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

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

HAHA LOL looks like the royals arent so royal after all.

Actually it is pretty much being 'royal'.

Pick your offense, pedophilia,incest, rape,homsexuality, beastiality, etc.

On every continent through out the centuries. Quite of few of the 'high society' does some sick snip.

From Pharoah's, to Catherine the Great's, Kings, and Queens, Lords, and Ladies.

originally posted by: BMorris

originally posted by: lululeopard
www.dailymail.co.uk...

The daily mail isn't exactly a reliable news source. Its not for no reason that we nickname it the daily fail.

That may be the case, but I bet it is breaking their hearts to have to report on this, being a publication that resolutely supports the Royal family.

a reply to: BMorris

At least the Daily Mail has the courage and wherewithal to report this case. (Yet another rape apologist on this thread -- amazing!)

Here's another Daily Mail story, in which it's reported that Roberts was first raped by Epstein at age 15. And it details Epstein's "fixer," a despicable woman named Ghislaine Maxwell.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: BMorris

Why would i derail the thread to talk about the widely published in great detail the abuses and crimes of the royal family throughout history?

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: stumason


I WILL REPEAT DOWN HERE IN CASE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND:

RAPE IS RAPE.

Sadly the word is thrown around quite loosely now days.

I can remember a very hairy situation I walked in on two years ago at a party.
This guy whom had been drinking lots was being pestered by this girl all night, we all saw it, we all knew she had been drinking too. She was making advancements at him all night, finally he reciprocated and they disappeared to an empty room.
I was looking for a place to crash and walked in on them well, doing it.
She freaked out and started crying and left. 30 minutes later cops show up and question everyone who was still there. Turned out she went to the host and said he forced her into sex, cops were called.
It all ended up OK in the end, and the girl actually got into trouble.
But seriously, with all these allegations and convictions being thrown around England right now, people are going to start crying wolf.
My girlfriend is from England, and she grew up there in her teens, when she came over here she was quite shocked how un sexually active a lot of teens were compared to back home, how life sort of moves a little faster than here in Canada.
As someone said earlier in the thread, drinks flow, good times get going and what 17 year old girl wouldn't want to get involved with a prince?
The whole story and article it self is a flop right now, the only part that is sketchy is that he hangs out with a sex offender.

a reply to: stumason

As the majority of the posters on this thread have said your comments are disgusting and i feel that either they are that of a troll or worse, someone who actually believes what he is saying.

There is no point trying to get you to see what is happening. Just stand back and look at the big picture.

No wonder the world is like this. very sad.

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: stumason


I WILL REPEAT DOWN HERE IN CASE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND:

RAPE IS RAPE.

The whole story and article it self is a flop right now, the only part that is sketchy is that he hangs out with a sex offender.

They all do, Savile was great friends with Charles and spent many a week with him at Savile's remote cottage in Scotland. Savile was the go between for the Royals and Diana when their marriage broke down.

Savile was introduced to the Royal family through Louis Mountbatten. What connections did they have to come to meet in the first place?

a reply to: strongfp

"and what 17 year old girl wouldn't want to get involved with a prince?"

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?

originally posted by: strongfp

The whole story and article it self is a flop right now

I dunno mate, its pretty big news here in the UK. Buckingham Palace have also released a statement which i think shows the potential severity of this story.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: stumason

As the majority of the posters on this thread have said your comments are disgusting and i feel that either they are that of a troll or worse, someone who actually believes what he is saying.

There is no point trying to get you to see what is happening. Just stand back and look at the big picture.

No wonder the world is like this. very sad.

'Modern' civilization' is no GD different today than any other time in history.

It is amazing how some think we have become so 'evolved'.

That is the 'big picture'.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Alan Dershowitz is also accused in the lawsuit.

The Harvard law professor ... is accused in the court motion of having sexual relations with the woman when she was a minor and of witnessing the abuse of other minors. On Thursday he told the Guardian: “There is no more strenuous denial than the one I am giving. I never met her. I don’t know her. I have never had sex with an underage person.” . . . He said he was considering taking legal action to have Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, the lawyers who filed the motion, disbarred.... Edwards said: “We have been informed of Mr Dershowitz’s threats of legal action and bar proceedings … we carefully investigate all of the allegations in our pleadings before presenting them.” In a statement to the Guardian through her lawyers, the woman behind the allegations said she was being “unjustly victimised again”. “These types of aggressive attacks on me are exactly the reason why sexual abuse victims typically remain silent and the reason why I did for a long time,” she said. “That trend should change. I’m not going to be bullied back into silence.”

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: neo96

I agree its no differentin terms of the morals of people. There is still a large number of cruel sick power hungry people who worry not of consequences of their action be it prosecution of the person or the damage it has on the victim.

In todays society it is much easier exposed through the massive communication medium. But it is easy to look back in history and oberve these issues, whereas at the time it was very hushed up. Whereas today people are much more aware of the crimes that are being commited.

a reply to: Fravashi

Thankyou for bringing that to the table. Looking at Alan Dershowitz you see how a man like this could literally get away with murder. He is a very powerful person and i feel any lawyer would see it as career suicide bringing a case like this against him.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Also, Alan Dershowitz was involved in the original investigation into Epstein in 2006.

Dershowitz provided legal assistance to friend and reported billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors. Dershowitz investigated some of Epstein's accusers and provided both the police and the State attorney’s office with a dossier containing information about their personal behavior, which had been obtained from their personal MySpace pages, including allegations of alcohol and drug use. Eventually, in 2008, Epstein pled guilty to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution and began serving an 18-month sentence.

Source

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
I just want to drop in and say:

you apologists make me sick. Anyone with a working brain can see that the elite of our wourld are sick, twisted perverts with a passion for abuse and violence.

I couldn't agree more.

And I want to add, that if I have ever seen a classic case of derailment most intentionally this thread is it. Wow.

Something I havent seen mentioned in this thread.
At all times all royals are surrounded by security that investigates ANYONE who will have access to the royals.
Therefore - There is zero defence for the idea that the royal did not know about Epstein or the girl being at the same location as he. They would have known well before the royal arrived about the girl and the purpose for her being their.

a reply to: mikell

I think most states here in the US are at least 16 or 17 so no story but she'll get on TV a time or two. Maybe Dr Phil can save her

Age of consent in FL is still 18 but it's not a criminal charge anyway so it doesn't matter. They just want their 15 minutes and a nice fat check. Nothing to see here...might even be too mundane for Dr. Phil.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Horney Reptilians , who would of Thunk.................

a reply to: HumanPLC

Well done in providing that info. It really shows what the victims are up against. It is the responsibility of EVERYONE to protect these victims and bring to justice anyone who has behaved in this way, no matter who you are. To do that people need to be vocal when faced with info about this kind of thing. Dont let people brush these things aside like some people on this thread.

BTW you have provided alot of great arguments and info throughout this thread, and without your persistence these trolls would have derailed it to the conspiracy bin. Thanks

The age of consent is really the issue here. In some countries girls can give consent at an age where here in the states we would consider sexual relations with them a felony.

Consent is tricky when you are talking about girls so young. Do they really understand the consequences of their actions and do they fully understand what is happening to them?

Even that is better than some cultures where girls are given, or sold, into marriage under the age of ten. That is wrong on so many levels...