Jump to content

Prince Andrew 'spent weeks' at Epstein home - witness


Recommended Posts

Posted
14 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

And all these deflections that somehow these woman were grubby money hustling teenage sluts says more about the person extolling that than the mores of the victims themselves. Besides which it is irrelevant the US law on statutory rape and sex trafficking is quite clear. All are supposedly equal under the law be they king or pauper or at least this is so in civilised countries.

 

Who called them grubby or sluts? 

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Who called them grubby or sluts? 

I'm am creatively setting the scene bases on inferences made in previous posts."opportunistic hustlers" that's as good as saying that.

Edited by beautifulthailand99
  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I'm am creatively setting the scene bases on inferences made in previous posts.

 

No, you're making stuff up.

  • Confused 2
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
On 1/6/2024 at 2:40 PM, BritManToo said:

Lots of my pals have daily massages, as far as I know, only against the law in some Arab countries if mixed sex.

Perfectly legal in the UK and the USA.

Maybe he got the "Royal massage" from an under-age girl?

Posted
7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

She was 17 and the age of consent in the UK is 16.

 

No law was broken, even if he did sleep with her (which he denies and is completely unproven). 

 

You've got nothing. 

Yeah, well, the allegations didn't take place in the UK, though, now did they? Although the age of consent on his island is also 16, but according to the victim, she didn't consent and therefore the age of consent is irrelevant. 

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
Just now, pacovl46 said:

Yeah, well, the allegations didn't take place in the UK, though, now did they? Although the age of consent on his island is also 16, but according to the victim, she didn't consent and therefore the age of consent is irrelevant. 

You'd have thought his 24/7 armed police security detail would have noticed and stopped a rape.

Surely they should also be questioned and facing possible charges?

  • Confused 2
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

I think it was his US lawyer's advice.  Andy and his British solicitor "Good News" Gary were utterly clueless.  However, there was one weird part of the US defense strategy when Andy publicized that he applied for a jury trial which caused shock horror at the Firm and in the British media. This was weird because Virginia had already applied for a jury trial and the plaintiff's wishes for a jury trial take precedence.  Therefore Andy was going to get a jury trial whether he wanted one or not. So this was probably also on the advice of his US attorney to throw sand in the eyes of Andy's mum and scare her into pay up which she did.  Actually a jury trial would not necessarily have been worse than a bench trial but again Mum and the tabloids were not to know this and any kind of trial would have exposed Andy to a future US federal criminal trial for perjury , as he would testified under oath.  So I guess there was no way Andy really wanted a trial at all.

Presumably Andy could have refused to attend or be extradited.

He has committed no crimes in the UK.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Presumably Andy could have refused to attend or be extradited.

He has committed no crimes in the UK.

 

I think so.  He couldn't be extradited for the civil case brought by Roberts but, if he committed perjury under oath, albeit in a zoom call, he could have been extradited.  He refused to testify to the FBI by zoom in the Epstein case, while Epstein was still alive and before Roberts brought her case.

 

The awful Cressida Dick of the Met protected Andy from criminal charges in the UK. Even though Roberts was over the UK age of consent (and was clearly a hardened hooker by then) she was 17 and criminal charges can be filed against those complicit in sex trafficking of minors under the age of 18 under English law.  If he were not a royal, things might have gone differently in the UK.

  • Thanks 2
Posted
24 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Yeah, well, the allegations didn't take place in the UK, though, now did they?

 

Yes they did. London.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted

Although it has resulted in Andrew being assumed guilty by a number of people he would be well advised to stay away from US courts. 

  • Confused 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Why did he give here that?

She is not silenced, I saw the Netflix thing about Epstein yesterday.

 

Sorry, can't help. Haven't really followed the case that closely. Just thought that it was a good joke😁

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Sorry, can't help. Haven't really followed the case that closely. Just thought that it was a good joke😁

It was a good one,  and one I hadn't heard before,   got any more?

Posted
On 1/6/2024 at 2:40 PM, BritManToo said:

Lots of my pals have daily massages, as far as I know, only against the law in some Arab countries if mixed sex.

Perfectly legal in the UK and the USA.

Thailand is a massage table supported by 4 bull elephants..didn't you know

Posted
2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Raped? Trafficked? It's ridiculous. Her own father drove her to the airport.

 

Here she is, clearly kicking and screaming. Clearly distressed at having been paid lots of money to sleep with a handsome Prince (assuming it happened of course). And by her own admission 17 years old when the legal age in London is 16. It's all just another excuse to attack British royalty by Republicans and American leftists. What a disgusting thing to accuse someone of.  

 

image.png.67734ac58e14d68258f4caa2e857c5b5.png

 

She was paid to sleep with him. You, yourself, even called her a prostitute. The law in England is clear with regards to prostitution. Under 18s cannot willingly participate in it, either as buyers or sellers. The age of consent has zero relevance here, despite your failure to understand that.

 

A dirty old man allegedly paid for sex with a child (as defined in the Sexual Offences Act). He needs to face the full scrutiny of the law.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...