Prince Andrew ‘evicted’ from Buckingham palace

[PicturesOfDogs]

And no longer allowed to use it for correspondence apparently.

www.independent.co.uk/tv/lifestyle/andrew-king-charles-bucking-palace-b2251077.html?amp

Interesting…

presume it suited them to keep quiet?

😂

@LBFseBrom Margaret Thatcher (who thought the world of him), and many other prominent people. It's easy to forget how plausible and influential he was; I am nearly 73 and can remember the admiration he engendered when I was at school! Even Louis Theroux was duped by Savile.

Apparently the only person who was not “fooled” by Savile was Johnny Rotten and he got censored by the BBC!. Maybe those who alleged getting “duped” by Savile were more invested in their career and not being censored than in saving children?
you didn’t want to get censored by the BBC before social media, it would have been like committing career suicide. that’s why I always took the “duped by Savile” crowd with a pinch of salt. Apparently Everyone knew about it, it was like the elephant in the room.

1. I did not use that word
2. a trafficked woman/girl cannot consent
3. she was legally a child and not called Dufy

I worked for about 3 months, 14 years ago, as a temp assistant to the private secretary to the chairman of an organisation called UKTI, responsible for promoting UK business abroad and the patron at that time was Prince Andrew, who travelled and represented UKTI. We had a lot of contact with Prince Andrew’s private secretaries and assistants and the private secretary (male) I worked with confided to me that he’d heard from these palace staff that they didn’t like Prince Andrew/found him difficult. It was told more on person than on the phone (phone lines bugged) and alluded to too, but I believed him.

I don’t think Prince Andrew expected his mother to die when she did, probably expected her to live to the Queen Mother’s (another evil witch by all accounts) age.

I think it is no surprise that it is people with money and power who were "fooled". If you judge people on superficial stuff than you are easy to fool. Johnny Rotten would have been used to looking beyond this and judging people on who they really were.

Margaret Thatcher also defended one of her Senior MPs who was a paedophile. Honestly I think she was just not that bothered about that.

I am sure they did.

I think he didn't think.

The pompous arse believed he was special and untouchable and didn't need to treat peasants with any kind of respect or humanity. The likes of Epstein would have found him all too easy to manipulate. Stupid prat probably thought all those women wanted to have sex sex with him.

I understand how MI5 and MI6 allowed this all to happen. Because it clearly did, to a greater or lesser extent.

I DON'T understand

sorry

They maybe wanted compromat too. All they needed was someone dim and arrogant.

I don’t think Margaret Thatcher was a good person, I believe she was an ambitious politician more invested in her own career than in saving some poor children being abused. She probably knew the rumours but decided to overlook them because acknowledging them were not in her best interest, plus Savile was making all this Big money donations to children’s hospitals.

Epstein got out of Florida jail for traffick of minors, flew to New York and the first person to visit him was his friend Andrew, they went for a walk in Central Park and next day their picture walking hand in hand was on the cover of American newspapers under the subtle headline of “the Prince and the pedophile”. Americans were shocked seeing a British royal showing public support for a convicted pedophile who had just gotten out of jail.

Do you really need the MI5 telling you visiting your friend Epstein was a stupid move?

I believe it's ephebophile. Covers Kate adolescence.

@sashh you responded to my post explaining what was and was not a paedophile by stating she was a child.

1. Your response implied you disputed my assertion PA was not a paedophile because you consider Virginia Giuffre was a child.
2. Completely agree.
3. UK law is inconsistent when defining what is a child, for example the age of criminal responsibility is 10, there are additional protections to 17. The age of consent is 16, with additional protections to 18 etc. I apologise for mis remembering Virginia Guiffre’s name. I meant to check before I posted and forgot.

To reiterate, what happened to Virginia Giuffre and other victims was appalling but it is important we use accurate language.

Personally I would like to see an inquiry into all the powerful rich men and women who socialised with Epstein to prevent this happening again. Never going to happen and sadly women and girls are being trafficked in to the UK on a regular basis.

So we are into - he didn't ask her age defences now are we?
All those rapists who claim they thought girls were really 25 years old. It is a defence as old as time.
Andrew knew the score. Or he is so thick he should not be allowed out alone.

Another fun fact is how Sarah Ferguson accepted a huge amount of money from Epstein as gift to pay off her debts right after he got out of jail. she had been doing these documentaries on Romanian orphanages were she wanted create awareness of abused children.

To reiterate, what happened to Virginia Giuffre and other victims was appalling but it is important we use accurate language.

So do I.

Whether she was 16 or 60 she was trafficked, therefore unable to give consent, that is rape. We need to name it.

A 17 year old is legally a child according tot he government who make the definition.

www.gov.uk/guidance/case-management-guidance/definitions.

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet I love this description of your grandad!!! Brilliant!

@sashh add in the word “alleged” in relation to PA and we agree.

Alleged.

Correct me if I am wrong….

Peadophilia is predilection right? It is not an act? Peadophilia is an attraction to children. The legal terminology and framework might be quite different. That said, the treating of a person as not Competent to vote (under 18) but competent to be prosecuted as an adult?! Hmmmm! Also - under 18 fine for an adult to have sex with (be the adult 18 or 64) but still not mature enough to vote….

Of course a lot depends on ‘child’ here. If a person is attracted to another in virtue of their immaturity, then I think they are a Peadophile. So for example - a 40 yr old who is only attracted to 17 yr olds? Peadophile in my book. maybe we want to make a legal distinction. I get that. Maybe legally having sex with a 17 yr old is not as grievous as having sex with a 12 yr old. I get that. But being attracted to a 17 yr old because they are immature in some respect (perhaps small breasts or ‘child like’ in some way)? Peadophile.

Of course, Peadophiles would like us to think there is a massive difference. In fact, they would like the acceptable age that they can be attracted to others to be as low as possible. I think making all these distinctions about their predilection falls right into their hands.

@BeardyButton Paedophilia is a paraphilia and/ or Paraphilic disorder. Paraphilia’s include voyeurism, exhibitionism, necrophilia, AGP (the one we are not supposed to mention) sexual masochism etc. People can have one or more paraphilia’s.

Peadophilia is about attraction to pre pubescent children not young people who have or are going through puberty. Physically there is normally quite a stark difference in physical appearance between the two.

There are two key issue one is age and whether or not the other person can consent. Gillick competence or the law determine that pre pubescent children cannot consent so it is always abuse. Young people e.g. 13 upwards are normally competent to consent or not to sex and so non consent is rape.

The second issue you may not be aware of is that there is a movement by Paedophiliacs to replace it with the term Minor Attracted Persons (MAP). When we don’t use the correct language we are playing into their hands.

Whilst we might find the idea of a 40 year old man having sex/raping a 17 year old it is very different to a 30 year old man abusing a 7 year old.