Why the prince andrew` scandal` is ridiculous

It is annoying that people do not understand the term peadophilia by mixing it up with underage sex, they dimisnish the crimer committed on samll children.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
It is annoying that people do not understand the term peadophilia by mixing it up with underage sex, they dimisnish the crimer committed on samll children.

What age do you pick to draw the line?

Hes guilty! I watched is face and his speech. Pedo!!

a reply to: butcherguy

I don't think that's what he's implying pal...


Basically paedophilia is a term used for the rape of someone below the age of 13...


All in all there is about 4 categories of *insert philia*...

I forget the names and specific age restrictions now but I came across when I was looking into the Vatican's atrocities...




Edit:

Hebephilia is defined as individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in 11-14 year old pubescents

Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.

At the end of the day it's all semantics & I think personally it's disgusting because the next step after the label is to tolerate it and treat it as a mental disease rather than a crime...

I don't want to live in that world!

Okay so I think the point should be clear by now, however to add:

- Honestly I think you should NEVER exclude any information. Certainly not when we are dealing
when you are being active on this scale. Always use every information you can, so don't discard the 'satanic monarch rituals' unless you can provide some clear arguements against it. Even then dont fully discard it.

- As was said before, no matter how you look at it, the women was used as a sex slave. And the monarchies are the elite of the world, who have influence everywhere. Don't you think this is really weird and fundamentally wrong? Besides she told in an interview that they met at an orgy with several underaged girls, A prince who goes to orgies? I guess you can judge that by yourself.

- Finally yes she was 17, which is almost full grown. However like several people mentioned, 17 is still considered underaged and one could end up in jail for it. I think I also need to mention this happend when the prince was somewhere around 37 (now 54).

- I think we all know, that the prince will not suffer any consequences from this, however I think if you are interested to investigate this more. Granted it is like openings pandora's box, but hey if you come here you should be prepared for that. Furthermore if you wish to seek the truth you need to investigate this stuff. What kind of further explanation you have for this is your choice, rituals or not. Just don't discard any information. Again that is the worst thing you could do.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

At the end of the day it's all semantics & I think personally it's disgusting because the next step after the label is to tolerate it and treat it as a mental disease rather than a crime... I don't want to live in that world!

Agreed!

a reply to: kayleighkitty

You don't get the point. He knew that when he was in America, he had to abide by American law and rules. So sorry despite the girles ready for sex - unless you ask their fathers, that is Andy dipped where he shouldn have done.

He has a responsibility as a royal and is damn well paid for his trips and living. He is part of a Royal Family which should be, sadly though not, the epitome of family life.

You aren't paying taxes for that family and were you having them laud it over the law we are all subject to, you may well feel the same. Forget about the allowances people regularly quote when defending them, its the hidden costs to the tax payers that don't come out of those allowances such as his security then add on the rest of the bunch and their flights, luxurious holiday breaks etc and andrew's financial dealings abroad etc.

Do you also thinbk that that young girl would have chosen to have sex with roly poly dough man by choice? I doubt it with a lass of that age - she probably found his disgusting and quite frightened as it looks like she had no choice.

Clearly the press office at buck house is working overtime as we had him on the tv yet again repudiating these allegations. However the lass if not within the grasp of the royals and their servants so hopefully the US police etc will keep her safe. If she disappears or meets with a suicide or whatever we will all know who is responsible.

a reply to: butcherguy

Is it really age or should it be consent?

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: butcherguy

Is it really age or should it be consent?

I have daughters, the youngest is 11 years of age.
I don't think she is old enough to decide.
So age has something to do with it for me.
But the girl in question(in the OP) did not consent and was held against her will.

originally posted by: kayleighkitty
Whilst i appreciate this is a conspiracy website, this thread however is about the mainstream media story only and not about other `monarch rituals and other david icke type stuff` so please keep it solely about the prince andrew case,



Now, i live in Europe where 17 is more than over the legal age of consent, however thats not the point.



My point is most girls are developed by 13/14 and even though i agree that is not an excuse and would be unacceptable, 17 however is literally a fully grown and mentally mature/developed woman



why is it a problem if he slept with a 17 year old? like seriously it hardly means he`s attracted to children, if it was a 12 year old i would understand but this girl was 17 almost 18, why the outrage?

most 17 year old girls look mid 20s too.



I just think its absolutly ridiculous that people are looking at this case like he is some sick child molestor?

Re-read your post .. Every word.

You are condoning this type of behavior and find it totaly OK.

What does that make you, dare I ask?

a reply to: grandmakdw

They call it the Clinton Body Count.....

When I see "lushly taken care of", I read "paid to have sex". If she was given money or any sort of gratuity, she could have used that to get out of her "slavery". Let's keep in mind that the definition of a slave is someone who is NOT paid for what they do. She was. She wasn't a slave then, she was a prostitute.

She was over the legal age, she wasn't kept in a cage or restrained in any way, so she could have walked anytime she wanted to. She liked the money, and when it dried up she's looking for another paycheck.

originally posted by: Ensinger23
When I see "lushly taken care of", I read "paid to have sex". If she was given money or any sort of gratuity, she could have used that to get out of her "slavery". Let's keep in mind that the definition of a slave is someone who is NOT paid for what they do. She was. She wasn't a slave then, she was a prostitute.

She was over the legal age, she wasn't kept in a cage or restrained in any way, so she could have walked anytime she wanted to. She liked the money, and when it dried up she's looking for another paycheck.

Exactly my sentiments which I expressed in another thread on the

same subject.

She is writing a book .... Whoa! .... how much would this type of

advertising/publicity cost?? and she is getting it all for free!!


The following is taken from an interview she gave to a reporter >>>


"For her 19th birthday Jeffry Epstein bought her a ticket to Thailand

and enrolled her in a 'masseuse' course. Shortly after arriving there

she met an Australian martial arts expert and they were married

within 10 days."


A lot of moving around, high flying and FREEDOM for someone in *SLAVERY*

originally posted by: Ensinger23
When I see "lushly taken care of", I read "paid to have sex". If she was given money or any sort of gratuity, she could have used that to get out of her "slavery". Let's keep in mind that the definition of a slave is someone who is NOT paid for what they do. She was. She wasn't a slave then, she was a prostitute.

She was over the legal age, she wasn't kept in a cage or restrained in any way, so she could have walked anytime she wanted to. She liked the money, and when it dried up she's looking for another paycheck.

The girls were kept on an island. They were not free to leave whenever they wanted to. There were girls there that did not want to be there.

The only way to leave the island was on the owners private jet or yacht.

Slaves throughout history have been given money for jobs well done. That does not negate the fact that they are slaves.

If there were girls who were not allowed to leave, they could not have "walked" anytime they wanted, or even swam to another location (it was an island and these were small girls). Access in and out of the island was strictly controlled by the owner, the SLAVER.

They were slaves, even if you want to deny it.

Keeping people on an island, refusing to let them leave, and using them to gratify ones nasty fantasies.

That my friend is slavery.

It's called a gilded cage. The cage may be lovely and quite comfortable, but it is still a cage.

Just in case it bypasses you - the island itself was a gilded cage.

It was plush and the girls ate well and were clothed well, but they were caged by being kept on the island, even if they did not want to be there, and
they were expected to sexually service both men and each other for the viewing pleasure of the guests

at the whim of the owner, and not of their own free choice.

a reply to: eletheia

She is writing a book to survive, to live.

Of course, he was done with her at 19, so let her go. She was too old for him and his buds. Used and worn out property as far as the men were concerned.

She was in the "company" of powerful men, and very powerful people

To insure her own life after the trial
which backed up her "allegations" as truth

writing the book insured she would not be disappeared, or have an unusual accident or die young.

originally posted by: grandmakdw



She is writing a book to survive, to live.

Well she's obviously been surviving very well in the past 11yrs

living in Australia and now resettling in the US with her

husband and three children.

writing the book insured she would not be disappeared, or have an unusual accident or die young.

Nothing can insure against accidents or even dying at a young

age.

originally posted by: kayleighkitty
Actually i did not read about the slave stuff
i just saw the headline title allegations that he had an affair with a 17 year old, and thought big deal

It's usually a good idea to read more than just a headline before you form an opinion. You'd be amazed at how just reading a couple sentences of the article in question, really expands and fills the back story of a headline.

Especially considering that headlines are written just to grab the attention of the reader, and may not be fully supported by facts.

It's kind of like the old saying of judging a book by it's cover. When you just stop at the headline and don't delve deeper, like say the first paragraph, it really limits your world view because you have less of a pool of accurate information to draw upon.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Because the girl was recruited to be a "sex slave"

And the evidence the Prince knew that?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Because the girl was recruited to be a "sex slave"

And the evidence the Prince knew that?

No evidence I know of. However, from what I have read of the trial, there is definitive evidence that the girls were held as sex slaves.

How could the Prince and Clinton visit the island and not know. Neither are that naive.
In the US there is enough evidence of Clinton's tom cat proclivities, that I sincerely doubt he could have been naive enough not to know. The Prince being a very sheltered man all his life, could have been so naive and so blindly stupid to have not known I suppose.

It is quite possible I suppose that both men could be near idiots and not have noticed that the girls were underage, and some being held against their will; and that the owner of the island gave the girls hand gestures in instructing them to engage in specific sex acts.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Because the girl was recruited to be a "sex slave"

And the evidence the Prince knew that?

No evidence I know of. However, from what I have read of the trial, there is definitive evidence that the girls were held as sex slaves.

How could the Prince and Clinton visit the island and not know. Neither are that naive.
In the US there is enough evidence of Clinton's tom cat proclivities, that I sincerely doubt he could have been naive enough not to know. The Prince being a very sheltered man all his life, could have been so naive and so blindly stupid to have not known I suppose.

It is quite possible I suppose that both men could be near idiots and not have noticed that the girls were underage, and some being held against their will; and that the owner of the island gave the girls hand gestures in instructing them to engage in specific sex acts.

Then the guy forcing her should be put on trial. What does that have to do with Prince Andrew?

Your friend sets you up on a date. Unbeknownst to you she is a sex slave. You go out and have sex after. Should you be arrested and sent to jail? Because that is all the Prince did as far as we know, there is zero evidence of any wrongdoing on his part.

As far as underage she was not 10, she was 17, almost 18.

If what happened to her is what she says happened, it's terrible. I will simply not demonize someone without evidence.