Prince Andrew in jep?

Hitchens

"Suggestion of impropriety with minors untrue," says Buckingham Palace after Prince Andrew named in US sex lawsuit

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30659629

this is surprising if it's true

llennocO

Why surprising? There's been suggestion of this sort of thing at the top levels of UK society for quite some time now!

keeponhurling

To be honest, stuff like this should keep all the names anonymous until something is proven

Slicemeister

Who leaks this shieit? Guilty until proved innocent.

Look what happened to Cliff Richard !

PizzamanIRL

He's part of the royal family. He had an over-privileged upbringing so he thinks he can do whatever he wants. The poor lad.

Tokyo

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

He's part of the royal family. He had an over-privileged upbringing so he thinks he can do whatever he wants. The poor lad.

Perhaps wait until these accusations actually hold water before nailing him to a cross??

RobertKK

Guilty until proven innocent, trial by media...

weldoninhio

Hitchens wrote: »

"Suggestion of impropriety with minors untrue," says Buckingham Palace after Prince Andrew named in US sex lawsuit

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30659629

this is surprising if it's true

Sure isn't only a week or two ago that Prince Charles stepped in to stop the BBC from airing a documentary on high level paedophilia.

Some of the stories that I've read are horrific.

Hitchens

maybe the BBC don't want to be accused of a cover up like with the Saville creature?

Andy seemed to be the most normal of the royals

Gran Hermano

I wouldn't describe anyone that picked Fergie as their wife as normal.

endacl

Gran Hermano wrote: »

I wouldn't describe anyone that picked Fergie as their wife as normal.

He didn't pick her. The illuminati lizard people did.

Hitchens

Gran Hermano wrote: »

I wouldn't describe anyone that picked Fergie as their wife as normal.

I don't think royalty get to pick their spouses

Hitchens

update: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30659629

Frankie Lee

Its hardly a new story, his friendship with Epstein is well known and like his heir to the throne brother with Savile there is no way he didn't know what Epstein was up to. The picture of him with one of Epstein's victim is damning enough.

Last years story, apologies for linking the daily mail but they have been on top of this case for years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597308/The-bombshell-court-document-claims-Prince-Andrew-knew-billionaire-friends-abuse-age-girls.html

The 17 year old girl in that article doesn't seem to be the one in court now.

keeponhurling

Hitchens wrote: »

maybe the BBC don't want to be accused of a cover up like with the Saville creature?

Andy seemed to be the most normal of the royals

It's already reported in lots of media outlets, would be very dodgy if the BBC just didn't mention it.

Just happens to be the BBC report that the OP references.

anncoates

Don't they have solid evidence about his unconventional sexual peccadillos?

I watched his marriage on TV as a kid.

Cantremember

Who's Jep?

StormWarrior

Wouldn't he have diplomatic immunity?

Sir Osis of Liver.

Jip?

ceadaoin.

StormWarrior wrote: »

Wouldn't he have diplomatic immunity?

They have sovereign immunity and can't be prosecuted for a crime

Fratton Fred

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They have sovereign immunity and can't be prosecuted for a crime

Andrew doesn't.

MarkR

I'm not clicking links til someone tells me what the hell jep is. Is it's jedwards winky, I'm not looking. Again.

Menas

He has been named in a case by someone who claims she was forced to have sex with him at the age of 17...which was below the age of consent in that state.
Meh, who knows if it is true or not...but certainly not fair to condemn them man until he has been convicted which is unlikely IMO.

Donkey Oaty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Andrew doesn't.

And as he's no longer a trade envoy attached to British Embassies, he can't try and claim immunity through that either.

Peter Mandelson and Bill Clinton were also associates of Epstein's, along with may other high-profile people, so we can expect some serious digging as this case goes on.

anncoates

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They have sovereign immunity and can't be prosecuted for a crime

He's not a monarch.

Harry Palmr

17? Fer petes sake. If that's a crime I'm a peccadillo

bjork

Either way, when you lay with dogs don't be suprised when you get fleas

Frankie Lee

Harry Palmr wrote: »

17? Fer petes sake. If that's a crime I'm a peccadillo

A 17 year old forced into sex work. If true he is a rapist scumbag. His good friend Epstein was using girls as young as 12 at his parties.

PLL

Jep = Jeopardy. ?? No?

Harry Palmr

Another article on it here - Epstein obvious seems like a bit of a Wolf of Wall Street type scumbag but its a big leap in my mind,.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/02/prince-andrew-named-us-lawsuit-underage-sex-allegations

keeponhurling

PLL wrote: »

Jep = Jeopardy. ?? No?

I googled it and this came up.
doubt he's in this group, as the royal family wouldn't exactly be fans of religious diversity.

Maybe the Epstein lad is a member?
JEP - Jewish European Professionals

www.jep.eu/

ceadaoin.

anncoates wrote: »

He's not a monarch.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Andrew doesn't.

Whoops, misread something. According to Wikipedia members of the royal household can't be arrested in civil proceedings. I guess that doesn't apply here.

I'm sure nothing will happen to prince Andrew. There is no way the royal family will allow that can of worms to be opened.

Fratton Fred

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Whoops, misread something. According to Wikipedia members of the royal household can't be arrested in civil proceedings. I guess that doesn't apply here.

I'm sure nothing will happen to prince Andrew. There is no way the royal family will allow that can of worms to be opened.

He's not being charged with anything, he is just named in the lawsuit. Besides, it is in the US, so there is nothing the royal family can do about it.

Donkey Oaty

PLL wrote: »

Jep = Jeopardy. ?? No?

The Duke of York may or not be in jep - however, Jeb is definitely in The Dukes of Hazzard.

IsaacWunder

PLL wrote: »

Jep = Jeopardy. ?? No?

What is all the answers must be in the form of a question?

Yurt2

Israel war crime apologist in chief, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz implicated in the same case....

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/02/prince-andrew-named-us-lawsuit-underage-sex-allegations

EDIT: I should say named rather than implicated (implicated may imply guilt)

AndonHandon

"The woman, who filed the motion anonymously"
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/prince-andrew-named-in-us-underage-sex-lawsuit-1.2053049

How the **** can she file such an application anonymously yet the alleged perpetrators can be named and reported? That is ludicrous.

Venus In Furs

Harry Palmr wrote: »

17? Fer petes sake. If that's a crime I'm a peccadillo

Any reason why you just jumped to assume it (if it happened) was consensual and/or above the age of consent in the state where it took place?

I fully agree with anonymity for all parties though.

Peist2007

I wonder is any of this linked to the recent news that allegations of paedophilia at the top of British society were being taken seriously by police? Or, as seems more likely, is it simply a coincidence with the papers being independently filed by an anonymous woman in the US courts?

Hitchens

AndonHandon wrote: »

"The woman, who filed the motion anonymously"
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/prince-andrew-named-in-us-underage-sex-lawsuit-1.2053049

How the **** can she file such an application anonymously yet the alleged perpetrators can be named and reported? That is ludicrous.

she is not anonymous to the relevant authority in the USA

the_monkey

Would be surprised if it wasn't true to be honest.

All the UK Royal family are up to all sorts of sick twisted sh/it

Sand

the_monkey wrote: »

Would be surprised if it wasn't true to be honest.

All the UK Royal family are up to all sorts of sick twisted sh/it

I get the feeling I could tell you anything about the UK Royal family and you would believe it. Despite that, the possibilities it offers are banal and unentertaining.

the_monkey

Im just not a big fan of the royal family..

Fratton Fred

the_monkey wrote: »

Im just not a big fan of the royal family..

I'm not a big fan of Man United. I'd stop short of saying they're doing sick twisted **** though.

Amirani

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They have sovereign immunity and can't be prosecuted for a crime

Not in the US.

Sheep Lover

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of Man United. I'd stop short of saying they're doing sick twisted **** though.

Alot of the royal family have that "creepy uncle" vibe off them, maybe it's just the strong Germanic influence.

porsche959

Hitchens wrote: »

Andy seemed to be the most normal of the royals

Would have thought he has a reputation as a complete boor.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361637/Why-did-rude-Prince-Andrew-trade-role-asks-ex-envoy.html

Doesn't necessarily mean he is guilty of anything in this case of course.

keeponhurling

porsche959 wrote: »

Would have thought he has a reputation as a complete boor.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361637/Why-did-rude-Prince-Andrew-trade-role-asks-ex-envoy.html

Doesn't necessarily mean he is guilty of anything in this case of course.

that daily mail article seems to name the 17-year old

Son0vagun

Jill Dandos death, Cliff Richard, Jimmy Saville, Roff Harris, Royal Paedo Ring are all connected!

I'm guessing

DeJa VooDoo

RobertKK wrote: »

Guilty until proven innocent, trial by media...

Standard procedure in this country.......