to pursue cases, prosecutors drop referred cased before trial, and jurors prefer to acquit than find defendants guilty.

a reply to: Tangerine

I have to add this other point:

Do you think someone who is looking to raise the publicity of her case is going to accuse someone like dershowitz?

I think i can name a million people who would bring more public opinion than him, and far less consequences. Unless she just picked his name out of a hat?

a reply to: Tangerine

You are still doing it arnet you? You're throwing in facts that are just not true!

Doesn't it raise any suspicion for you that she had neither sued him nor did she present evidence when she could have to have him charged with a crime?

To be fair mate, it wasnt just you... A few people on here have made similar comments. So, again... To clear this false information up:

Its believed the reason the others have not been charged is because of the non prosecution agreement that was negotiated.

Documents filed as part of the Florida legal action related to the Epstein case, in which the Duke of York has been named but not as a party to the action, allege that Epstein negotiated the "non-prosecution agreement" using his "significant social and political connections" — which included former US President Bill Clinton who, it is said, worked to get Epstein a "more favourable" deal. The reported deal would mean that those named in the court documents, including Prince Andrew, are unlikely to face legal action over allegations, including that The Duke of York had sex with a teenager who it is claimed was being used by Epstein – a convicted sex offender former friend of the Duke’s – as a "sex slave".

Edit.... Corrected link.. Had to use url shortener to get link to work.. It just points to the article on the independent.

Source: goo.gl...