Prince Andrew in jep?

Berserker5

Daily mail reporting that she's furious with the BBC for delaying broadcast of her interview

Don't get that, I think they set it up right

cj maxx

I've only flicked through the last few pages but my guess is Charlie will pass the throne to Wills for the sake of the family. Harry will never be king for obvious reasons. Australia, Canada and others will dump them as head of state and in 50years time they'll be doing I'm a celebrity/royal get me out of here!

Purple Mountain

Candie wrote: »

I just watched the full interview there. What an obnoxiously self interested boor he is.

He's the author of his own downfall, and it couldn't happen to a more deserving chap. Ugly to the bone.

I watched it last night.
He comes across so unlikeable, pompous and ignorant.

blinding

cjmc wrote: »

I've only flicked through the last few pages but my guess is Charlie will pass the throne to Wills for the sake of the family. Harry will never be king for obvious reasons. Australia, Canada and others will dump them as head of state and in 50years time they'll be doing I'm a celebrity/royal get me out of here!

They will recognise the End when they get on the Late Late Show !

ILoveYourVibes

Hitchens wrote: »

this is surprising

No it's not. Its so not surprising.

All the royals give me the heebies.

badabing106

I wonder how many of the best hit men/women in the world have been contacted re ghislaine maxwell.

blinding

badabing106 wrote: »

I wonder how many of the best hit men/women in the world have been contacted re ghislaine maxwell.

I’d say she is extremely worried if things go bump at night or in underground traffic tunnels .

kowloon

badabing106 wrote: »

I wonder how many of the best hit men/women in the world have been contacted re ghislaine maxwell.

They only get full points if they make it look like an accident/suicide.

fryup

fall off a yacht like her old man ?

DrPhilG

Am I not right in thinking that Maxwell is currently "in hiding"?

She's probably already in a shallow grave somewhere but on the run is a better explanation than trying to pass off another suicide after all the suspicion and conspiracy theories following Epstein's sketchy demise.

ohnonotgmail

cjmc wrote: »

I've only flicked through the last few pages but my guess is Charlie will pass the throne to Wills for the sake of the family. Harry will never be king for obvious reasons. Australia, Canada and others will dump them as head of state and in 50years time they'll be doing I'm a celebrity/royal get me out of here!

Who else would Charlie pass it to? William is next in line. Followed by williams son George.

Purple Mountain

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I watched it last night.
He comes across so unlikeable, pompous and ignorant.

I especially liked how he made clear that mixing with the little people in a Pizza Express many years ago was so out of the ordinary for someone of his importance that he clearly remembers the date and time. Complete with patronizing smirk directed at his (excellent) interviewer - who I suspect he assumed would be more sycophantic. A prince with no class.

Paddy Cow

cjmc wrote: »

I've only flicked through the last few pages but my guess is Charlie will pass the throne to Wills for the sake of the family. Harry will never be king for obvious reasons. Australia, Canada and others will dump them as head of state and in 50years time they'll be doing I'm a celebrity/royal get me out of here!

Charles has been waiting for the crown for 70+ years. William will be prying it out of his cold, dead hands.

Reviews and Books Galore

badabing106 wrote: »

I wonder how many of the best hit men/women in the world have been contacted re ghislaine maxwell.

If she was the handler, probably none tbh.



Also, is this the largest 'honey trap' in all of existence?

Berserker5

Candie wrote: »

I especially liked how he made clear that mixing with the little people in a Pizza Express many years ago was so out of the ordinary for someone of his importance that he clearly remembers the date and time. Complete with patronizing smirk directed at his (excellent) interviewer - who I suspect he assumed would be more sycophantic. A prince with no class.

He also tried to claim that his meetings with Epstein were for a greater unknown good ,hinting at a national interest angle.

Odious toad

AG041

He broke the primary rule of being an upper class Brit

"Never complain, never explain"

Candie

Candie wrote: »

I especially liked how he made clear that mixing with the little people in a Pizza Express many years ago was so out of the ordinary for someone of his importance that he clearly remembers the date and time. Complete with patronizing smirk directed at his (excellent) interviewer - who I suspect he assumed would be more sycophantic. A prince with no class.

"I couldn't have done it because I was in Pizza Express" is a coded warning to all the rich/powerful paedos he is connected to. He's not talking about a restaurant.

Reviews and Books Galore

I feel bad for saying this, but there does not seem to be proof that prince andrew was in anyway involved with the Eipstein debacles of statutory rape. The lady was 17 and apparently consented.



And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the men were pedofiles and it was a crime of statutory rape if they even knew the ages of the girls at all?



This isn't anything about my usual gender posts, but this could be a shady honey trap operation.

blinding

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I feel bad for saying this, but there does not seem to be proof that prince andrew was in anyway involved with the Eipstein debacles of statutory rape. The lady was 17 and apparently consented.



And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the men were pedofiles and it was a crime of statutory rape if they even knew the ages of the girls at all?



This isn't anything about my usual gender posts, but this could be a shady honey trap operation.

Wasn’t Epstein done for procuring underage girls for sex ? Convicted ; Done a deal , got off too easy . Prince Andrew called around for 4 days to say goodbye with young women / girls of dubious ages around the place .
= Dodgy as fook ( best that can be said )

IAMAMORON

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I feel bad for saying this, but there does not seem to be proof that prince andrew was in anyway involved with the Eipstein debacles of statutory rape. The lady was 17 and apparently consented.



And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the men were pedofiles and it was a crime of statutory rape if they even knew the ages of the girls at all?



This isn't anything about my usual gender posts, but this could be a shady honey trap operation.

It is ok under UK consent laws. However the allegation of prostitution is a crime. It is my understanding that she received money for sleeping with him in London. Prostitution is legal in the UK for females aged 18 years or older. There are other rules around soliciting. Given that she was 17 at the time it is a very shady area. For example to prosecute Prince Andrew on the illegal procurement of an underage prostitute, it is probable that Virginia Roberts would have to incriminate herself to prove it, she may not be up to that. It will be interesting to see what she says in her interview tonight about payments.

He will always have the argument that he was unaware she was under 18 regardless. Everyone knows that is bollocks, but it won't stop him saying it if he has to. For example he is still refusing to admit he even met the girl. He might just die on that lie. Deny Deny Deny.

ohnonotgmail

IAMAMORON wrote: »

It is ok under UK consent laws. However the allegation of prostitution is a crime. It is my understanding that she received money for sleeping with him in London. Prostitution is legal in the UK for females aged 18 years or older. There are other rules around soliciting. Given that she was 17 at the time it is a very shady area. For example to prosecute Prince Andrew on the illegal procurement of an underage prostitute, it is probable that Virginia Roberts would have to incriminate herself to prove it, she may not be up to that. It will be interesting to see what she says in her interview tonight about payments.

He will always have the argument that he was unaware she was under 18 regardless. Everyone knows that is bollocks, but it won't stop him saying it if he has to. For example he is still refusing to admit he even met the girl. He might just die on that lie. Deny Deny Deny.

They would also have to prove that it was andrew that paid her. If epstein paid her without andrews knowledge is andrew guilty of procuring a prostitute? I would say no.

Reviews and Books Galore

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I feel bad for saying this, but there does not seem to be proof that prince andrew was in anyway involved with the Eipstein debacles of statutory rape. The lady was 17 and apparently consented.



And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the men were pedofiles and it was a crime of statutory rape if they even knew the ages of the girls at all?



This isn't anything about my usual gender posts, but this could be a shady honey trap operation.

The age of consent in the US is 18.

Epstein and his pimp, Maxwell, targetted girls as young as 13 who were from vulnerable backgrounds and groomed them over time. This doesn't constitute consent in the eyes of the law, or of anyone with any decency.

A kid with nothing who's been worked on with a view to pimping them out and cornered or badgered into doing what they're told, to who they're told to do it, is not the same thing as a slightly underage person giving informed consent.

It's not a shady honey trap, it's exploitation and sex trafficking.

I'm not surprised someone came along to insinuate the victims were at fault though, not one bit.

IAMAMORON

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They would also have to prove that it was andrew that paid her. If epstein paid her without andrews knowledge is andrew guilty of procuring a prostitute? I would say no.

I don't know where I read it or where I saw it, I think in a channel 4 doc last month. But I definitely recall the amount of $ 15,000 being bandied about.

If she is serious about her allegations she should be revealing details about any payments in her interview tonight. Why wouldn't she?

I massively don't believe she would have slept with him for free. I also don't think Prince Andrew was her only Rodeo either. I would say she was introduced to a lot more clients, but I hope she states this tonight in her interview.

ohnonotgmail

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I don't know where I read it or where I saw it, I think in a channel 4 doc last month. But I definitely recall the amount of $ 15,000 being bandied about.

If she is serious about her allegations she should be revealing details about any payments in her interview tonight. Why wouldn't she?

I massively don't believe she would have slept with him for free. I also don't think Prince Andrew was her only Rodeo either. I would say she was introduced to a lot more clients, but I hope she states this tonight in her interview.

I don't doubt any of that but i think the source of the payments to her is crucial in any attempt to charge andrew with soliciting a prostitute.

Paddy Cow

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I feel bad for saying this, but there does not seem to be proof that prince andrew was in anyway involved with the Eipstein debacles of statutory rape. The lady was 17 and apparently consented.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the men were pedofiles and it was a crime of statutory rape if they even knew the ages of the girls at all?

This isn't anything about my usual gender posts, but this could be a shady honey trap operation.

We know that Epstein was having sex with girls as young as 14. While that doesn't make him a pedo, it does make him a disgusting leech who preyed on minors. We can't prove that Andrew knew or was involved but his behaviour (past and present) does him no favours. If he was completely innocent why didn't he cut ties with Epstein? Why go and visit him to tell him he was cutting ties?

It makes about as much sense as his excuse that Virginia got it wrong and he couldn't have been profusely sweating when she met him because Andrew lost the ability to sweat in the Falklands because of an overdose of adrenaline lol :pac:

IAMAMORON

Candie wrote: »

The age of consent in the US is 18.

Epstein and his pimp, Maxwell, targetted girls as young as 13 who were from vulnerable backgrounds and groomed them over time. This doesn't constitute consent in the eyes of the law, or of anyone with any decency.

A kid with nothing who's been worked on with a view to pimping them out and cornered or badgered into doing what they're told, to who they're told to do it, is not the same thing as a slightly underage person giving informed consent.

It's not a shady honey trap, it's exploitation and sex trafficking.

I'm not surprised someone came along to insinuate the victims were at fault though, not one bit.

Not necessarily true, there are different ages based on the state where the sex is taking place. for example Washington DC is 16 whereas California is 18. Some states such as Texas and Louisiana are 17.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

blinding

Paddy Cow wrote: »

We know that Epstein was having sex with girls as young as 14. While that doesn't make him a pedo, it does make him a disgusting leech who preyed on minors. We can't prove that Andrew knew or was involved but his behaviour (past and present) does him no favours. If he was completely innocent why didn't he cut ties with Epstein? Why go and visit him to tell him he was cutting ties?

It makes about as much sense as his excuse that Virginia got it wrong and he couldn't have been profusely sweating when she met him because Andrew lost the ability to sweat in the Falklands because of an overdose of adrenaline lol :pac:

I believe that does make him a Paedophile .

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I don't know where I read it or where I saw it, I think in a channel 4 doc last month. But I definitely recall the amount of $ 15,000 being bandied about.

If she is serious about her allegations she should be revealing details about any payments in her interview tonight. Why wouldn't she?

I massively don't believe she would have slept with him for free. I also don't think Prince Andrew was her only Rodeo either. I would say she was introduced to a lot more clients, but I hope she states this tonight in her interview.

There's a difference between a groomed underage person who's been procured explicitly for purposes of sexual exploitation, and an adult making a fully informed decision to work as a prostitute.

Those girls were the frogs in the pan of boiling water, Epstein controlled the thermostat after making sure they had become reliant on him and his money and lifestyle. Maxwell was his pimp, he pimped in turn to his friends. He's convicted of this. Procuring and exploitation.

She was groomed, exploited, and loaned out for sex to various friends of Epstein, paying her money doesn't change that.

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Not necessarily true, there are different ages based on the state where the sex is taking place. for example Washington DC is 16 whereas California is 18. Some states such as Texas and Louisiana are 17.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

She was 17 having sex with Andrew. She was being exploited before that. She was also below the age of consent in the locations she had sex with Andrew, and she was flown to London to have sex with Andrew.

It's all kinds of wrong but I'm not surprised it's being downplayed.

Reviews and Books Galore

Candie wrote: »

The age of consent in the US is 18.

Epstein and his pimp, Maxwell, targetted girls as young as 13 who were from vulnerable backgrounds and groomed them over time. This doesn't constitute consent in the eyes of the law, or of anyone with any decency.

A kid with nothing who's been worked on with a view to pimping them out and cornered or badgered into doing what they're told, to who they're told to do it, is not the same thing as a slightly underage person giving informed consent.

It's not a shady honey trap, it's exploitation and sex trafficking.

I'm not surprised someone came along to insinuate the victims were at fault though, not one bit.

If you look for grey, you're going to find grey.



This is pretty much a very, very strange situation that may involve various governments/business interests. I am blaming the people behind it and the people who knowingly had sex with underage people.