Royal Sex Scandal-Under Age Girls and Prince Andrew

Dame Warrigal said:
His first mistake was having a friend like Jeffrey Epstein.
That association alone has cost him his job.
Click to expand...

Oh kerrrrrrrrrrrrrap! I just read about that guy Eptein, a registered sex offender? How on Earth did he get next to the Prince. I guess I think they all live in the palace with guards around them all the time. I know I'm pretty ignorant about this but I was thinking the Prince is still pretty young, and that Epstein is my age! And he's also been charged or caught being a pimp. Yeah, I see why the uproar now:(
 

I don't really understand why all the sympathy for Andrew? He's of the privileged class, lived in a palace, with an education, family and advisors to steer him through life with untold advantages. He has had some responsibilities and expectations? Oh boo hoo. My heart does not bleed for him. We all have responsibilities and have had to work (many for pittance) and have suffered through terrible trials and tribulations.

Now he's in trouble because he befriended a pedophile (I'm sure he knew what was what at the time) he participated in some wild parties (as they do, the bored rich) and he made some bad decisions, so what. I don't care about him. Nothing will happen to him anyway. What about the girls? As Jay Leno said the other day" Why doesn't anyone believe women?
 
Well, there is a lot of truth in that imo because I have to remember what I've been saying about "children" for years. And that is that we all, at some point need to take responsibility for our own actions. No matter what sort of upbringing we have, we can't blame others for our troubles or unhappiness, it get's to the point where "we" make the decisions.

I've watched those kids grow up over the years, heck, I didn't even realize how old Andrew is now, I was still seeing him and his brother walking along in their teens;) But because he's had all those advantages, I don't envy him, or anyone that does have a lot. IMO that can be as hard on a person growing up, as it is for a poor person. Like being photographed his whole life, being made/expected to act a certain way. But again, he grew up and now has to make his own decisions, take responsibility, or not. I also know that when your "high up" in any country, sometimes things get buried or covered up to protect the person.
 

I don't think because he's privileged he didn't have a hard time with some things while growing up. Everyone does, that's life. However, I don't think he deserves any extra pity because he's a royal and had to deal with the difficulties that went along with that title. He had to work, like everyone else on this planet. The only difference is, if we commit a crime we would have to suffer the consequences, but if someone like him does, (and I'm not saying he did at this point, yet IMO he's lying), he is protected. I don't think envy has anything to do with it. The privileged class needs to be accountable, like everyone else.
 
I agree with what you are saying Cookie, but I think the reality is that even if he is guilty he probably wouldn't face charges. Same thing in the US, it's not what you do it's who you know sometimes. As far as sympathy or pity, that's just the way I am about some things, I feel sorry for folks "sometimes". I don't disagree that they should face/take responsibility no matter who they are though. Also, when people get away with things they've actually done wrong, I don't think anyone is doing them any favors. I don't think anyone really gets away with anything. OJ Simpson is just one example of that.
 
Right you are, Denise, and you are a kind hearted soul. I sometimes feel sorry for some people who have done wrong too. I didn't feel outraged at all about the Clinton/Lewinsky situation. As a matter of fact, I was and am more sympathetic with Monica Lewinsky because she had been so vilified by that scandal. But have no pity at all in this current situation because the nature of the issue is more abhorrent to me. And I know he won't face any charges either, he won't be impeached or fired from being a royal LOL :)
 
"No, they've definitely got that wrong. "

Afraid not. The constitution, albeit unwritten, does not allow it. Succession always goes to the eldest son of the monarch. If Charles pops it that's Andy, and if ever it came about HM, regardless of public support for William, would make that perfectly clear. It's the same with this nonsense about the Queen, or Charles, abdicating. Unlike some of the other Royal Houses, we have no mechanism for it, and the last time it happened it nearly finished the monarchy, in fact, many believe that it was only the war that cemented KGVI in place.

Charles is the Heir Apparent, William the Heir Presumptive (i.e. "presuming" nothing changes.)

The Queen was only ever Heir Presumptive, a son could have been born, however unlikely, at any time.

The law on primogeniture has now changed, but will not take effect until the next generation.
 
I get the feeling that stuff/site is full of fake information. I just didn't buy it. I mean, when you go on a site that has some clout, you get a sense of what you are reading to be true, but with all the sleazy ads, on the sides this site doesn't seem in any way, professional. I mean all I have to go by is how I "felt" when I opened it, and knowing how easy it is to "create" pictures etc., it just left me wondering.

The other thing is why would these people be that stupid? I can't believe they are that stupid, or in need of hiring someone for sex? And what's up with the "black outs"? If it is showing famous people's names, why not all the people's names? I don't know, as usual I'm just probably confused by these things.
 
nwlady said:
I get the feeling that stuff/site is full of fake information. I just didn't buy it. I mean, when you go on a site that has some clout, you get a sense of what you are reading to be true, but with all the sleazy ads, on the sides this site doesn't seem in any way, professional. I mean all I have to go by is how I "felt" when I opened it, and knowing how easy it is to "create" pictures etc., it just left me wondering.

The other thing is why would these people be that stupid? I can't believe they are that stupid, or in need of hiring someone for sex? And what's up with the "black outs"? If it is showing famous people's names, why not all the people's names? I don't know, as usual I'm just probably confused by these things.
Click to expand...
Gawker is gossipy and biased at times but they are like TMZ always able to find proof or they link another source/story. I think one of the NY papers actually found this and posted it. There are court documents ie public proceedings per say which is bringing a lot of this information to light. I think they are blacking out a lot of personal information to prevent harassment or crime. As far as everyone in that black book if they are not a public figure it would be in the posters best interest to black them out. Public figures have to tolerate more than a private figure simply because their lives are more public and they conducted the public's business directly or indirectly.
 
Ok, the black-out part makes sense, but that's evidence right, or supposedly. I'm not saying it's not, but I thought evidence was kept in a "locked box". How does a newspaper get photos of evidence?
 
Remember several years ago, Fergie was caught on camera accepting money from someone in exchange for getting that person close access to prince Andrew? What was that all about
 
WhatInThe said:
Apparently this was from court documents.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nton-Tony-Blair-Mick-Jagger-Donald-Trump.html
Click to expand...

I don't know WIT, this site doesn't look any more reliable then the other. It looks like it's held together by paprazzi type ads, and ads and more ads. I'd be more willing to see a well-established source online, that doesn't need ads like these. Plus the fact, they evidently don't have a decent proofreader because I saw a lot of typos. I'm just suspicious, I've built websites, and they are SO easy, you can copy and paste from anywhere you want, or create your own "official" looking info. But maybe there is truth in what you've shown us. Like I said, I'm just suspicious about websites
 
Pam said:
According to the official website of the Royal Family, the order of succession is as I have stated. If Charles died without issue then, I agree, succession would go to Andrew but that is not the case.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx
Click to expand...

Well unless they've changed the Constitution without telling us, they're wrong.

Leaving aside historical battles and murders, the crown always passes to the senior male relative of the deceased monarch, whether that be the eldest son or a second cousin twice removed. That's the law.

That very fact has led to some of the murders already referred to!

If it ever came to the crunch, regardless of what the Royal website says, there are sufficient people, like me , to ensure that a Constitutional Court met.

That would consist of the Lords Judicial, who can look for precedent as far back as Magna Carta, most of the hereditary Lords Temporal, who can look back to 1066, and the Lords Spiritual, who can look back to Moses.

None of these are known for their willingness to embrace change!
 
nwlady said:
I don't know WIT, this site doesn't look any more reliable then the other. It looks like it's held together by paprazzi type ads, and ads and more ads. I'd be more willing to see a well-established source online, that doesn't need ads like these. Plus the fact, they evidently don't have a decent proofreader because I saw a lot of typos. I'm just suspicious, I've built websites, and they are SO easy, you can copy and paste from anywhere you want, or create your own "official" looking info. But maybe there is truth in what you've shown us. Like I said, I'm just suspicious about websites
Click to expand...

You should be suspicious with any news source. I think NBC had reported the Paris gunmen caught or killed 2 days before they actually got them which goes back to their sources. I don't worry about who was photographed with who but one thing many of these gossip style websites do well is go through court documents. TMZ is the one who broke the NFL abuse scandal through obtained footage. Some of their actual investigative stuff beats the old letter networks.

But here there is already trial evidence from one Epstein's earlier trials. He's a registered sex offender in Florida. And take these documents for what they are-an address book or contact list. This only shows some kind of relationship wether it be casual or business. And if you look campaign lobbying websites which cite federal election commission documents Epstein contributed to Clinton through various entities. Also where are the denials. The only person so far is Alan Dershowitz who is fighting claims of sex rather than knowing Epstein.

Should add here are related documents which could be challenged and checked just by case/docket numbers.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1508099-rodriguez-fbi-affidavit.html
 
Revolting story of how the British government help cover up sexual abuse for decades. Heard the stories for years but his shows how the government acted like the Catholic Church during the priest abuse scandals. I'm surprised a political opponent in power couldn't have turned the tables on the status quo for their gain.

This also show what the likes of Prince Andrew might very well have been exposed to/knew of giving him a sense of entitlement and false security.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/06/britain-s-horrific-vip-pedophile-cover-up.html
 
I haven't read such a farrago of speculation, rumour and half truths since the manifestos were published for our last elections.


"Great Britain’s notoriously tough libel laws insured that obviously he couldn’t repeat the allegations included in the Home Office papers that about 16 MPs and members of the House of Lords, and 30 high-profile figures from the Church of England, private schools, and big business, were members of, and advocates for, the Paedophile Information Exchange."

Yes our notoriously tough libel laws do insist that if you write it you'd better be able to prove it!

Incidentally, Great Britain does not have libel laws. England and Scotland have entirely separate legislative and judicial systems.

That's why the UK government was so incensed when the Lockerbie bomber was released. The Scottish justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, had no option under Scottish law, or he could have been imprisoned himself.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top