shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It’s more the Blair derangement syndrome TBH. Considering there’s sitting MPs in the book, but they don’t get mentioned because they weren’t connected to a PM a quarter of a century ago.
To be fair calling out elites who think they are above justice goes beyond political affiliation.
This one?
That's a disgrace, everyone in the black book should be investigated.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Look how deep the Saville investigation ended up going, whilst there well may be people in that book that are completely innocent, there will be some that knew and turned a blind eye.I sort of get this response, but for what? Should we investigate everyone on a non celeb pedos FB friend list too?
Prince Andrew is being investigated because there’s actual accusations against him. Same with Spacey. What would you be investigating otherwise?
It’s basically a who’s who of British and American rich people.
I sort of get this response, but for what? Should we investigate everyone on a non celeb pedos FB friend list too?
Prince Andrew is being investigated because there’s actual accusations against him. Same with Spacey. What would you be investigating otherwise?
It’s basically a who’s who of British and American rich people.
You think if a man in the street gets caught with images of children the police don't scrutinise his contacts?
And as I said, what about the flight logs? These people were being flown in to an island belonging to a convicted sex offender which children were being trafficked to, they need investigating. Sure, alot of them will have nothing to hide.
Yes that’s exactly what I think. Guilt by association isn’t a legal thing.
Police need reasonable suspicion to investigate someone. Simply knowing someone isn’t that.
As I said there have been accusations against Prince Andrew and hopefully he’ll get the book thrown at him if proven, and hopefully like with Saville this will give any other victims the confidence to come forward with any other accusations.
Exactly. And by investigating the little black book, cross referencing with the flight logs, looking to see if there have been any previous complaints or any strange NDOs or pay offs, they will decide whether there are merits or further investigation or not. This has got to be bigger than just Epstein and Maxwell.Its not guilt by association, it's finding out why people flew to the island of a convicted paedophile, ( for those that flew post Epsteins original conviction).
Theres a lot of unanswered questions and I'd say a good place to start is those flight logs.
Nipping to saville's caravan would have been suspicious enough to be looked at surely?Yes that’s exactly what I think. Guilt by association isn’t a legal thing.
Police need reasonable suspicion to investigate someone. Simply knowing someone isn’t that.
As I said there have been accusations against Prince Andrew and hopefully he’ll get the book thrown at him if proven, and hopefully like with Saville this will give any other victims the confidence to come forward with any other accusations.
Can only speak for myself but if someone accused me of being a pedofie I'd want it to be in court ASAP to prove beyond any doubt it wasn't true. I wouldn't be spending a fortune trying to find any legal technicality to get the case thrown out.I can't see how Andrew will ever face trial. The current case is a civil one with which he can only receive a damages claim I think. He will not appear and will obstruct the process as much as he can.
Two of Prince Andrew’s avenues to prevent or stall the progression of Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s sex assault lawsuit against him were blocked on Saturday by a federal judge, increasing pressure to settle claims before a crucial court hearing this week.
Judge Lewis A Kaplan, in a written order, told the prince’s lawyers they must turn over documents on the schedule that has been set in the lawsuit brought by Guiffre who claims she was abused – aged 17 – by the prince on multiple occasions in 2001 while she was being sexually abused by financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Kaplan also rejected arguments by the prince’s lawyer, Andrew Brettler, on jurisdiction grounds after they argued last week that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Giuffre, a US citizen, no longer lives in the US.
The rulings come before an important case hearing in New York on Tuesday, one day after the scheduled public release on Monday of a 2009 settlement agreement between Epstein and Giuffre that lawyers for Andrew had hoped would protect him from Guiffre’s claims.
The developments follow revelations that Giuffre’s lawyers are reportedly claiming they have up to six witnesses linking the duke to his accuser on the eve of the hearing into a civil lawsuit filed by the 38-year-old, in which she accuses Prince Andrew of sexual assault.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...s-on-prince-andrew-claimed-inability-to-sweat
In a separate development, Andrew’s lawyers are also reported to have not provided documentary evidence that he has the “inability to sweat”, despite the claim supporting his denial against allegations he had sex with Giuffre.
The duke is also said not to have so far named any witnesses to support his alibi that he was in Pizza Express in Woking on the night in 2001 he was accused of having sex with Giuffre.
The developments intensify Andrew’s predicament as he faces intense pressure over his friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell.
Prince Andrew has failed in his bid to get a civil case which alleges he sexually assaulted Virginia Giuffre dismissed by a US judge.
Don't get me wrong, i think he may well be involved (though don't forget that consensual sex with a 17 year old is not illegal in this country), but if i was on his defence team, i'd be asking why the claimant didn't start proceedings against him in 2009 when she had a case open against Epstein, when there was a higher likelihood of reasonable recollection of dates and times. Why wait another 10 years?
Epstein or DOY?I would assume because she wanted to get the ringleader
How on earth can sex with a 17 year old girl who has been trafficked into the country he described as consensual?Don't get me wrong, i think he may well be involved (though don't forget that consensual sex with a 17 year old is not illegal in this country), but if i was on his defence team, i'd be asking why the claimant didn't start proceedings against him in 2009 when she had a case open against Epstein, when there was a higher likelihood of reasonable recollection of dates and times. Why wait another 10 years?
Don't get me wrong, i think he may well be involved (though don't forget that consensual sex with a 17 year old is not illegal in this country), but if i was on his defence team, i'd be asking why the claimant didn't start proceedings against him in 2009 when she had a case open against Epstein, when there was a higher likelihood of reasonable recollection of dates and times. Why wait another 10 years?
I didn't say that the claimant in this case had consented, by all accounts. And she does allege that one of the offences did take place in London.How on earth can sex with a 17 year old girl who has been trafficked into the country he described as consensual?
I didn't say that the claimant in this case had consented, by all accounts. And she does allege that one of the offences did take place in London.
But WHY didn't she go after Randy Andy at the same time as Epstein (i.e. in 2009) - it's that part i don't get. And i am NOT defending him.
Don't get me wrong, i think he may well be involved (though don't forget that consensual sex with a 17 year old is not illegal in this country),
What a punishment, doesn't have to work anymore and just live off the tens of millions he already has.Prince Andrew stripped of military affiliations amid sex abuse civil case claims
Prince Andrew will no longer be able to use His Royal Highness after the Queen's decision, which comes after a judge ruled Virginia Giuffre's sex abuse civil case against the Duke of York could go aheadwww.mirror.co.uk
What a punishment, doesn't have to work anymore and just live off the tens of millions he already has.
I don't watch The Crown.
Are they covering this stuff in it?
Yeah he’s given her a tiaraPrince Andrew has settled out of court, as predicted.
Better than a Pearl necklace the nonce.Yeah he’s given her a tiara
Prince Andrew has settled out of court, as predicted.
Part of the settlement is being donated to her victims’ support charity.He shouldn't get away with it, but I imagine the protracted circus would have been far more harmful and likely more expensive than she has got. I don't doubt that he's guilty nor that this isn't an isolated offence, but she had already settled with Epstein too and money grabbing bitches like her, which was clearly all she ever wanted, are not helping the cases of genuine victims which will be a significant number.
I may be missing something. Is the age of consent 16 in America? I know Epstein and maxwell coerced these girls into doing things they didn’t want to but would someone be a nonce if they had sex with a person over the age limit? At what age is it not ok?Better than a Pearl necklace the nonce.
I think it depends on the state - pretty sure it was 18 in this case.I may be missing something. Is the age of consent 16 in America? I know Epstein and maxwell coerced these girls into doing things they didn’t want to but would someone be a nonce if they had sex with a person over the age limit? At what age is it not ok?
Just wondered. I know that if you are a teacher or in a position of trust it’s different but for someone out in town for instance? Is it still 16 or would you say someone was a nonce If they were 25 say or 35? At what age is it perverted or wrong? I’m only interested in opinions not implying anything or asking for a mate
No it’s 18 in a lot of the US. Some states are 16 though.I may be missing something. Is the age of consent 16 in America? I know Epstein and maxwell coerced these girls into doing things they didn’t want to but would someone be a nonce if they had sex with a person over the age limit? At what age is it not ok?
Just wondered. I know that if you are a teacher or in a position of trust it’s different but for someone out in town for instance? Is it still 16 or would you say someone was a nonce If they were 25 say or 35? At what age is it perverted or wrong? I’m only interested in opinions not implying anything or asking for a mate
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?