Why the prince andrew` scandal` is ridiculous

a reply to: grandmakdw

I couldn't give a rats arse what was claimed, only what was proven in a court of law. Unlike some, I'm not going to judge someone on accusations that obviously did not merit being put in front of a court.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: grandmakdw

I couldn't give a rats arse what was claimed, only what was proven in a court of law. Unlike some, I'm not going to judge someone on accusations that obviously did not merit being put in front of a court.

Find and read the actual transcripts,
they are within the references.
They were proven in a court of law.
The DA just choose not to make those charges for prosecution, doesn't mean they weren't proven through testimony. The DA probably had a lot of pressure not to even prosecute at all but couldn't because of the weight of the evidence.

Besides, why are you so interested in defending this behavior?

a reply to: grandmakdw

Thanks for all your effort in this thread.

There is reported to be an incriminating video of Andrew from the island also.
It seems Epstein liked to have a little insurance package against his guests.

With the power of the monarchy it will be years before the peasants find out the truth, if ever.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: grandmakdw

Thanks for all your effort in this thread.

There is reported to be an incriminating video of Andrew from the island also.
It seems Epstein liked to have a little insurance package against his guests.

With the power of the monarchy it will be years before the peasants find out the truth, if ever.

Your'e welcome.

I think the truth may never fully be revealed to the public, because too many elites are involved and they hold too much power over the media.

What baffles me is the people who are defending this behavior and pretending it never happened.

Actually, I find it a little scarey that in this world there are people who still find this behavior acceptable and will defend the people who engage in it to the bitter end, against all reality and proof.

The "girls" and the court documents show there were many, at least 17 that have been proven, as young as 14 according to the multiple court cases (lots of the cases were civil lawsuits of the girls against Epstein and not criminal cases). The lingering emotional damage caused to the girls will last for years or their entire life, according to all the psychological research on women who this sort of thing happens to.

It is not to be taken lightly or dismissed as not really affecting the young girls in the end.
That is a fantasy of the perverts who want it to be true that the girls will be "just fine".

Also, the people who think the Prince and Clinton
did not know what was going on, really have their heads in the sand over this one.
I won't say they did know, but neither man is that stupid, blind, and naive for me to assume they did not know.

Wasn't there some in wikileaks about a royal caught in such a scandal?

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: grandmakdw

Thanks for all your effort in this thread.

There is reported to be an incriminating video of Andrew from the island also.
It seems Epstein liked to have a little insurance package against his guests.

With the power of the monarchy it will be years before the peasants find out the truth, if ever.

Your'e welcome.

I think the truth may never fully be revealed to the public, because too many elites are involved and they hold too much power over the media.

What baffles me is the people who are defending this behavior and pretending it never happened.

Actually, I find it a little scarey that in this world there are people who still find this behavior acceptable and will defend the people who engage in it to the bitter end, against all reality and proof.

The "girls" and the court documents show there were many, at least 17 that have been proven, as young as 14 according to the multiple court cases (lots of the cases were civil lawsuits of the girls against Epstein and not criminal cases). The lingering emotional damage caused to the girls will last for years or their entire life, according to all the psychological research on women who this sort of thing happens to.

It is not to be taken lightly or dismissed as not really affecting the young girls in the end.
That is a fantasy of the perverts who want it to be true that the girls will be "just fine".

Also, the people who think the Prince and Clinton
did not know what was going on, really have their heads in the sand over this one.
I won't say they did know, but neither man is that stupid, blind, and naive for me to assume they did not know.

I agree with you Grandma, I also am baffled by the support the elites get.
I guess the trip down the reality rabbit hole just isn't a trip some will consciously make.
I sure as hell haven't enjoyed it but it is a necessary evil if you care at all.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: eletheia

It still isn't the way a British Prince of the realm should be behaving, sorry but you have to take public opinion into account as they support this man's bangs and explosion s etc. which occur regularly.

The girl was so young that, can you really think she was responsible for the lifestyle she was leading and hard-nosed connived to lead it?

She had been groomed probably because of being pretty and abused, her acts paid for so exploited by older men, one of whom was handy andy.

Queenie maintains a large press office to control what the public are told about - one doesn't need to guess why. Currently andy is trying to get his daughters rolls of so-called 'work' so they can be put on the british tax payers bill. Apart from the cavorting yet more royals without any form of proper job or ability to support themselves. Perhaps too much time on their hands doesn't help their moral behaviour when it comes to family values.

Firstly I am not a 'royalist' but they wont be there forever, they will
die out like all the other royals from other countries have done over
time. But I don't drip the venom on them like you do .... I am
indifferent to them, they make very little impact to my life.

HOWEVER I AM A REALIST .... Perhaps some food for thought on the
innocence of youth? >>>>

You mentioned hard nosed and conniving. I wonder how well any
of you on this thread actually know any teen agers apart from
maybeyour own??

I live in what is considered a nice area, so does my daughter and
her two children, she has a very good and mature relationship with
her daughter soon to be 18yrs. Because of their close relationship
I am in the loop and privy to know just how conniving they can be
and are over the last 5 years in upper school.

1 year = 60 *children* halve that to omit the boys and add a few for
near age siblings which many have so say talking about 40 girls!

They had sex education at 12 years and they have continuing pshe
classes (physiological health discussion) There is a nurse who hands
out contraception and my grand daughter has accompanied girls
twice for the morning after pill.

When my granddaughter turned 16 years she told her mother she
was being pressurised to loose her virginity by her peers as that
now it was legal (16 in the UK) it was the 'thing' to do! Many smoke
and they all drink and some do drugs, their parents don't know
because they think they are having sleep overs.
When my daughter bumps into any of the parents and they talk
about their *children's* lives .... They don't know/care because
my daughter knows more about what they are getting up to than
their own parents.

They look much older when they go out (using false id) and dress
very provocatively (and NO I am not of the school that thinks
*They asked for it*)

Of that group two have already had babies, and two 15 year olds are
currently pregnant, while the girl sitting between the two is trying
to study they are discussing *how they are going to dress the babies
and the 'brand' of choice.
The latest *in thing* is posting the baby scans on fb to see how many
likes and aw's they get

I like judge Judy she has a saying ... "How do you know when a teen
is lying" answer "When their lips are moving. NAIL ON THE HEAD!!

a reply to: eletheia

You can be aort of excites to meet a celebrity and still be raped by them. She is telling a story in chronological order. I was sort of excites to meet him would come before and then he raped me. This is elementary my friend. Im sure she would have chosen the words sickened to meet him if she knew the ending first.

By your logic all girls sate raped are lying because they liked the guys enough to go on a date with them.

Starting to see your error?

a reply to: eletheia

What does any of that have to do with Andrew having sex with a seventeen year old who was being prostituted out?

No one needs your life story.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

Did you see the list of articles above?
Start there and look for yourself.

As expected you are unable to even name the "court case".... funny that!

I'm not going to file a freedom of information act

Why do you think you have to do that? That silly claim shows how little you actually know about courts.

You made the claim, it is up to you to back that claim up - which you are unable to do, which explains a lot!

a reply to: stumason

Well.. you have to consider who he is. You or I would probably be in court on every charge possible dor him (and there are quite a bit), but money and fame talk.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: eletheia

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: grandmakdw
According to the former slave who testified in us court and was proven to be a sex slave,

Please show us the court case and transcript where that occurred....

Did you see the list of articles above?
Start there and look for yourself. The evidence is out there and I gave plenty of references.

I'm not going to file a freedom of information act and get the transcript of the trial just to satisfy some strangers curiosity.

If you want to read it, file the paperwork yourself.

If you were to lazy to check out the references above, here are some links for you
pagesix.com...
cases.bms11.com...
go there and you can find what you need in order to go to the correct court and file the paperwork to get a copy of the court documents under the freedom of information act. It should only take you 6 months to never to receive the answer
since too many elites are involved, you'd probably find the paperwork lost or misplaced over and over, but you are welcome to try. I won't do your work for you. (sorry, but that's the retired Professor in me)

It is against T&C of ATS to post salacious and graphic material of the kind in the court case and transcript,
and I will not provide it for you, so quit asking.

Documents from the actual court cases (yes plural) are within the references I have provided.
Want to find the answers you seek, just look, it didn't take me long.

You will find Epstein did all the reprehensible things listed in the thread.
You will also find there is evidence the Prince was there.

However, again, I'll grant you the Prince
and Clinton may have the mental capacity
of a single slug between the 2 of them
and didn't realize what was going on around them.

Don't run away with yourself in your efforts to demonise ....
I don't recall asking you for references!?

I am quite capable of finding any information that I require and
making up my own mind without your help

originally posted by: midicon

In 2001 (her 18th year) She flew to London and Ghislaine

She was seventeen.

Depends on what month it was? ....

On her 19th Birthday August 2002 Epstein bought her a ticket....

Therefor she would have been 18yrs. in 2001 NO!!

a reply to: eletheia

The thread is partly about Epstein, but you aeem to want to gloss over the facts and just drop this. You dont think it's worth looking into what Andrews dis when he visited Epstein? If he slept with a minor or even raped her and we know he visited an island mansion where underage girls as youbg as 14 were kept, should we not look into it? We just trust that he behaved himself there? We arent concernes that he disnt immediately call the authorities on his friend and inatead has that friend ship him an underage prostitute oversease (aka sex trafficking).

You are really not on point about this. I don't really understand why you refuse to get it.

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: eletheia

The thread is partly about Epstein, but you aeem to want to gloss over the facts and just drop this. You dont think it's worth looking into what Andrews dis when he visited Epstein? If he slept with a minor or even raped her and we know he visited an island mansion where underage girls as youbg as 14 were kept, should we not look into it? We just trust that he behaved himself there? We arent concernes that he disnt immediately call the authorities on his friend and inatead has that friend ship him an underage prostitute oversease (aka sex trafficking).

You are really not on point about this. I don't really understand why you refuse to get it.

Am I missing something

Title if this thread reads >>>>

WHY THE PRINCE ANDREW SCANDLE IS RIDICULOUS

Epstein?????? And up till now only one female has mentioned Andrew

mentioned in relation to the case against Epstein but I haven't heard

that she is bringing any charges against him.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: grandmakdw

Did you see the list of articles above?
Start there and look for yourself.

As expected you are unable to even name the "court case".... funny that!

I'm not going to file a freedom of information act

Why do you think you have to do that? That silly claim shows how little you actually know about courts.

You made the claim, it is up to you to back that claim up - which you are unable to do, which explains a lot!

You didn't bother to look at the articles did you?

Until you do, don't badger me anymore.

You are just being lazy in not following the links and references provided, spoon fed directly to you.

The court records ARE in the links and references provided, how dense can you be?

To post them in this thread would be a gross violation of the T&C's and would get this thread closed and deleted.

Maybe that is what you are after, for me to put the salacious details in the thread so it will get banished from the site,
not falling for it buddy.

I can only assume you are part of the cover up crowd for some powerful person who was involved in the scandal that has touched many elites.

You never answered my question either: Why are you defending this reprehensible behavior?

a reply to: eletheia


She was seventeen, her lawyer has said the same. Flight records will provide verification. You have an agenda and want to downplay this by trying to insinuate she was eighteen.

Edit

Judge Judy...speechless.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: eletheia


She was seventeen, her lawyer has said the same. Flight records will provide verification. You have an agenda and want to downplay this by trying to insinuate she was eighteen

That's what lawyers do....

2001 was in her words the year she turned 18yrs.

In the 365 days of a year there can be as little as 24 hours

difference between being 17yrs and 18yrs. Either way makes

no difference in the UK 16 years is the age of consent.

Now go and play your silly games with someone else

a reply to: eletheia

It makes all the difference. The age of consent may be sixteen but not when prostitution is involved. That is without even bringing up the question of the particulars of her claims. Of course you knew this already. In this case the lawyer is not going to lie about her age.

It is you that is playing silly games. I am only addressing your posts which tend to wander off into unnecessary information.

originally posted by: midicon
It makes all the difference. The age of consent may be sixteen but not when prostitution is involved. That is without even bringing up the question of the particulars of her claims. Of course you knew this already. In this case the lawyer is not going to lie about her age.

What's your problem

16 years is the legal age of consent in UK

Prostitution is legal in the UK

Perhaps immoral? But NOT illegal

Ever heard of *misleading by omission*