Well, like I said in a thread in General Discussion, Andrew could very well be innocent, but Stuart Hall denied any wrong doing when allegations were first made against him. I'll wait and see what happens.
I remember the story cropping up a few years back, then it all went quiet as the friend got a plea deal.
Interesting about Maxwell's daughter, when it first came out she was the ex girlfriend who would do anything for the ex. The girls coming forward did call her a Madam though.
The age of consent in the US varies from state to state, from 14 to 18. However, in NYC it is 17, 16 in London and 18 in the US Virgin Islands, where Epstein's private island is. If it did happen there when she was 17, then she has a case, but as regards the other two alleged incidents, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
The age of consent in the US varies from state to state, from 14 to 18. However, in NYC it is 17, 16 in London and 18 in the US Virgin Islands, where Epstein's private island is. If it did happen there when she was 17, then she has a case, but as regards the other two alleged incidents, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
It is illegal to use a prostitute under the age of 18 in all those places.
Well I was told in early 90's that it was not young girls that he would be pursuing. This was the reason for the breakdown of his marriage. Heard it from a senior officer at MOD who had drunk too much red wine!! When Fergie came out and said he will always be my bestest friend on the day of their divorce it sort of fitted with what this guy said. Hey - not that it matters one jot really.
Google is indeed your friend, for a fab article on andrew and all the royals check out the usual www, then chrisspivey.org/monsters.inc..... Truly eye opening...havent posted direct link to website i don't know if its allowed
Well, like I said in a thread in General Discussion, Andrew could very well be innocent, but Stuart Hall denied any wrong doing when allegations were first made against him. I'll wait and see what happens.
I was listening to Alan Dershowtiz being interviewed on Radio 4's Today this morning, and it is clear this one will get very interesting.
It would be wrong and stupid to make any silly comments here except to say the woman's claims seems remarkably detailed and conversely Dershowitz was adamant that it is all bollocks. Trouble is someone is lying.
In his interview Dershowitz laid it on with a trowel - making challenges here, there and everywhere to the woman to say something publicly (so he could sue), to go to the police (so she would eventually - in his view - be herself charged with the criminal offence of knowingly laying false charges) and on and on. Dershowitz's strategy is obviously to bully the woman into silence whether or not the claims are true or false.
Dershowitz, too, was remarkably specific in his comments, e.g. that he had represented Jeffrey Epstein but that he had not ever socialised with him. And unless Dershowitz is remarkably stupid and has just given hostages to fortune - i.e. photos eventually appear of him with Epstein, thus disproving his claims - he, too, must get the benefit of doubt.
He quoted the woman's claims that Bill Clinton had taken part in an orgy and said this had been conclusively disproved be reference to US secret service records. Well, perhaps and perhaps not. It might well be wheels within wheels. Who knows? And will we ever know the truth? I doubt it.
I have, for example, long suspected that the - most certainly actively ongoing - cover-up of the gay underage sex scandal and historic paedophilia here in Britain has at its heart the fact that someone uncomfortably close to the royals is involved in some way. Something very important is at stake or else folk would already have been thrown to the wolves. The Establishment does that kind of thing.
On a side note, I think that often, as in this case, the US judicial practice of plea bargaining is despicable and so obviously open to abuse: billionaire more or less gets off one of the vilest criminal acts we know with nary a slap on the wrist because he pleaded guilty to having bald tyres and a malfunctioning indicator after 6pm in the hours of darkness on a public highway. Yes, it is that disgustingly silly.
Well according to Buckingham Palace, Prince Andrew is totally innocent. BUT they would say that, won't they!!!! The PR team look after their own, a Royal is never guilty of anything, even when they get divorced they are always married to unbalanced, crazy ladies!!!
Well according to Buckingham Palace, Prince Andrew is totally innocent. BUT they would say that, won't they!!!! The PR team look after their own, a Royal is never guilty of anything, even when they get divorced they are always married to unbalanced, crazy ladies!!!
What would your family say if you were accused of the same thing out of the blue? Throw you under the proverbial bus?
I think maybe we should see how this proceeds and find out more soon as it goes along.
What would your family say if you were accused of the same thing out of the blue? Throw you under the proverbial bus?
I think maybe we should see how this proceeds and find out more soon as it goes along.
I wouldn't state that they hadn't done something if I didn't know for a fact that they hadn't. I might say that I doubt very much that they would have done it though if I was confident that they wouldn't have done it.
I think in general, not necessarily in this thread specifically, too much attention is being paid to the paedophilia element of the story.
If you don't consent, the age of consent in different states and countries is irrelevant surely?
There are still accusations of sexual assault and rape to answer.
I wouldn't state that they hadn't done something if I didn't know for a fact that they hadn't. I might say that I doubt very much that they would have done it though if I was confident that they wouldn't have done it.
Bless you. I might need about half an hour to untangle this one!
I think in general, not necessarily in this thread specifically, too much attention is being paid to the paedophilia element of the story.
If you don't consent, the age of consent in different states and countries is irrelevant surely?
There are still accusations of sexual assault and rape to answer.
Yes, the underage element is a bit of a red herring given UK law, but the accusations of slavery and rape etc are still very serious.
What would your family say if you were accused of the same thing out of the blue? Throw you under the proverbial bus?
I think maybe we should see how this proceeds and find out more soon as it goes along.
I reckon the 'family' the government and especially MI5 know all kinds of things the rest of us plebs will never get to hear about. And such information is often very useful:
when Makarios was in London that time negotiating I don't know what and being very difficult, he was visited in his hotel by MI6 who informed him that if he didn't play ball, they would the following day present the world with copper-bottomed evidence that for a number of years he had been screwing little boys. Makarios caved in there and then, did an about-turn at the negotiations to the surprise of everyone - except, of course, MI6 - agreed to all demands. Useful, eh?
So it does pay to keep tabs on folk: I should that's one reason why the paedophile indiscretions of various politicians have been kept under wraps: it makes them far more amenable to do as they are told when and if. Nasty, of course, but it does work.
Civil case expected mega cash payment to keep Andrew out of court papers. Seems Buckingham Palace are not prepared to get involved in out of court settlements which is American way. Pay even if you say you are not guilty.
Well I was told in early 90's that it was not young girls that he would be pursuing. This was the reason for the breakdown of his marriage. Heard it from a senior officer at MOD who had drunk too much red wine!! When Fergie came out and said he will always be my bestest friend on the day of their divorce it sort of fitted with what this guy said. Hey - not that it matters one jot really.
What your chum the senior officer at the MoD said when in his cups is neither here nor there. Who did he hear it from, how far down the line did the hearsay go. The only story I know about Prince Andrew and it's nothing to do with sex was when he was in the Navy and sitting down at some do (not services) and happened to me next to an admiral.
'Hi,' said the prince to the admiral, 'you can call me Andy.'
'And you,' said the admiral, 'can call me sir.'
Don't at all know if it's true but I like to think it is. As they say in the Guardian 'it has a dramatic truth'.
Comments
Interesting about Maxwell's daughter, when it first came out she was the ex girlfriend who would do anything for the ex. The girls coming forward did call her a Madam though.
I was listening to Alan Dershowtiz being interviewed on Radio 4's Today this morning, and it is clear this one will get very interesting.
It would be wrong and stupid to make any silly comments here except to say the woman's claims seems remarkably detailed and conversely Dershowitz was adamant that it is all bollocks. Trouble is someone is lying.
In his interview Dershowitz laid it on with a trowel - making challenges here, there and everywhere to the woman to say something publicly (so he could sue), to go to the police (so she would eventually - in his view - be herself charged with the criminal offence of knowingly laying false charges) and on and on. Dershowitz's strategy is obviously to bully the woman into silence whether or not the claims are true or false.
Dershowitz, too, was remarkably specific in his comments, e.g. that he had represented Jeffrey Epstein but that he had not ever socialised with him. And unless Dershowitz is remarkably stupid and has just given hostages to fortune - i.e. photos eventually appear of him with Epstein, thus disproving his claims - he, too, must get the benefit of doubt.
He quoted the woman's claims that Bill Clinton had taken part in an orgy and said this had been conclusively disproved be reference to US secret service records. Well, perhaps and perhaps not. It might well be wheels within wheels. Who knows? And will we ever know the truth? I doubt it.
I have, for example, long suspected that the - most certainly actively ongoing - cover-up of the gay underage sex scandal and historic paedophilia here in Britain has at its heart the fact that someone uncomfortably close to the royals is involved in some way. Something very important is at stake or else folk would already have been thrown to the wolves. The Establishment does that kind of thing.
On a side note, I think that often, as in this case, the US judicial practice of plea bargaining is despicable and so obviously open to abuse: billionaire more or less gets off one of the vilest criminal acts we know with nary a slap on the wrist because he pleaded guilty to having bald tyres and a malfunctioning indicator after 6pm in the hours of darkness on a public highway. Yes, it is that disgustingly silly.
What would your family say if you were accused of the same thing out of the blue? Throw you under the proverbial bus?
I think maybe we should see how this proceeds and find out more soon as it goes along.
I wouldn't state that they hadn't done something if I didn't know for a fact that they hadn't. I might say that I doubt very much that they would have done it though if I was confident that they wouldn't have done it.
If you don't consent, the age of consent in different states and countries is irrelevant surely?
There are still accusations of sexual assault and rape to answer.
Bless you. I might need about half an hour to untangle this one!
I'm supposed to be working!!
Yes, the underage element is a bit of a red herring given UK law, but the accusations of slavery and rape etc are still very serious.
Even when they are!
I reckon the 'family' the government and especially MI5 know all kinds of things the rest of us plebs will never get to hear about. And such information is often very useful:
when Makarios was in London that time negotiating I don't know what and being very difficult, he was visited in his hotel by MI6 who informed him that if he didn't play ball, they would the following day present the world with copper-bottomed evidence that for a number of years he had been screwing little boys. Makarios caved in there and then, did an about-turn at the negotiations to the surprise of everyone - except, of course, MI6 - agreed to all demands. Useful, eh?
So it does pay to keep tabs on folk: I should that's one reason why the paedophile indiscretions of various politicians have been kept under wraps: it makes them far more amenable to do as they are told when and if. Nasty, of course, but it does work.
What your chum the senior officer at the MoD said when in his cups is neither here nor there. Who did he hear it from, how far down the line did the hearsay go. The only story I know about Prince Andrew and it's nothing to do with sex was when he was in the Navy and sitting down at some do (not services) and happened to me next to an admiral.
'Hi,' said the prince to the admiral, 'you can call me Andy.'
'And you,' said the admiral, 'can call me sir.'
Don't at all know if it's true but I like to think it is. As they say in the Guardian 'it has a dramatic truth'.
I was (trying!) to read that yesterday but surely that's just one massive p*ss take of a site?!
Having connections with the MOD and Buckingham Palace over the years I had heard the alternative story as well