Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Prince Andrew Was Lying (and Sweating) From The Start, Wasn't He?

866 replies

TallerSally · 04/01/2024 14:50

So now we have it, the abject and in all likelihood criminal behaviour of Prince Andrew, still titled Duke of York and still eighth in the line of succession to the British throne, laid out for all to see.

Settled out of court as part of a grotesque cover-up.

Still denying knowing Virginia Giuffre, and presumably Johanna Sjoberg whose breast he allegedly fondled, who are undoubtedly the tip of the iceberg of the girls Prince Andrew and his paedo friend Jeffrey Epstein abused.

Still protected by Buckingham Palace who have gone out of their way to state the accusations as "categorically untrue", as if anyone believes them.

Still supported by the British Royal Family who seem desperate to "rehabilitate him" (and his grifter ex-wife), still living in a Royal Palace presumably at taxpayers expense (i.e. Grifter in Chief), still prancing around at official functions, still oozing a sense of arrogant entitlement, with no-one including King Charles having any sense of courage or moral rectitude to deliver to make him face the consequences of his repugnant actions.

Still being defended by the royal palaces briefing operations and the British media, and by those at ease with shameful double standards on various boards, including this one, who are happy spending their time posting 100'000+ messages a year attacking Meghan and Harry while turning a blind eye to a likely real criminal.

No amount of covering-up will ever rehabilitate Prince Andrew. All it'll do is drag the royal family further down in the esteem of folks with any sense of decency.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
40
TallerSally · 09/01/2024 10:04

alltootired · 08/01/2024 19:56

And it is clear there was a grooming gang made up of rich men and a few women. And that young girls and women were trafficked and raped.
It is also clear that Andrew openly lied in his TV interview where he was trying to defend himself and I think it is clear to most that he is guilty.

As someone said upthread, posh version of Rotherham grooming gang, but no less depraved.

Rotherham paedos were jailed because they weren't being protected by King Charles, Buckingham Palace, the Police, and the rest of the establishment.

OP posts:
TallerSally · 09/01/2024 10:09

Ellmau · 09/01/2024 08:35

So Sarah R is now saying she was forced to retract and the tapes do exist. If still around (ie not destroyed in fear) surely they will come to light at some point?

Jeffrey Epstein 'sex slave' claims she was forced to retract allegations that paedophile made sex tapes of Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and Richard Branson after she and her family were threatened 'with harm' by Ghislaine Maxwell | Daily Mail Online

I'm not surprised at all.

I'm assuming that someone has hard evidence implicating Prince Andrew and the FBI has seen it.

There may be some febrile negotiations going on behind the scenes. Anyone tempted to leak may need to go into witness protection...

I'm sure the hard evidence will see the light of day. I'd hope that every time the Royal family try to shove Prince Andrew down our throats with their church walks and friendly articles about Deputy Grifter Fergie, a little bit more incriminating evidence is leaked about the paedo "daily 'massages' at Epstein's estate" Prince.

Perhaps after a while they'll understand that Prince Andrew is beyond rehabilitation.

OP posts:
TallerSally · 09/01/2024 10:41

In today's Telegraph:

In a deposition filed in 2017, Ms Ransome described how Maxwell “ran (Epstein’s) house like a brothel”, keeping various girls on rotation to give him “sexual massages” every day.
When I was finished, another girl was called by Ghislaine,” she said. “And when they had finished, another girl was called.”
She said that when they were taken to Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little St James, the girls “tried to hide” so they would not get called.
But they were expected to spend their days in a main seating area by the pool. “We always had to be around. We weren’t allowed to go very far on the island.”
Epstein and Ghislaine also “bullied” her about her weight and tried to get her down to a 52kg goal. She attempted to flee the private island in waters teeming with sharks after being raped three times in a single day.
...
For Prince Andrew, the move has simply served to highlight damaging claims he had hoped were firmly behind him.
One of the documents released on Monday concerns the claim he forced Ms Giuffre to have sex with him in a bath at Maxwell’s mews house in London in 2001.
Ms Giuffre told the BBC’s Panorama in 2019: “There was a bath and it started there and then led into the bedroom.”
She added: “It didn’t last very long, the whole entire procedure. It was disgusting. He wasn’t mean or anything but he got up and he said, ‘Thanks’, and walked out.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/08/prince-andrew-sex-tapes-epstein-victim-sarah-ransome/

The strange tale of Prince Andrew’s ‘sex tapes’ and Epstein victim’s allegations

Sarah Ransome’s claim she has seen video of the Duke having sex with her friend will make for more unpleasant reading at Buckingham Palace

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/08/prince-andrew-sex-tapes-epstein-victim-sarah-ransome

OP posts:
2dogsandabudgie · 09/01/2024 11:18

Tallersally - You have to be really careful with the language you use on a public forum that anyone has access to otherwise you are at risk of being libellous.

You can give your opinion but you cannot state something as fact without proof. Now in my view I think that the photo of PA with VG is real and that he was with her that night. If he had sex with her that night she was 17 so not illegal. It's whether or not he knew that she was trafficked. That is the offence.

alltootired · 09/01/2024 11:50

Andrew paid out millions. I think we can safely say he was advised by his lawyers he had a very good chance of losing the court case.
No libel has been committed. Andrew is a nonce.

Roussette · 09/01/2024 12:03

I can't see anything that @TallerSally has said that is libellous.

And VGs age is irrelevant. She was trafficked, age doesn't come into it.

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-human-trafficking

11 Facts About Human Trafficking

There are approximately 20 to 40 million enslaved people today.

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-human-trafficking

DewinDwl · 09/01/2024 12:38

2dogsandabudgie · 09/01/2024 11:18

Tallersally - You have to be really careful with the language you use on a public forum that anyone has access to otherwise you are at risk of being libellous.

You can give your opinion but you cannot state something as fact without proof. Now in my view I think that the photo of PA with VG is real and that he was with her that night. If he had sex with her that night she was 17 so not illegal. It's whether or not he knew that she was trafficked. That is the offence.

I thought the age of consent in new York was 18 at the time. Happy to be corrected.

From what we can see it seems obvious that young girls were being trafficked for sex. Does the crime really hinge on whether the other, erm, party was aware of the trafficking? In that case this seems very clear cut - Andrew can speak to the FBI and give a statement to explain that he wasn't aware the girls were trafficked or unwilling as due to his position women would basically throw themselves at him all the time? To paraphrase the apologists on this thread.

It seems many members of the public would accept that, shrug and move on <vomits>. Why is Andrew not doing that? The king of Spain was happy to throw his father and sister to the wolves as soon as they stepped on the wrong side of the law, in order to preserve the monarchy. Where is Charles in all this?

alltootired · 09/01/2024 12:46

Andrew will not speak to the FBI as I assume there is more evidence against him that he can not explain away.

Angrycat2768 · 09/01/2024 13:02

alltootired · 09/01/2024 12:46

Andrew will not speak to the FBI as I assume there is more evidence against him that he can not explain away.

To be honest, if I was his lawyers after watching that Newsnight interview, I'd be telling him to hide away forever. He was clearly lying and couldn't even be bothered to lie convincingly.

2dogsandabudgie · 09/01/2024 13:17

DewinDwl - I was talking about the night in London with VG and PA. I think in some states in America the legal age is 17 others 18.

I thought according to the law that Prince Andrew had only committed an offence in this country if he knew that VG had been trafficked. Happy to be corrected if that is not what the law says.

Roussette · 09/01/2024 13:17

Angrycat2768 · 09/01/2024 13:02

To be honest, if I was his lawyers after watching that Newsnight interview, I'd be telling him to hide away forever. He was clearly lying and couldn't even be bothered to lie convincingly.

He did masterclass in blustering though!

I think the likes of the FBI are well versed in whether someone is lying, Andrew wouldn't last 5 minutes!

Angrycat2768 · 09/01/2024 13:23

Roussette · 09/01/2024 13:17

He did masterclass in blustering though!

I think the likes of the FBI are well versed in whether someone is lying, Andrew wouldn't last 5 minutes!

He's so stupid and arrogant he thought 'I'm a Prince and a War hero' plus a load of old other crap about how important he is was enough for Emily Maitlss but even he knew the FBI would take him apart. Unfortunately for him, he underestimated EM and, it goes without saying, the public.

CathyorClaire · 09/01/2024 20:16

Andrew paid out millions. I think we can safely say he was advised by his lawyers he had a very good chance of losing the court case.

Never bought the 'making it all go away before Mummy's big party' nonsense.
I think there was a good chance yet another unsavoury something might have been revealed.

Ironic really given the latest claims and counter-claims in the unsealed court papers. I don't suppose the hot-shot lawyers ever considered they might get an airing.

Rockybooboo · 10/01/2024 03:24

2dogsandabudgie · 09/01/2024 11:18

Tallersally - You have to be really careful with the language you use on a public forum that anyone has access to otherwise you are at risk of being libellous.

You can give your opinion but you cannot state something as fact without proof. Now in my view I think that the photo of PA with VG is real and that he was with her that night. If he had sex with her that night she was 17 so not illegal. It's whether or not he knew that she was trafficked. That is the offence.

Are you joking? Thread after thread of stuff about Meghan stated as facts without any proof.

Angrycat2768 · 10/01/2024 07:48

Rockybooboo · 10/01/2024 03:24

Are you joking? Thread after thread of stuff about Meghan stated as facts without any proof.

But if Meghan doesn't sue for libel it's because it's true, but if the RF don't sue it's because of some made up rule about 'never complain, never explain' when they are supposed to have a duty to the people who allow them to be thete. Which includes explaining their behaviour.

Roussette · 10/01/2024 08:47

Angrycat2768 · 10/01/2024 07:48

But if Meghan doesn't sue for libel it's because it's true, but if the RF don't sue it's because of some made up rule about 'never complain, never explain' when they are supposed to have a duty to the people who allow them to be thete. Which includes explaining their behaviour.

I love your post! Time and time again on MN posters say M&H should sue. Like the Tom Boyer book... must be true, they didn't sue! But when there are scores of articles and rubbish made up day in day out, if M&H sued for falsities in the media and print, that would be all they are doing day in day out. And they would be totally maligned and ridiculed for it.

Silence is golden. That's what the RF do... say nothing, with their stupid never complain, never explain. They are experts in never explaining. But complain when it suits them.

2dogsandabudgie · 10/01/2024 08:49

Rockybooboo - Perhaps I should have rephrased my post to say that people are responsible for what they post and don't realise that as it's a public forum anyone can read it. It's not wise for people to state their opinion as fact, and yes that applies to H and M as well.

Roussette · 10/01/2024 08:58

That's what posters on the RF forums do all the time. State their opinions as fact. Endlessly

Alalain · 10/01/2024 09:25

It does seem as though H&M have now realised 'silence is golden', possibly at the urging of their new agency. They have walked themselves into so many PR fiascos that caused them no end of ridicule. It is interesting (and annoying for some of us) to see the popularity of the RF increase, which appears to be directly linked to everything Harry and Meghan said about the RF members.

Anyway, Andrew is the one who should have talked, to the FBI or whoever was investigating Epstein and Maxwell, he must have so much information on what really went on.

In all likelihood, he could have done a deal to protect himself from prosecution in return for sharing what he knew. It happens all the time in the US, would have saved his mother 20mill, helped the victims of JE and GM and he may have come out of it looking slightly less despicable.

Novella4 · 10/01/2024 09:34

@Roussette

The royals will never risk having to appear in court .
Disclosure might be required!
I’ve seen lots of excellent posters shut down by some one claiming they might be sued .
Does this get mentioned on all the other threads - esp celebrity ones?

Novella4 · 10/01/2024 09:40

This is partly why Harry included every stick they might use to hit him in Spare .
They have nothing on him - can the rest of the Saxburg Gothas say that ? ( the name change plucked out of the air is so weird - I know why they did it -German Gotha bombs on WW1 - but so much for precious tradition )

CathyorClaire · 10/01/2024 10:17

can the rest of the Saxburg Gothas say that ?

Unlikely given the frantic war-gaming going on before the NF doc:

Royal Family's 'detailed game plan' ready for Sussex allegations in new bombshell series | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

And only the top 100 closeted skeletons were to make the final cut. Just how many are there?!

Roussette · 10/01/2024 10:21

Novella4 · 10/01/2024 09:34

@Roussette

The royals will never risk having to appear in court .
Disclosure might be required!
I’ve seen lots of excellent posters shut down by some one claiming they might be sued .
Does this get mentioned on all the other threads - esp celebrity ones?

Ahhh but Harry was brave enough to do so. Despite being ridiculued left, right and centre. He has far more backbone than the rest of 'em

The sueing/libel nonsense... it is a way to shut down discussion points AFAIC.

User135644 · 10/01/2024 10:22

Novella4 · 08/01/2024 15:59

posted too soon
The young don’t buy the ‘royal’ bullshit

The usual propaganda ( tv news , tabloids ) doesnt reach them -hence the Twitter bots etc but they are easily spotted .

The Boomers/older Gen X are the last generation to buy into all the bullshit and still buy newspapers.

Alalain · 10/01/2024 10:39

The usual propaganda ( tv news , tabloids ) doesnt reach them -hence the Twitter bots etc but they are easily spotted .

Actually, I think TV and tabloids are the lesser of two evils, TikTok, Twitter, Youtube (and god knows what else) are the ones to really be concerned about, and thats what the younger generation are using for their news and views. Just look at Andrew Tate and the amount of followers he had, young people impressed by his lifestyle and hanging off every misogynistic word.

Anyway, we have strayed totally off topic now.

Swipe left for the next trending thread