Prince Andrew

[Tevion28]

Do you think guilty or innocent

Stormzyina. Without doubt. A link I put up shows that he would not accept advice from anyone withing the RF, advisers and courtiers included.
He was rude to anyone who tried and said the only person he would answer to is the Queen. I then think he manipulated her.

Apparently the Queen's advisers are now beginning to speak out on this because of the damage he is doing, and has done to the Monarchy. I'm on my phone so can't scroll up easily but I linked an article on this. It was very unflattering as to what's gone on

Why are you so preoccupied with the idea that VG introducing another girl would ‘incriminate’ her? Only if you don’t understand how sexual abuse networks work.

That was to @KimikosNightmare obviously.

[quote TatianaBis]@KimikosNightmare

It makes perfect sense that is the reason she wasn't called is not the same as saying it was ‘almost certainly’ the reason she wasn’t called, which was your first claim.

Procuring other girls for a sexual abuse network is part of what they are groomed to do so I’m not sure why you’re so convinced VG would have incriminated herself there.

It’s extraneous to the case against GM either way.[/quote]
Because at the time Giuffre was over 18. Being a victim isn't a defence if the victim also goes on to abuse. There are victims in Rotherham who were charged.

You are also , i think, not understanding the concept of self incrimination.

@TatianaBis

Why are you so preoccupied with the idea that VG introducing another girl would ‘incriminate’ her? Only if you don’t understand how sexual abuse networks work.

Because in law that is what Giuffre would do if she had been put in the witness box and asked if what Carolyn had said is true and had said yes.

The reasons why she did it and why she might have a defence are not relevant at that point. They would be relevant if there was a later trial.

@Rousette - I missed your link so I’m going to go back and try and find it. I was aware that he had previously been warned, however PA being PA he knows best.

I don't understand this train of thought at all, given they were both vulnerable girls procured for sex

Of course I understand the principle of self incrimination.

You don’t become less of a victim of abuse just because you hit 18. VG was still being abused herself at that point.

Please highlight which Rotherham victims were charged.

innocent

It’s a very interesting thread and I have seen several posts questioning why the Queen is covering the cost (and basically his arse) on this and it got me thinking, I wouldn't be surprised if PA was using some emotional manipulation. Just a thought.

I don’t think emotions or manipulation comes into it, there was never any doubt that The Firm would back one of their own to the hilt.

The Queen isn’t a cuddly grandmother, she will looking for this to be swept away ASAP.

Absolutely Storm sorry I can't link it again, it's on here somewhere!

@StormzyinaTCup

You're welcome *@CaveMum* and @Malariahilaria*.

It's a very interesting thread and I have seen several posts questioning why the Queen is covering the cost (and basically his arse) on this and it got me thinking, I wouldn't be surprised if PA was using some emotional manipulation. Just a thought.

Obviously I have no idea, but I would guess that

1. she comes from an era when bad behaviour by men was tolerated and expected.

2. she blames herself/her position for the fact that anyone cares what he does.

I suspect she tries to ignore the fact that his actions undermine everything the RF claims it stands for and its entire purpose.

I suspect the Queen is someone who sweeps things under the carpet. She doesn’t like unpleasantness. That is my suspicion.

@Roussette

I don't understand this train of thought at all, given they were both vulnerable girls procured for sex

What don't you understand?

Roberts was a victim but from Carolyn's testimony Roberts then went on to be complicit in the abuse of other girls.

Roberts wasn't on trial. Had she been put in the witness box she would have been asked to respond to Carolyn's allegations - are they true? or claim the Fifth Amendment.

Her reasons for why she behaved the way she did would be relevant if she herself were charged.

Incrimination doesn't mean someone is admitting guilt and will be convicted. It means they are stating in court they did something which has the potential of causing proceedings to be taken.

The Queen isn’t a cuddly grandmother, she will looking for this to be swept away ASAP.

I agree. The wheels turning expensively in the background will be phenomenal.

I read the article. She had sex with Epstein. So did Carolyn. That's it. She was not abusing Carolyn. This was a pyramid scheme of girls introducing other girls, we all know that. They were paid money beyond their imagination, or promised modelling contracts, given gifts, that's how sex trafficking rings work

Kate playing the piano the other day was was like the infamous playing of the violin while Rome burned! The Royals are prancing about trying to shove an 'acceptable' yet still highly irrelevant and unproductive face of monarchy at us when the ugly real monarchy is getting away with criminal behaviour.
Epstein helped Sarah Ferguson pay off her debts.
Epstein and Maxwell - convicted child traffickers and paedophiles were entertained on Royal property at Andrew's invite
Andrew was a close friend of Maxwell and Epstein, staying at their properties and flying in their private planes

Wake up!

The sheer irony - Sarah Ferguson not allowed at Balmoral because she had her toes sucked by some bloke
Paedophiles and Sex Traffickers entertained at Balmoral by her husband Andrew

Couldn't make it up

Yes, I agree.

It's two sides of a coin. We are spoonfed a diet of what the Royals want us to digest. But there is an underbelly of unsavoury behaviour that can't be covered up

Stone entertained at Balmoral, Windsor castle, Sandringham and BP.

Roberts was a victim but from Carolyn's testimony Roberts then went on to be complicit in the abuse of other girls.

No, that is your interpretation of Carolyn’s testimony, based on a bizarre (mis)understanding of how sexual abuse networks function.

Does there become a point in the pyramid scheme where you become liable to be charged? When do you become no better than the person who first started the ring?

@Roussette

I read the article. She had sex with Epstein. So did Carolyn. That's it. She was not abusing Carolyn. This was a pyramid scheme of girls introducing other girls, we all know that. They were paid money beyond their imagination, or promised modelling contracts, given gifts, that's how sex trafficking rings work

Exactly.

There were also controlled and bullied and coerced and threatened.

Just read Maria Farmer’s account - and she was an adult at the time.

She specifically says she was directly threatened by GM and Epstein. She had to move several times to avoid them. GM in particular she claims threatened her life.

@StoneofDestiny

The sheer irony - Sarah Ferguson not allowed at Balmoral because she had her toes sucked by some bloke Paedophiles and Sex Traffickers entertained at Balmoral by her husband Andrew

Couldn't make it up

Well I suppose the RF didn’t know what they were up to. They did however know what SF has been up to. In front of her children whilst married.

I read that article and others a long time ago, just re read it.
So epstein inveigeld himself with les and hit a sweet spot and basically somehow took his money.