Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has every guest and friend of Epstein who attended the parties where there were underage girls been stripped of military rank and awards, or sued, or charged?
I'm not saying Prince Andrew isn't guilty; but do we know all the facts? Seems like they're rushing to blame and ostracize him before anything legally wrong has been proven?
I don't know what they or the royal family knows, but I'm guessing it was discussed with him at length when it first came out. I also don't know if anyone else is being sued. No one else would be stripped of military titles because no one else is in the royal family. They did that because the military there requested it.
I don't know what they or the royal family knows, but I'm guessing it was discussed with him at length when it first came out. I also don't know if anyone else is being sued. No one else would be stripped of military titles because no one else is in the royal family. They did that because the military there requested it.
It was decided by Prince Charles and Prince William, who now take most of the decisions, as the Queen is now very frail.
William doesn't like Andrew that much by all accounts and Charles is known to be furious with him.
It also fits in with Charles's future plans to reduce the Royals to the immediate family and to get rid of a lot of minor royals and hangers on.
However Andrew is the Queen's son, and she will still love him very much and be very upset by all of this.
It was decided by Prince Charles and Prince William, who now take most of the decisions, as the Queen is now very frail.
William doesn't like Andrew that much by all accounts and Charles is known to be furious with him.
It also fits in with Charles's future plans to reduce the Royals to the immediate family and to get rid of a lot of minor royals and hangers on.
However Andrew is the Queen's son, and she will still love him very much and be very upset by all of this.
I don't believe they decided on their own, nor do I believe it was for any nefarious plot to get rid of people. I believe it was discussed and decided by multiple top ranking people, and including the Queen.
"The dramatic move came hours after more than 150 military veterans wrote to the Queen to ask her to strip Andrew of his honorary military roles amid what they described as their “upset and anger”. The palace had said earlier on Thursday that it had no comment on their open letter.
Writing to her in her capacity as head of state and commander-in-chief of the army, navy and air force, an open letter from former members of each of the services said that it was “untenable” for the Duke of York to retain his position.
“Were this any other senior military officer it is inconceivable that he would still be in post,” they say in the letter, sent the day after Lewis Kaplan, a Manhattan judge, rejected Prince Andrew’s efforts to dismiss Giuffre’s sexual assault lawsuit against him."
I don't believe they decided on their own, nor do I believe it was for any nefarious plot to get rid of people. I believe it was discussed and decided by multiple top ranking people, and including the Queen.
"The dramatic move came hours after more than 150 military veterans wrote to the Queen to ask her to strip Andrew of his honorary military roles amid what they described as their “upset and anger”. The palace had said earlier on Thursday that it had no comment on their open letter.
Writing to her in her capacity as head of state and commander-in-chief of the army, navy and air force, an open letter from former members of each of the services said that it was “untenable” for the Duke of York to retain his position.
“Were this any other senior military officer it is inconceivable that he would still be in post,” they say in the letter, sent the day after Lewis Kaplan, a Manhattan judge, rejected Prince Andrew’s efforts to dismiss Giuffre’s sexual assault lawsuit against him."
I first read that Prince Charles and Prince William decided over Christmas that Prince Andrew would be made a private citizen and Princess Royal Anne and Prince Edward broke the news to him first. Then it looked like that was pure rubbish, with a different story that a contingency plan had been put in place in the event that the case would go to trial.
I may be mistaken here, but my belief was that when a member of the Royal Family is involved in a lawsuit such as Markle and her media complaint or Andrew and the accusations, lawyers are paid by the Royal Family. Once it was decided to go to trail, the Crown cut financial obligations by demoting him to a private citizen. Harry is not a working royal, but Andrew was made a private citizen the morning after the New York court decision. That wasn't a spontaneous decision, that was planned as a contingency months ago, in my humble opinion.
If 150 veterans voiced an opinion to manage the monarchy, how many are there in total?
I think it's a financial decision that was carefully planned a long time ago by the Queen and her advisors.
I don't believe they decided on their own, nor do I believe it was for any nefarious plot to get rid of people. I believe it was discussed and decided by multiple top ranking people, and including the Queen.
"The dramatic move came hours after more than 150 military veterans wrote to the Queen to ask her to strip Andrew of his honorary military roles amid what they described as their “upset and anger”. The palace had said earlier on Thursday that it had no comment on their open letter.
Writing to her in her capacity as head of state and commander-in-chief of the army, navy and air force, an open letter from former members of each of the services said that it was “untenable” for the Duke of York to retain his position.
“Were this any other senior military officer it is inconceivable that he would still be in post,” they say in the letter, sent the day after Lewis Kaplan, a Manhattan judge, rejected Prince Andrew’s efforts to dismiss Giuffre’s sexual assault lawsuit against him."
Prince Andrew has now decided to fight the allegations, and to try and clear his name in the US Courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
I think Buckingham Palace, which has pushed Prince Andrew and this whole case as far away as it possibly can, will be viewing this with suppressed horror.
They will realise the capacity this story has to dominate headlines and we are just 10 days away from the start of the Platinum Jubilee.
In terms of the Royals Prince Charles carries out a lot of duties, and the Queen has recently been unwell.
Charles has made it clear that he wants reform and wants the family cut in size to just the immediate Royal family and this is not a nefarious plot, he has openly stated this.
The Queen may have had some input, but a 95 year old woman, who was recently hospitalised, and been told not exert herself by Doctors, has clearly delegated a lot of powers and a lot of work to the next in line her son Charles and Grandson William.
I doubt Judge Kaplan, a judge the UN called bias, had anything to do with this, and it is believed the titles were removed to stop Prince Andrew being involved in the Platinum Jubilee, as the Grenadier Guards who he was Colonel of, had expressed concerns about Prince Andrew riding up the Mall with members of the Foot Guards and Household Cavalry during this years extended Trooping the Colour event.
Beating the Retreat and Trooping the Colour go back centuries, and relate to Beating the Retreat from the Battlefield and Trooping the Regimental Colours in front of the Monarch, and every year one of the five regiments of foot guard troops their colours in the form of a flag with various battles and victories embroidered on to it. The Colours are very important to Regiments and to lose and men would rather die than lose the regimental colours in battle.
The phrase die hard was first used during the Battle of Albuera (1811) in the Peninsular War. During the battle, Lieutenant-Colonel William Inglis of the 57th (West Middlesex) Regiment of Foot was wounded by canister shot.
Despite appalling injuries, Inglis refused to retire from the battle but remained with the regimental colours, encouraging his men with the words "Die hard 57th, die hard!" as they came under intense pressure from a French attack.The 'Die Hards' subsequently became the West Middlesex's regimental nickname and subsequently where the term 'Die Hard' comes from. The Middlesex regiment now forms part of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment.
So you can see why Trooping the Colour is important to the Foot Guards and all Army Regiments, and in 2022, the 1st Battalion Irish Guards will Troop their Colour, with Prince William the Colonel of the Regiment in attendance, as well as the Queen as other members of the Royals. You can also see why they don't want Prince Andrew riding up the Mall to Horse Guards Parade dressed in the full Ceremonial Uniform of the Grenadier Guards, and that is why the decision to strip him of such titles was taken, and the decision was made as Andrew's presence was starting to impact on events of major national importance.
Last edited by Brave New World; 01-27-2022 at 09:47 AM..
Anyone who thinks that Epstein or Prince Andrew, and those who partook of Epstein’s trafficked children/teens, are innocent men being taken advantage of by trampy young women when the adult men were in reality criminal abusers, honestly I’m just so disgusted by y’all who are blaming the victims. I pray none of your family or loved ones ever experiences the exploitation and abuse these girls suffered but if they do, I hope you remember you gave a pass to the wealthy, powerful men when it wasn’t YOUR family… keep “slinging” around the age of 17 ignoring the fact most of the girls were initially abused at 14, or is that an okay age? And no, not letting other abusers off either, through this I’ve learned about American and UK rock stars who abused teen girls and I hope they somehow will be held responsible for their crimes as well.
Let me ask you this. If it was your daughter, granddaughter, niece, god-child would it be okay? If not, why is it okay if it is the child of a parent who doesn’t raise their daughter to value herself more than to be exploited by rich older men? It’s not, everyone has value even those that are not valued by the adults that should love, cherish and protect them. Just because these girls didn’t have that does not mean it’s okay for other adults to abuse them.
Maybe I’m rushing to judgment here, but you appear to be accusing me of victim blaming, that’s patently not what my post that you replied to was about.
I was pointing out that no matter how much of a sleaze Jeffrey Epstein was, what he did, or what you’re saying he did, didn’t come under the heading of paedophilia.
He was morally bankrupt, but he was never to my understanding accused of sexual offences against a pre-pubescent child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeran
Why would the IRA care?
Just a wild stab in the dark here, but if the IRA did have any plans to hurt Ms. Stark in any way, (and maybe it was all b.s.), I’m guessing that they saw it as a way of hitting the Royal Family via the back door.
Maybe I’m rushing to judgment here, but you appear to be accusing me of victim blaming, that’s patently not what my post that you replied to was about.
I was pointing out that no matter how much of a sleaze Jeffrey Epstein was, what he did, or what you’re saying he did, didn’t come under the heading of paedophilia.
He was morally bankrupt, but he was never to my understanding accused of sexual offences against a pre-pubescent child.
.
I don't think 17 years old girls are what those labelled paedophiles are generally interested in.
Here's the latest.
In other words there are a lot of allegations and witnesses claiming Virginia Roberts Giuffre was little more than a masseur come escort who lied about her age, and even tried to procure further girls for Epstein.
This is all part of the evidence submitted to the Courts and the evidence and constantly changing story as well as downright lies in terms of Epstein's ranch claims, just demonstrate how questionable Guiffre's claims are.
As for allegations against Prince Andrew, he has trained Scotland Yard Bodyguards with him around the clock and the Royal premises are guarded by Armed Police and Royal Palaces by the Army. I wonder if any of these police officers or soldiers saw this supposed international sex ring, and you would have thought the other Royals might have noticed.
In terms of Epstein, he went to Little St James in US Virgin Islands three times with his police bodyguard, and met with Epstein in New York, and invited Ghislaine to a shooting event.
Lots of people went to Little St James, there were science conferences on the island, with the likes of Stephen Hawking; Nobel laureates Gerard ‘t Hooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek; physicists and cosmologists like Jim Peebles, Alan Guth, Kip Thorne, Lisa Randall etc.
Whilst former Presidents such as Bill Clinton visited over nine times and the list gores on and on.
Scotland Yard and the Prosecution Services have reviewed the case three times and found no credible, reliable or admissible case regarding Prince Andrew, and the case involved Senior Officers and Prosecutors.
The media is talking a lot of nonsense, and the actual facts related to the case, and this woman who is out for more money just speak for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
Prince Andrew has denied being a close friend of convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, in a legal response to the woman who is suing him in the US for sexual assault.
Lawyers for the prince also say he wants to go before a jury to contest the claim brought by Virginia Giuffre.
The Duke of York has consistently denied all the allegations against him.
Ms Giuffre alleges he assaulted her when she was 17 at homes owned by Maxwell and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
But in the 11-page court document, filed on Wednesday, Prince Andrew's legal team list a number of reasons why they believe her civil lawsuit should be dismissed.
One factor they ask the court to consider is the issue of consent.
The document says: "Assuming, without admitting, that Giuffre has suffered any injury or damage alleged in the complaint, Giuffre's claims are barred by the doctrine of consent."
In terms of the strategy, I think Prince Andrew's lawyers are trying to give the impression that Virginia Giuffre's reputation will be damaged if this does come to court.
They will attempt to assert that her conduct was sufficiently wrong in itself that she has forfeited the right to benefit in any way from this situation.
Anyone who thinks that Epstein or Prince Andrew, and those who partook of Epstein’s trafficked children/teens, are innocent men being taken advantage of by trampy young women when the adult men were in reality criminal abusers, honestly I’m just so disgusted by y’all who are blaming the victims. I pray none of your family or loved ones ever experiences the exploitation and abuse these girls suffered but if they do, I hope you remember you gave a pass to the wealthy, powerful men when it wasn’t YOUR family… keep “slinging” around the age of 17 ignoring the fact most of the girls were initially abused at 14, or is that an okay age? And no, not letting other abusers off either, through this I’ve learned about American and UK rock stars who abused teen girls and I hope they somehow will be held responsible for their crimes as well.
Let me ask you this. If it was your daughter, granddaughter, niece, god-child would it be okay? If not, why is it okay if it is the child of a parent who doesn’t raise their daughter to value herself more than to be exploited by rich older men? It’s not, everyone has value even those that are not valued by the adults that should love, cherish and protect them. Just because these girls didn’t have that does not mean it’s okay for other adults to abuse them.
Well said, Bobcat.
I certainly won’t be defending Prince Andrew just because he is British, or royalty.
Sadly not everyone can see through this nonsense, like you can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Francois
Maybe I’m rushing to judgment here, but you appear to be accusing me of victim blaming, that’s patently not what my post that you replied to was about.
I was pointing out that no matter how much of a sleaze Jeffrey Epstein was, what he did, or what you’re saying he did, didn’t come under the heading of paedophilia.
He was morally bankrupt, but he was never to my understanding accused of sexual offences against a pre-pubescent child.
I’m sorry, but the only reason you are defending Prince Andrew is because he is British, and you are all British.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
