Jeffery Epstein and friends

[1701-e]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Wonder if Andy will qualify for Univeral Credit?

New title..... The rapist formerly known as Prince

[thenry]

Originally Posted by thenry

Will he kill himself too

there's hope he's still 8th in line for the throne

Originally Posted by thenry

there's hope he's still 8th in line for the throne

Not for long - he’s being written out of the line of succession. Princess Anne moves up one.

---------- Post added at 18:39 ---------- Previous post was at 17:48 ----------

Edit … el gov now saying they’re not removing him. I’m guessing this might be because they need the same line of succession everywhere the king is still the king, necessitating acts of parliament in 15 countries.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

Well you could always read the whole quote

Point taken,

Apologies.

Originally Posted by Chris

Edit … el gov now saying they’re not removing him.

Its not like it really makes any practical difference.

[thenry]

Originally Posted by Paul

Its not like it really makes any practical difference.

It practically gives him a hard on. Heaven knows where he'd be without some sort of recognition.

Originally Posted by thenry

Will he kill himself too

[Sephiroth]

The government are right not to remove him from the succession. It opens a huge can of worms where the government would taste the ability (which they will still have) of getting rid of someone they don't want to be King.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The government are right not to remove him from the succession. It opens a huge can of worms where the government would taste the ability (which they will still have) of getting rid of someone they don't want to be King.

I mean no, it’s not as if they’ve ever used a Dutch Duke to chase the reigning monarch out of the country and declare him abdicated in absentia is it. Or drag a king to the tower and hack his bonce off.

Thankfully Parliament has more recently chosen to pass legislation in order to ensure the heir is determined by law rather than by pure birthright. Three times, most recently in 2013.

[jem]

Originally Posted by Chris

I mean no, it’s not as if they’ve ever used a Dutch Duke to chase the reigning monarch out of the country and declare him abdicated in absentia is it. Or drag a king to the tower and hack his bonce off.

Thankfully Parliament has more recently chosen to pass legislation in order to ensure the heir is determined by law rather than by pure birthright. Three times, most recently in 2013.

Yes indeed, Parliament, effectively the Commons, is legally ‘supreme’. The next monarch is one that Parliament decides will be. Naturally it will be William because they have no reason to deny it?

Removing Andrew from the line of succession does require an Act of Parliament, but as he is, what, 8th in line, it doesn’t really seem necessary. Of course is things were to change due to some really unlikely catastrophic issue then I suspect that Parliament would act so fast it will make his head spin!

[damien c]

So I have not really kept up with this so please excuse me if I am missing something here.

First part:

I fail to understand why he is being labelled as a Pedo/Rapist etc, that is Andrew when from what I can see no seems to be able to prove he did anything?

The commentary on TV etc never mentions any police reports, DNA, the only thing that seems to be mentioned is "Her Words" and a "Photo" that they say people cannot confirm if it's legit or fake??

If that is all there is, then this is another case of a Man being found guilty of something just because a women says so and it's wrong, annoying and quite frankly sickening that again another man has his life ruined because of an allegation.


Second Part (Probably more important):
There is though the other side of it, that there are reports he paid her off after the first time she accused him and made her sign an NDA?

If that is the case, that makes him look real guilty to me because, I am sorry but no man knowing it will basically end his career, reputation etc sign an NDA and payoff a false accuser, so that makes me think there was something that happened??


The mainstream media and anti-royals seem to be saying that "Because he was friends with epstein he is guilty" but if that is the case, why are they not saying the same for everyone that was friends with him, why is it only Andrew?



Am I missing something here, is there more to this than what is being shown on the news etc or is it something that we will probably never know fully what was going on?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by damien c

So I have not really kept up with this so please excuse me if I am missing something here.

First part:

I fail to understand why he is being labelled as a Pedo/Rapist etc, that is Andrew when from what I can see no seems to be able to prove he did anything?

The commentary on TV etc never mentions any police reports, DNA, the only thing that seems to be mentioned is "Her Words" and a "Photo" that they say people cannot confirm if it's legit or fake??

If that is all there is, then this is another case of a Man being found guilty of something just because a women says so and it's wrong, annoying and quite frankly sickening that again another man has his life ruined because of an allegation.


Second Part (Probably more important):
There is though the other side of it, that there are reports he paid her off after the first time she accused him and made her sign an NDA?

If that is the case, that makes him look real guilty to me because, I am sorry but no man knowing it will basically end his career, reputation etc sign an NDA and payoff a false accuser, so that makes me think there was something that happened??


The mainstream media and anti-royals seem to be saying that "Because he was friends with epstein he is guilty" but if that is the case, why are they not saying the same for everyone that was friends with him, why is it only Andrew?



Am I missing something here, is there more to this than what is being shown on the news etc or is it something that we will probably never know fully what was going on?

The man has never been charged with an offence or been near a court of law

people seem to be taking this book as the new gospel according to saint virginia, and as far as i can see this story is now about charlie windsor preserving his opulent lifestyle

He went to the island, his explanations were not at all convincing, and that photo does appear to be real.

It's not enough for a court of law, but people are going to have their own opinions.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Damien

He went to the island, his explanations were not at all convincing, and that photo does appear to be real.

It's not enough for a court of law, but people are going to have their own opinions.

especially so on social media