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

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Dabrazzo

American investment banker behind this? I suppose many are masters of deceit.

Shouldn't we be after the prestigious person who brokered the transaction?

I suppose that is not the American way. Here we go after the one who took the bait.

In my City, the police will hire 16 year old girls to wear a transmitter and then they approach guys and ask them if they want to purchase "favors", and if they say yes, they get busted, name printed in the local news etc..

Entrapment seems to be a favorite pastime of police and even the FBI here in the US. No professional integrity.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

They probably do not approach the pillars of the community when they do that. I bet not one cop gets busted either.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Can you link to that? That's illegal. Not the entrapment part, because that isn't entrapment, but the hiring underage girls to do it.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Can you link to that? That's illegal. Not the entrapment part, because that isn't entrapment, but the hiring underage girls to do it.

Actually, it is entrapment whichever way you look at it, why do you think it isn't?

www.thefreedictionary.com...

originally posted by: RifRAAF
a reply to: Shiloh7
It wouldnt be Crown v Crown. In a civil case (such as this one with the Prince) it would the plaintiff v the defendants last names, the prince isnt actually the defendant so his name would not be on the case.

In the situation that a criminal charge was laid against the prince in England, it would be Wessex v Crown (I THINK Wessex is the last name they use??)...

No, Wessex is not the last name they use. HRHs don't have last names. Their descendants who aren't HRH's use the last name Windsor-Mountbatten.

a reply to: RifRAAF

Wessex is the name of a COUNTY. "Duke of Wessex" doesn't mean the name is Wessex, it means he is the Duke of a county called Wessex. Incidentally, Prince Edward is the Duke of Wessex. Prince Andrew is the Duke of York. No, his surname is not York either.

The Royal families surname is Windsor-Mountbatten, but their surname is not really used anywhere.

As for a trial, it wouldn't be Crown vs Crown. However UK law guarantees you a trial by your peers. I'm no legal expert, but that suggests to me that the prosecuting attorney would have to find 12 princes to sit on the jury. Awkward.

originally posted by: HumanPLC

Rapists don't usually photograph smiley pictures with their victims.

That's a massively uninformed comment! A significant number of rapes are perpetrated by someone already known by the victim.

Women are often advised to avoid sexual violence by never walking alone at night. But in fact, only around 10% of rapes are committed by 'strangers'. Around 90% of rapes are committed by known men;

Source: www.rapecrisis.org.uk...

She knew full well what prostitution was

Im not sure what you mean by that, would you be so kind as to explain, please!

You make these comments as though us skeptics doesn't know anything about rape. No, this girl is not under duress in the picture, but she claimed to be a sex slave, she is not a sex slave in the traditional sense by any means and the sooner you realize that some of us know what we are talking about, the less assumptions you make about our knowledge of it.

I am skeptical of her claims of sex slavery simply because none of what she says even fits the criteria, which involves holding someone against their will, and she was never held against her will, so she wasn't a sex slave.

Taking her against her will and removing her to another place, that is kidnapping. As she has never indicated she was kidnapped, then she wasn't kidnapped for the purpose of sexual slavery. If she was paid for it, that means she was a prostitute. Epstein doesn't seem to be a pimp if he is paying her.

Sure, he might have been guilty of solicitation of underage prostitutes, but that is only because prostitution is illegal in Florida, where he lived. If they were of the age of consent, which every state is different and he didn't pay her, then there would have been no crime. See the problem?

While people on this thread are jumping on this to accuse Epstein and Andrew, what are the ages of consent? She wasn't taken against her will, hence, not kidnapped, therefore, if she went willingly to engage in the act of prostitution, THAT is the only thing they can be charged for, is solicitation of prostitution.

It doesn't matter if the girl is the age of consent and how the thread views the age, if she was legally at the age of consent, then tough cookies, you allowed these laws to be passed.

We live now in a time when prostitution is mainstream, everyone from 10 year-old girls and boys to grown ups know what it is. Miley Cyrus, prostitute. She sells her body to magazines and ticket sales and this society buys it, knowing what it is.

a reply to: Tangerine
Ok, why I thought Wessex was because I saw Edward Wessex for Prince Edwasd on a documentary credits I once saw. Thanks for the clarification.

originally posted by: RifRAAF
a reply to: Tangerine
Ok, why I thought Wessex was because I saw Edward Wessex for Prince Edwasd on a documentary credits I once saw. Thanks for the clarification.

Really ? OMG! You thought his name Was Prince Edwasd Wessex ? I swear to god my sides are splitting from laughter right now, please stop, it hurts so bad. PMSL !!

a reply to: WarminIndy

You make these comments as though us skeptics doesn't know anything about rape.

First, my comments were not directed at anyone apart from you, so don't drag others into this.

You made the comment "Rapists don't usually photograph smiley pictures with their victims. " It wasn't about anyone specific, it implied that all, or the majority of rapists don't do this.

Its got nothing to do with you being a skeptic; you stated an incorrect fact and i pointed it out.

the sooner you realize that some of us know what we are talking about

Can you not see how arogant that statement sounds.

Anyway, putting that aside; when you make comments such as "Rapists don't usually photograph smiley pictures with their victims.". It leaves me no choice but to come to the assumption that you dont know what you are talking about, as if you did, you wouldnt be making ill informed statements like that, would you?

I will address the rest of your post separately, as soon as i get a second to sit down and put something together.

a reply to: Tangerine

Ah, sorry it was late that night and I was tired and typing fast i can see now that i didn't make myself clear. The people who told me this haven't gone to the authorities so no cases to speak of. I supported them through the healing process and this reminded me of things they told me regarding threats made to them.

And um yeah... wow... i am speculating on a conspiracy website...oh the absolute horror...!

originally posted by: RifRAAF
a reply to: Tangerine
Ok, why I thought Wessex was because I saw Edward Wessex for Prince Edwasd on a documentary credits I once saw. Thanks for the clarification.

It has been reported in the Sun today that Andrew and Fergie have bought the holiday chalet that they have been renting. It was also mentioned that the signature on the mortgage agreement reads Andrew York. It does make one wonder at the paltry sum given to Ferguson and why they would need it.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I am skeptical of her claims of sex slavery simply because none of what she says even fits the criteria, which involves holding someone against their will, and she was never held against her will, so she wasn't a sex slave.

Woah! Holding someone against their will? Thats just come from nowhere!

What is the criteria that defines a sex slave? I would love you to tell me because i have searched high and low, in fact the only definition i was able to find was at 'yourdictionary.com' where it states...

A person, especially a woman or girl, who is confined and is raped, sexually abused, or forced to work as a prostitute.

source: www.yourdictionary.com...

Kidnap, or holding someone against their will can certainly be part of sexual slavery but it's by no means required. Sexual slavery can and does still exist even without kidnaping.

You then go on again to state...

"she was never held against her will, so she wasn't a sex slave."

"Taking her against her will and removing her to another place, that is kidnapping. As she has never indicated she was kidnapped, then she wasn't kidnapped for the purpose of sexual slavery."

"She wasn't taken against her will, hence, not kidnapped"

Can you not see what you have done here? You have started your post (argument) with an incorrect assumption that sexual slavery involves holding someone against their will. You then go on to use this incorrect assumption to attempt to prove she was not a sex slave.

Its like me saying, I am skeptical of her claims of sex slavery simply because none of what she says even fits the criteria, which involves hitting someone on the head 5 times with a turnip, and she was never hit anyone with a turnip, so she wasn't a sex slave.

All you have actually done is prove she wasn't kidnapped and we know that already.

It doesn't matter if the girl is the age of consent

Yes it does! And to be clear, she was below the age of consent according to her allegations.

Okay, im gonna end as i started as i feel its quite important.

Can you please explain why you are stating that sexual slavery involves kidnap?

I believe in a fair debate so i will state my initial reason why i say you are wrong!

Sexual slavery has no actual definition; however the term slavery does... Here is a good example from antislavery.org

There are many different characteristics that distinguish slavery from other human rights violations, however only one needs to be present for slavery to exist. Someone is in slavery if they are:

1. forced to work - through mental or physical threat;
2. owned or controlled by an 'employer', usually through mental or physical abuse or the threat of abuse;
3. dehumanised, treated as a commodity or bought and sold as 'property';
4. physically constrained or has restrictions placed on his/her freedom of movement.

Void of any true definition of 'sexual slavery' i think it would be fair to assume that sexual slavery is essentially slavery, with a sexual element.

The definition above states only one need be present.

1. Forced to work.. Part of her allegation
2. Owned or controlled... Part of her allegation
3. sold as 'property'... Part of her allegation
4. restrictions placed on his/her freedom... Could involve holding someone against will. Not alleged.

You say because No4 was not present this is not sexual slavery?
I have now shown that only one needs to be present; although, just to be clear, there are three!

originally posted by: BMorris

Wessex is the name of a COUNTY.

Um, no it isn't. (And neither is York, for that matter).

originally posted by: BMorris

The Royal families surname is Windsor-Mountbatten

It's actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but they being German and not British at all (and relatively new immigrants to these Islands) they use Windsor-Mountbatten to try and sound less German (Krauts not having been too popular from time-to-time around these parts).

a reply to: RonPalmer


I would question that because I happened to read an article just today about him buying a new 13 million pound ski chalet.

The title deed named him as Edward York so although | am not arguing with you it appears that legally he is named as such.

a reply to: RonPalmer

Not british?...I must be french then seeing three gens back my ancestors were french.
Insulting many folk you are.
Of course they are British. ....

a reply to: nonspecific
I just meant that York isn't a county, what Andy-boy does or does not call himself is another matter.

a reply to: RonPalmer

I was referreing to his given name but yes I agree York is a city and Wessex is a region and not been in use for a while now.

originally posted by: boymonkey74

Insulting many folk you are.

Hey Yoda, I couldn't care less who I'm insulting.

They are not British in as much as they are not a part of the lineage of the true British royal line, such as that is. And they were German as recently as the late 19th Century so I guess it depends how far back you want to go. My own family have been here rather longer than them, since the 12th Century and before that we were Normans - whether that makes me more or less 'British' than the current bunch of inbreds is open for debate.

Of course we also have a 'Prince of Wales' who is about as Welsh as the Dalai Lama, far less a member of any Welsh Royal Family.

a reply to: RonPalmer

I am a little insulted, my family has been here less than theres but I am pretty sure I'm British, Maybe I'll ask my dad to make sure.

If charles is British then why would there be an issue with him being the Prince of Wales, You have lost me there aliitle if I'm honest.