Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit

[Pickman's model]

If she met the Queen unofficially, as in a friend of her son, why on earth would there be a record of it? Do they keep records on when the Queen goes for a turd too?

yes. in fact, since the 1970s the queen's been shitting more than the average since records began in 1326.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Although there was that week in late summer 1997 when she didn't shit at all.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think it's fair to say, as our American cousins might, that the Royal Family does shit anyway.

 

[Pickman's model]

Although there was that week in late summer 1997 when she didn't shit at all.

on the chart of royal shit there's a spike in late august, early september 1997.

 

[DotCommunist]

Although there was that week in late summer 1997 when she didn't shit at all.

eggbound

 

[ViolentPanda]

This has got to be tip of the iceberg stuff hasn't it?

The way she talks about it, it seems to have been fairly normalised behaviour for Andrew

I'd suspect that he'll have been making full use of the hareems of the vaious middle east prince's he's been doing deals with, and in his head probably feels entitled to be doing that, what with him also being a prince and all that.

That's not the way harems are supposed to work. They're supposed to be for the exclusive use of a single potentate, not a stable of available women to be used by the potentate's friends.

 

[Wilf]

Jesus, the sick-fucker introduced his victim to his mother...


Even by their recent standard, that's a spectacularly weak denial.

Technically, "there is nothing to suggest that this claim is true. We have no record of such a meeting" isn't even a denial at all.

Equally, her father saying he remembers her saying 'she met the queen' is itself a bit indirect. Have to see if Virginia Roberts repeats it. Certainly ramps things up in terms of the public discussion of the matter, even if it has no obvious bearing on the abuse issue. If it is true it also makes it more difficult for the palace PR lot to simply stick with 'he did not have sex with that woman' line, though they'll be desperate to do just that.

 

[bluescreen]

Whether or not he had sex with her is beside the point. Whether he sexually assaulted a minor is a different matter.

 

[bluescreen]

Actually, can we start saying "they had sex together" rather than suggesting it's something the man does to the woman? That might help the idea it's supposed to be mutual and consensual.

 

[Wilf]

Whether or not he had sex with her is beside the point. Whether he sexually assaulted a minor is a different matter.

Yeah, I know (and you are quite right to point that out). I was just trying to parody the kind of language (and thus attempt to frame the issue) that the palace PR are using. But yes, exactly, this is about (alleged) sexual assault.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Anyone unfortunate enough to observe the obsequious fawning of people around the rich, powerful and famous will know that a prince can get shagged and their cocked sucked for free even from their male grovellers.

If he's anything like his great-grandfather and great-uncles, he'd prefer to visit a brothel.

At least the 'sex slave' was smart enough to get paid for it.

What an utterly dickwipe thing to say. Utterly misses the possible dynamics of the situation, i.e. 1 relatively-powerless young female in a world of powerful people.

It looks like she's going for double bubble...

"Double bubble"? So seeking fair recompense for violation is "going for double bubble" now, is it? wanker.

...and I'd be surprised if they nail Alan Dershowitz who could spot an ambulance chasing chancer lawyer a mile off.

Yeah, 'cos Dershowitz hasn't been nailed before, he's actually a superhuman lawyering machine, rather than a pompous, self-regarding liar and plagiarist whose former students know all his tricks.
Read up on him some time, and not on his wikipedia page, which he constantly edits to remove truths he doesn't like known. Just because he may be able to spot an ambulance chaser (takes one to know one), doesn't mean he can take them on and win if they've got a case.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Suppose for the sake of argument that he doesn't get away with what he allegedly did. What will the likely broader consequences be? Lasting damage to the monarchy?

I'm not sure about "lasting". After all, 120 years ago it was pretty much public knowledge about Prince Eddy sticking his cock in anything vaguely orifice-like, and that most of his male relatives were similarly laissez faire about their fornicatory arrangements. If any evidence emerges to implicate Andrew Windsor, then I've no doubt that the monarchy's excellent public relations operation will go into overdrive in presenting him as a victim of unscrupulous businessmen - an innocent abroad, if you will.

 

[ViolentPanda]

'You mean Norman Finkelstein? Not all readers of this thread may know that Dershowitz-Finkelstein, one of the great feuds of our time, started as a result of Finkelstein's rebuttal of Dershowitz's Zionist claims...

Surely "started as a result of Dershowitz's plagiarised Zionist claims"?

 

[Citizen66]

Although there was that week in late summer 1997 when she didn't shit at all.

Maybe the colonic irrigation gets logged in different records.

 

[youngian]

If he's anything like his great-grandfather and great-uncles, he'd prefer to visit a brothel.



What an utterly dickwipe thing to say. Utterly misses the possible dynamics of the situation, i.e. 1 relatively-powerless young female in a world of powerful people.



"Double bubble"? So seeking fair recompense for violation is "going for double bubble" now, is it? wanker.



Yeah, 'cos Dershowitz hasn't been nailed before, he's actually a superhuman lawyering machine, rather than a pompous, self-regarding liar and plagiarist whose former students know all his tricks.
Read up on him some time, and not on his wikipedia page, which he constantly edits to remove truths he doesn't like known. Just because he may be able to spot an ambulance chaser (takes one to know one), doesn't mean he can take them on and win if they've got a case.

Yes you're 100% right, the whole post was a load of assumptions and prejudices based on unproven allegations for a trial that hasn't taken place. You are of course correct to point out that is a fatuous thing to do. But it appears Prince Andrew is a member of the establishment lizard men paedophile ring so is not entitled to the presumption of innocence. And from reading the online legal experts on this thread I am supposed to conclude that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and shake my pitchfork. As its a US trial pending we're all entitled to our opinion, in this country we quite rightly are not as its contempt of court.

Anyone can defend the right to the presumption of innocence if its a boy scout or school girl, the question is are you prepared to defend that principle when it is someone as odious as Prince Andrew. By the looks of this thread evidently not. That's why I wrote such a daft post, to see who would move from Kelvin McKenzie to Helena Kennedy in one easy move.

 

[ViolentPanda]

sort of. The DM is good at getting news that fits its agenda but ignores so much that conflicts with its agenda . I want journalists to start following the money- during the time this was going on the Grand Old Duke of York was the UKs Special Representative for International Trade and Investment. Being a prince opens doors, and he's been linked to arms deals and corruption worldwide, which is exactly what he was expected to do. Fine, if sick, that's what the poxy royals are for. But what was in all this for Epstein? Why was he spending 10 grand to supply his 'friend' with a well groomed young woman?

Offering access to a harem is one of the oldest and most obvious ways to buy influence. As a prince the godoy must have been trained from birth to be suspicious of anyone bearing such gifts, to question their motivation, to avoid the possibility of being manipulated or blackmailed, to act as a statesman. I want journalists to uncover what access and influence the godoy gave Epstein in return, and I'm not looking to the DM to provide that.

With regard to Andrew Windsor's supposed "special rep" role, Private Eye have been following his (mis-)adventures for about a decade, within the bounds of what they can find out via FOI and contacts in various govt depts, so there's obviously evidence out there to be had.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe the colonic irrigation gets logged in different records.

no, the mass and description of the royal shit is recorded by the lord privy chamber, a position currently held by lord ashton of great yarmouth, who also has the honour of wiping the royal backside.

 

[laptop]

Actually, can we start saying "they had sex together" rather than suggesting it's something the man does to the woman? That might help the idea it's supposed to be mutual and consensual.

That would depend on, er, the facts.

 

[kenny g]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...els-sex-claims-at-alan-dershowitz-200495.html states Alan D is a co-defendant to a claim.

“One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands,” the legal pleading added.

 

[Pickman's model]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...els-sex-claims-at-alan-dershowitz-200495.html states Alan D is a co-defendant to a claim.

hurrah

i hope finkelstein's called by the prosecution to give evidence of dershowitz's mendacious ways

perhaps the entire text of 'beyond chutzpah' will be read into the record

 

[goldenecitrone]

Although there was that week in late summer 1997 when she didn't shit at all.

God, yeah. Her anus horribilis. Who could forget that?

 

[Pickman's model]

God, yeah. Her anus horribilis. Who could forget that?

her annus anus was of course 1992

 

[Wilf]

This:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-denies-underage-sex-claims-buckingham-palace
and all the other stories give an indication of the chat that's going on between several papers and the various palace courtiers. However it also looks like a one way deal. They don't seem able to ask even the most basic and obvious questions - 'so did he go to a club with her in London? Did he meet her in the Virgin Islands?'. For once the 'palace spokespersons' seem very chatty, but the journos don't seem willing to do anything to risk the access they are getting.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes you're 100% right, the whole post was a load of assumptions and prejudices based on unproven allegations for a trial that hasn't taken place. You are of course correct to point out that is a fatuous thing to do. Prince Andrew however is a member of the establishment lizard men paedophile ring is of course not entitled to the presumption of innocence and from the online legal experts on this thread is without doubt guilty.

Of course he's entitled to the presumption of innocence.
In criminal justice proceedings, which are the only place that the legal presumption of innocence actually applies. In effect what you're saying is "don't speculate, because it's unfair to the bloke who has access to near-unlimited funds for his defence, and an excellent public relations operation".

 

[youngian]

Of course he's entitled to the presumption of innocence.
In criminal justice proceedings, which are the only place that the legal presumption of innocence actually applies. In effect what you're saying is "don't speculate, because it's unfair to the bloke who has access to near-unlimited funds for his defence, and an excellent public relations operation".

Well spotted its speculating and therefore worthless tittle-tattle. A bit like excellent public relations operations which are also worthless when trials are concerned.

 

[Wilf]

Yes you're 100% right, the whole post was a load of assumptions and prejudices based on unproven allegations for a trial that hasn't taken place. You are of course correct to point out that is a fatuous thing to do. But it appears Prince Andrew is a member of the establishment lizard men paedophile ring so is not entitled to the presumption of innocence. And from reading the online legal experts on this thread I am supposed to conclude that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and shake my pitchfork. As its a US trial pending we're all entitled to our opinion, in this country we quite rightly are not as its contempt of court.

Anyone can defend the right to the presumption of innocence if its a boy scout or school girl, the question is are you prepared to defend that principle when it is someone as odious as Prince Andrew. By the looks of this thread evidently not.

I'm not sure you've got the right to claim the moral highground after some of the assumptions you made about the alleged victim and her motives. You are though right on one thing, as Citizen66 said, we should at the very least be observing the 'alleged' convention and limiting our speculation (something I've been guilty of certainly).

There's a difference though. The various lefty/anarcho/anti-royalist posters have been making assumptions about windsor on the basis of his past behaviour, links with epstein and the general doings of wealth and power. Yes, we perhaps shouldn't be translating that into an assumption about guilt in this particular case. However you have no reason whatsover to start maligning the alleged victim.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not sure you've got the right to claim the moral highground after some of the assumptions you made about the alleged victim and her motives. You are though right on one thing, as Citizen66 said, we should at the very least be observing the 'alleged' convention and limiting our speculation (something I've been guilty of certainly).

There's a difference though. The various lefty/anarcho/anti-royalist posters have been making assumptions about windsor on the basis of his past behaviour, links with epstein and the general doings of wealth and power. Yes, we perhaps shouldn't be translating that into an assumption about guilt in this particular case. However you have no reason whatsover to start maligning the alleged victim.

by god he does

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not sure you've got the right to claim the moral highground after some of the assumptions you made about the alleged victim and her motives. You are though right on one thing, as Citizen66 said, we should at the very least be observing the 'alleged' convention and limiting our speculation (something I've been guilty of certainly).

There's a difference though. The various lefty/anarcho/anti-royalist posters have been making assumptions about windsor on the basis of his past behaviour, links with epstein and the general doings of wealth and power. Yes, we perhaps shouldn't be translating that into an assumption about guilt in this particular case. However you have no reason whatsover to start maligning the alleged victim.

his several posts indicate a greater affinity with the accused than the accuser

 

[Diamond]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...els-sex-claims-at-alan-dershowitz-200495.html states Alan D is a co-defendant to a claim.

The only defendants to the claim are the federal prosecutors.

They are being sued over the terms of the plea bargain.

It's a fine point but it's worth appreciating that Prince Andrew, Dershowitz, Maxwell etc... none of them are being sued and none of them are parties to this particular dispute.

(edited to correct to federal rather than state)

 

[SpookyFrank]

A bit like excellent public relations operations which are also worthless when trials are concerned.

Unless you get one of those juries with members of the public on it.