Prince Harry and Megan

Harry and his wife are laughing straight to the bank...

Misery loves company, they chose their own company... Away from the prying eyes.

Not sure what 2 adults do have to do with other people nor why people want to tell other people how to live....

Freedom of blah blah blah... Mentalists

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Did you notice he's balding? Probably Meghans fault, too. That witch.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
Did you notice he's balding? Probably Meghans fault, too. That witch.

Probably caused by cutting off his nuts to place in her beside jar.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

Harry wanted a normal life since his mother's death..

I'm not sure he going to get anything like normal with Megan the Disney Princess.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Did you notice he's balding? Probably Meghans fault, too. That witch.

Finally a redeeming trait for someone with gingervitis.... Balding.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They need to get their son back to Pedoham Palace so Uncle Andrew can spend some time with him.

Ya know, I've been wondering about this narrative we've been told... I used to believe it, I'm not sure I do any more. I'm wondering if they tried reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally hard to get something on Andrew and he just wasn't perverted enough. Oh maybe some slaps and giggles, maybe worse, but nothing that would qualify Andy as a pedophile....or a rapist... not even a statutory rapist.

Last I heard, Andrew had asked to speak to the FBI... he even offered to come to the USA to do so and was strongly advised against that! But the Feds have not taken him up on the offer. Not even NYPD. Why??? (Rhetorical question...)

Now, Prince Charles on the other hand... as another poster pointed out to me recently... he's been instrumental in protecting some pretty bad men... But we don't hear about that. Why??? (Rhetorical question again...)

a reply to: Boadicea

Probably because you don't invite a VIP foreign national to your country when you'll have to arrest him on pedophelia charges.

He's getting a pass because he's royal, but the US wouldn't give him a pass in the middle of the Epstein debacle, knowing their public would get wind of it and be even more pissed.

a reply to: Atsbhct

Actually, it's probably Meghan's fault.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: odzeandennz

Harry wanted a normal life since his mother's death..

I'm not sure he going to get anything like normal with Megan the Disney Princess.

Better he makes his decisions and live his life than live in a box for mental cases whom subscribe to an archaic monarch system...


Meanwhile... Pedophiles walking free... Good for Harry. Get away from the toxins...
And when it's convenient the crown is evil and eats babies and engage in all sexual deviance, when it's not, we question why anyone want to get away from the royals..

The guy gives up money, perks, security in order to live his life as he sees fit and still not good.. Wtf..
Weirdos...

originally posted by: Boadicea

Ya know, I've been wondering about this narrative we've been told... I used to believe it, I'm not sure I do any more. I'm wondering if they tried reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally hard to get something on Andrew and he just wasn't perverted enough. Oh maybe some slaps and giggles, maybe worse, but nothing that would qualify Andy as a pedophile....or a rapist... not even a statutory rapist.

I've never liked Andrew, I think he's pompous and the older he gets looks

more lecherous.......however

Theres a marked difference between a lecher and a pedophile, in that a

pedophile's interests lie in pre pubescent children


It seems many on ATS are not aware of this distinction!!!

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: Boadicea

Probably because you don't invite a VIP foreign national to your country when you'll have to arrest him on pedophelia charges.

No one had to ask... Prince Andrew offered. If the Feds wanted to talk to Andrew, they could have and would have. Even if only to find out what he knows. That's how investigations work. By asking people questions in position to know relevant answers. Prince Andrew is a big name in a little cesspool that gets people's dander up. He's been convicted in the court of public opinion with absolutely no evidence where there should be massive evidence.

And Epstein didn't kill himself.

He's getting a pass...

For what? Exactly? What's the evidence? Who has it?

...because he's royal, but the US wouldn't give him a pass in the middle of the Epstein debacle...

Wait... did he get a pass or not? And, again, for what exactly? What is the evidence and who has it? Because if they've got it, they're sure not using it to prosecute, nor to ban him from US soil, or take any other punitive action.

...knowing their public would get wind of it and be even more pissed.

Except for manipulation and CYA purposes, they don't give a rats' patootie about the public.

a reply to: eletheia

Girls go through puberty at 8,9,10,11... you don't think that sexually assaulting a girl that young would make you a pedophile?

Who stands up for rapists!?

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Boadicea

Ya know, I've been wondering about this narrative we've been told... I used to believe it, I'm not sure I do any more. I'm wondering if they tried reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally hard to get something on Andrew and he just wasn't perverted enough. Oh maybe some slaps and giggles, maybe worse, but nothing that would qualify Andy as a pedophile....or a rapist... not even a statutory rapist.

I've never liked Andrew, I think he's pompous and the older he gets looks

more lecherous.......however

Theres a marked difference between a lecher and a pedophile, in that a

pedophile's interests lie in pre pubescent children


It seems many on ATS are not aware of this distinction!!!

Some words have sociatal and cultural definitions.

Semantics on this front would work in less westernized areas, or even western countries in the past...

But now there's a line. Adult, or not an adult.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm smiling here... you're really stepping up for the Sussexes...

Got a little crush maybe??? If so, it's adorable. If not, nevermind.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: eletheia

Girls go through puberty at 8,9,10,11... you don't think that sexually assaulting a girl that young would make you a pedophile?
Who stands up for rapists!?

I dont get your point ^^^^they^^^^ are pedophiles.

But Andrew had sex with a girl of 17 who was pimped to him by Epstein

Tacky and nasty ........ but not rape or against the law.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: eletheia

Girls go through puberty at 8,9,10,11... you don't think that sexually assaulting a girl that young would make you a pedophile?
Who stands up for rapists!?

I dont get your point ^^^^they^^^^ are pedophiles.

But Andrew had sex with a girl of 17 who was pimped to him by Epstein

Tacky and nasty ........ but not rape or against the law.

Not illegal in the UK.... But if it happened in the states it very well may have been depending on which one.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: eletheia

Girls go through puberty at 8,9,10,11... you don't think that sexually assaulting a girl that young would make you a pedophile?
Who stands up for rapists!?

I dont get your point ^^^^they^^^^ are pedophiles.

But Andrew had sex with a girl of 17 who was pimped to him by Epstein

Tacky and nasty ........ but not rape or against the law.

"Pimping" out underaged, drugged girls is A CRIME.

originally posted by: Atsbhct

"Pimping" out underaged, drugged girls is A CRIME.

She had an hour long interview in the UK she did not say she was drugged

she was 17 which is over the age of consent in the UK and Epstein paid

her to have sex with Andrew.

Any crime if there was is Epstein paying !!!

As I have already said Tacky and Nasty but not illegal.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Some words have sociatal and cultural definitions.

And some have legal and medical definitions as well, including "consent" and "age of consent." I was absolutely prepared to believe the worst about Andy... but I'm still waiting for it. The only specific accusations we have is that he slept with a 17-year-old in London. He denies it, but even if true, the age of consent is 17 in London, so it is not criminal.

The accusations and characterizations of Andrew get worse and worse, his name and reputation and livelihood are absolutely ruined, with absolutely no evidence of anything, and with no criminal charges/trial, he has no way to clear his name or refute any of the charges. And our own Feds have been fighting the release of documents tooth and nail.

I'm not good with that. The precedent is unacceptable and unconscionable, both for the guilty that will get a pass and for the innocent that will be ruined. We don't know if Andrew is guilty; we do know our law enforcement agencies are not prosecuting him. If he is guilty, the Feds are just as guilty for their own malfeasance.

Medically speaking, pedophilia has a specific definition. Further, a mature human body can (and often does) damage an immature, still developing body. Both the physical and psychological trauma are worse for a child who may not even understand what is happening. Just that it hurts. There is also a very big difference between having consensual sex with a 17-year-old -- no matter how disgusting and pathetic -- and forcing one's self upon a prepubescent child. Or forcing one's self on anyone of any age. And, of course, the vast majority of non-consensual acts resort to physical violence, taking the crime to another level.

a reply to: Atsbhct

"Pimping" out underaged, drugged girls is A CRIME.

Okay. I'll ask again. What is the evidence? Where is the evidence? Who has the evidence?

Did Andrew know she was paid? Did Andrew know that she was underage? Did Andrew know that she was drugged? What is the evidence? Where is the evidence? Who has the evidence?