Prince Andrew “Let the side down”

[AlphonseCapone]

2 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

I just don't understand why he agreed to do this interview in the first place, especially when it would appear that Virginia Roberts was of the legal age of consent on the three occasions she alleges that she & Prince Andrew had sex together. 

 

If that is the case then what is he so worried about? 

Or am I missing something here?

 

36 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Absolutely, but the media seem to be making her age the issue, take the sky ticker tape at the bottom of their screen, it emphasizes that she was only 17 at the time, even on here some posters have labeled him as a child molester or a paedo, presumably because those posters think Virginia Roberts was underage, which it looks likely she wasn't underage, well not at the time of the alleged contacts she claims she had with Prince Andrew. 

 

What is being talked about less is the allegations that Virginia Roberts & others were allegedly being passed around Epstein's friends, it doesn't really matter what age they were, it was what was happening to those girls that is the primary issue.

 

I think Prince Andrew has made a huge error of judgement in giving this interview, especially as it ended up being a total car crash, however he was clearly under pressure to try and explain why he remained friends and even stayed with Epstein after Epstein had been convicted and jailed for having sex with underage girls, Prince A. should have had no contact whatsoever with Epstein after that, but the fact that he did, is quite damning in my mind.

 

Was it not the case that she was 17 during the alleged Florida incident which is below the legal age of consent in that jurisdiction?

[Bridge of Djoum]

2 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

 

Was it not the case that she was 17 during the alleged Florida incident which is below the legal age of consent in that jurisdiction?

I believe 17 is the age of consent if the other partner is 23 or under. Pertaining to Florida. Not sure when that bill was passed, however.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A friend told me...

[Prince Buaben]

[Jambo-Jimbo]

23 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

 

Was it not the case that she was 17 during the alleged Florida incident which is below the legal age of consent in that jurisdiction?

 

Don't recall Florida ever being mentioned, London, New York & Epstein's private Island in the Virgin Islands are the only three Virginia Roberts has claimed.

Age of consent:

UK = 16

New York = 17

Virgin Islands = 18 (for US) 16 (British)

 

[Bridge of Djoum]

8 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Don't recall Florida ever being mentioned, London, New York & Epstein's private Island in the Virgin Islands are the only three Virginia Roberts has claimed.

Age of consent:

UK = 16

New York = 17

Virgin Islands = 18 (for US) 16 (British)

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 minute ago, Bridge of Djoum said:

 

Of course it's a pure coincidence that Epstein owned a private Island there.  😃

[Bridge of Djoum]

4 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Of course it's a pure coincidence that Epstein owned a private Island there.  😃

Jesus missed a trick not living on Easter Island

 

Santa with Christmas Island

 

Good old Jeff got it spot on.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

38 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

 

Was it not the case that she was 17 during the alleged Florida incident which is below the legal age of consent in that jurisdiction?

 

"Ms Roberts Giuffre has alleged in court documents she “was forced to have sexual relations with this prince when she was a minor” in London and New York."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-newsnight-interview-epstein-virginia-giuffre-sex-underage-a9206191.html

 

She obviously doesn't realise the legal age of consent in the UK is 16, she was aged 17 and therefore not a minor in UK law at the time of the alleged encounter in London with P.A.

Unless the law has changed in New York since 2001, then the age of consent in N.Y. is 17, therefore may not have been a minor there either, will admit I don't know for certain what the age of consent was in New York in 2001.

 

 

[maroonlegions]

[AlphonseCapone]

34 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

"Ms Roberts Giuffre has alleged in court documents she “was forced to have sexual relations with this prince when she was a minor” in London and New York."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-andrew-newsnight-interview-epstein-virginia-giuffre-sex-underage-a9206191.html

 

She obviously doesn't realise the legal age of consent in the UK is 16, she was aged 17 and therefore not a minor in UK law at the time of the alleged encounter in London with P.A.

Unless the law has changed in New York since 2001, then the age of consent in N.Y. is 17, therefore may not have been a minor there either, will admit I don't know for certain what the age of consent was in New York in 2001.

 

 

 

Looks like it was still 17 then. I guess the crime is the forced aspect. I checked the Florida thing and it was just one of Epstein's places he spent time rather than any accusations from this individual.

[Maple Leaf]

I have no idea what he did, with whom, or when.  Maybe nothing, with anyone, ever.

 

But the answers he gave in that interview were so much bullshit it's laughable.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Maple Leaf said:

I have no idea what he did, with whom, or when.  Maybe nothing, with anyone, ever.

 

But the answers he gave in that interview were so much bullshit it's laughable.

 

Do they still have the queen in Canada?

[Maple Leaf]

12 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Do they still have the queen in Canada?

 

Unfortunately, yes.  The UK queen is also the Canadian queen.  That's laughable too!

[Tynieman]

6 hours ago, Sarah O said:

Not at all what I'm suggesting. What I was getting at is that after generations of inbreeding there are certainly a few crazies in there. 

 

The sooner they are abolished the better.

 

Here here 👍

[Unknown user]

11 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Unfortunately, yes.  The UK queen is also the Canadian queen.  That's laughable too!

 

Canadolences

[Jambo-Jimbo]

9 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Looks like it was still 17 then. I guess the crime is the forced aspect. I checked the Florida thing and it was just one of Epstein's places he spent time rather than any accusations from this individual.

 

As it has now been established that Virginia Roberts wasn't a minor nor underage at the time of any of her alleged encounters with Prince Andrew, then why is he in such a panic, he was a single man in 2001, she was a consenting adult, albeit a young adult, but no laws were broken if they did have sex, so why the panic.

 

The media is pushing like feck her age, only 17, only 17, she was only 17, and people have fallen into the trap, but her age is a red herring, it's to get people thinking that she was a minor or underage and concentrate on that instead of looking at the more damning aspect that Ms Roberts-Giuffre and many others were allegedly being trafficked for the pleasure of the rich & famous, that is the real issue which the media don't want folks to concentrate on.

 

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

21 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Canadolences

[Better call Saul]

16 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

As it has now been established that Virginia Roberts wasn't a minor nor underage at the time of any of her alleged encounters with Prince Andrew, then why is he in such a panic, he was a single man in 2001, she was a consenting adult, albeit a young adult, but no laws were broken if they did have sex, so why the panic.

 

The media is pushing like feck her age, only 17, only 17, she was only 17, and people have fallen into the trap, but her age is a red herring, it's to get people thinking that she was a minor or underage and concentrate on that instead of looking at the more damning aspect that Ms Roberts-Giuffre and many others were allegedly being trafficked for the pleasure of the rich & famous, that is the real issue which the media don't want folks to concentrate on.

 

 

F

Fair point about the lassie being 17 .. But I am curious with others aspects of his relationship with epstien knowing what he was, knowing he was being charged with the obvious yet still Continued to visit him stay with him and has dodged certain questions. 

Edited November 17, 2019 by Ferris Bueller

[Jambo-Jimbo]

9 minutes ago, Ferris Bueller said:

Fair point about the lassie being 17 .. But I am curious with others aspects of his relationship with epstien knowing what he was, knowing he was being charged with the obvious yet still Continued to visit him stay with him and has dodged certain questions. 

 

Indeed, that is just strange and imo damning for Prince Andrew, who has just brought all this needless attention upon himself.

 

If it had been me and someone I was friends with who was then later to have been convicted of even half the crimes Epstein was jailed for, I wouldn't in a million years ever contact them again, let alone visit and stay in their house, especially if I were a public figure, I mean you don't have to be a genius to know that the media will be sniffing around you trying to get a story and that is either if you are innocent of anything or have something to hide, why would you risk it either way, unless of course whatever your friend had done you didn't think was a problem, therefore you remain friends.

[vegas-voss]

He probably thought it was going to be good old Nicholas doing the interview and shit it the moment he walked in the room.

[Better call Saul]

He said about the picture that was taken with the girl " I couldn't have been in that photo as the photo was Taken upstairs and I have never been upstairs in that house  '..... So if you've never been upstairs how do you know it was taken upstairs 

 

And to add... just say...." I never had my picture taken with that girl" rather than making more escuses. 

[Glottis]

30 minutes ago, Ferris Bueller said:

He said about the picture that was taken with the girl " I couldn't have been in that photo as the photo was Taken upstairs and I have never been upstairs in that house  '..... So if you've never been upstairs how do you know it was taken upstairs 

 

And to add... just say...." I never had my picture taken with that girl" rather than making more escuses. 

 

The stairs are in the photo.*

 

 

*This does not mean I believe him.

He pumped her.

 

 

[Better call Saul]

11 minutes ago, Glottis said:

 

The stairs are in the photo.*

 

 

*This does not mean I believe him.

He pumped her.

 

 

That's what I get for jumping in with two feet 🤣😝

[Maroon Sailor]

Andrew has always been a tosser of the highest order

 

I believe he didn't even wet the baby's head when he was on HMS Edinburgh.

 

Never met Charles, but have met Anne and Edward and the most down to earth is Anne by a country mile.

 

 

[Pans Jambo]

Why was staying in Epstein’s gaff AFTER the shitstorm “the honourable thing”?

 

Honourable?

[TheOak88]

3 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

As it has now been established that Virginia Roberts wasn't a minor nor underage at the time of any of her alleged encounters with Prince Andrew, then why is he in such a panic, he was a single man in 2001, she was a consenting adult, albeit a young adult, but no laws were broken if they did have sex, so why the panic.

 

The media is pushing like feck her age, only 17, only 17, she was only 17, and people have fallen into the trap, but her age is a red herring, it's to get people thinking that she was a minor or underage and concentrate on that instead of looking at the more damning aspect that Ms Roberts-Giuffre and many others were allegedly being trafficked for the pleasure of the rich & famous, that is the real issue which the media don't want folks to concentrate on.

 

 

 

 

I don't think you are getting this. 

 

She was not a consenting adult. 

[TheOak88]

2 hours ago, Ferris Bueller said:

He said about the picture that was taken with the girl " I couldn't have been in that photo as the photo was Taken upstairs and I have never been upstairs in that house  '..... So if you've never been upstairs how do you know it was taken upstairs 

 

And to add... just say...." I never had my picture taken with that girl" rather than making more escuses. 

 

There is literally a flight of stairs right next to them in the photo. 

[Better call Saul]

6 hours ago, TheOak88 said:

 

There is literally a flight of stairs right next to them in the photo. 

Commented already of my mistake.. photo I seen on twitter looked more cropped. 

[I P Knightley]

13 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

As it has now been established that Virginia Roberts wasn't a minor nor underage at the time of any of her alleged encounters with Prince Andrew, then why is he in such a panic, he was a single man in 2001, she was a consenting adult, albeit a young adult, but no laws were broken if they did have sex, so why the panic.

 

The media is pushing like feck her age, only 17, only 17, she was only 17, and people have fallen into the trap, but her age is a red herring, it's to get people thinking that she was a minor or underage and concentrate on that instead of looking at the more damning aspect that Ms Roberts-Giuffre and many others were allegedly being trafficked for the pleasure of the rich & famous, that is the real issue which the media don't want folks to concentrate on.

 

 

 

I'm going with the point that she was "forced" to have sex with Prince Randy Andy - as he was known in the 1980s, for the benefit of the younger JKBers - being more damning than the fact that she is only a couple of years older than his daughters. The latter, though legal, is creepy; the former would deserve the jail. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

10 hours ago, TheOak88 said:

 

I don't think you are getting this. 

 

She was not a consenting adult. 

 

What I meant & what I thought was clear, was that she was of consenting adult age, especially as the media mention that she was only 17 at the time of the alleged incidences, inferring that somehow her age is the only relevant thing in all of this, whilst bearly touching upon the allegation that Ms Roberts and many others were allegedly forced into having sex with Epstein's friends, something which I do mention on more than one occassion, but maybe you missed that part of my posts.

 

If I didn't make what I meant clear enough, I hope I have now done so.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

6 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

I'm going with the point that she was "forced" to have sex with Prince Randy Andy - as he was known in the 1980s, for the benefit of the younger JKBers - being more damning than the fact that she is only a couple of years older than his daughters. The latter, though legal, is creepy; the former would deserve the jail. 

 

That's the whole point, and that's the point I'm trying to get over and make clear, that Ms Roberts & others were allegedly forced into having sex with Epstein's friends, the media want yous all to concentrate on her age, hence why they mention it in just about every report, and bearly mention the alleged pimping of young girls to the rich & famous, they want yous to be looking in the wrong place and asking the wrong questions.

 

[doctor jambo]

13 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

That's the whole point, and that's the point I'm trying to get over and make clear, that Ms Roberts & others were allegedly forced into having sex with Epstein's friends, the media want yous all to concentrate on her age, hence why they mention it in just about every report, and bearly mention the alleged pimping of young girls to the rich & famous, they want yous to be looking in the wrong place and asking the wrong questions.

 

There are a number of difficult issues with this.

1- how could you know she was "forced"- you probably couldn't, unless you knew Epstein was a trafficker. Its tricky. Young men and women being provided for guests is not exactly unusual- be they prostitutes, "models" , "party people" or at the playboy mansion, or on a yacht. It happens. Its unpleasant but not uncommon. If you attended an event and there were attractive people there willing to indulge you, unless you questioned them about why they were there you would be oblivious.

2- the age thing. She was 17.  It was legal here, and the outrage over her age is a non starter. Its creepy- but "older age rich dude has sex with younger woman" is fairly standard- apart from Keanu Reeves most older rich guys go out with much younger women. Pretty standard too.

 

The big question is - did he know she was trafficked? If he did that is massive.

If he did not, then that is that.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

6 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

There are a number of difficult issues with this.

1- how could you know she was "forced"- you probably couldn't, unless you knew Epstein was a trafficker. Its tricky. Young men and women being provided for guests is not exactly unusual- be they prostitutes, "models" , "party people" or at the playboy mansion, or on a yacht. It happens. Its unpleasant but not uncommon. If you attended an event and there were attractive people there willing to indulge you, unless you questioned them about why they were there you would be oblivious.

2- the age thing. She was 17.  It was legal here, and the outrage over her age is a non starter. Its creepy- but "older age rich dude has sex with younger woman" is fairly standard- apart from Keanu Reeves most older rich guys go out with much younger women. Pretty standard too.

 

The big question is - did he know she was trafficked? If he did that is massive.

If he did not, then that is that.

 

1. Exactly, and as you quite rightly say, is what did he know at the time, and you are quite right to mention the social circles that P.A. moves in, it is common knowledge that they are filled with young females.

Surely though there had to be rumours, whispers within the circles that P.A. moved in about Epstein, I'd find it incredible if there weren't, but once again it all comes down to what P.A. knew or didn't know, or even didn't want to know or believe.

After Epstein was jailed then P.A. has no such excuse of not knowing what Epstein had done, surely alarm bells should have been going of in his head, maybe they were, that is something I don't know, however to then visit and stay with Epstein after his release from prison, is at the very least extremely poor judgement on the part of P.A. and does open P.A. up to all manner of questions about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

 

2. As I've said the age thing is a red herring, it's to get people talking about that, rather than asking more damning questions.

 

The big question is, quite rightly, what did P.A. know at the time, with Epstein gone, then perhaps Ghislaine Maxwell could shed some light on this and many many more questions.  Has she been questioned by the Police, must have been, surely.

 

[doctor jambo]

3 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

1. Exactly, and as you quite rightly say, is what did he know at the time, and you are quite right to mention the social circles that P.A. moves in, it is common knowledge that they are filled with young females.

Surely though there had to be rumours, whispers within the circles that P.A. moved in about Epstein, I'd find it incredible if there weren't, but once again it all comes down to what P.A. knew or didn't know, or even didn't want to know or believe.

After Epstein was jailed then P.A. has no such excuse of not knowing what Epstein had done, surely alarm bells should have been going of in his head, maybe they were, that is something I don't know, however to then visit and stay with Epstein after his release from prison, is at the very least extremely poor judgement on the part of P.A. and does open P.A. up to all manner of questions about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

 

2. As I've said the age thing is a red herring, it's to get people talking about that, rather than asking more damning questions.

 

The big question is, quite rightly, what did P.A. know at the time, with Epstein gone, then perhaps Ghislaine Maxwell could shed some light on this and many many more questions.  Has she been questioned by the Police, must have been, surely.

 

The other thing that should have been pointed out, is that Maxwell owed all her money, wealth and influence to the fact her father was an utter crook, and the Royals should not be counting such people as "friends".

You should be wary of whom you associate with.

Its his "I can do what the hell I like, I'm Prince Andrew" that has gotten him into this predicament.

[Boab]

Best comment on this debacle I’ve heard is the woman on the BBC who, in so many words, called him an idiot. Not startling news but explains everything. The man’s an idiot.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Boab

[TheOak88]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

What I meant & what I thought was clear, was that she was of consenting adult age, especially as the media mention that she was only 17 at the time of the alleged incidences, inferring that somehow her age is the only relevant thing in all of this, whilst bearly touching upon the allegation that Ms Roberts and many others were allegedly forced into having sex with Epstein's friends, something which I do mention on more than one occassion, but maybe you missed that part of my posts.

 

If I didn't make what I meant clear enough, I hope I have now done so.

 

 

Her age is relevant in this case. That’s probably why the news are mentioning it. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Just now, TheOak88 said:

 

Her age is relevant in this case. That’s probably why the news are mentioning it. 

 

Tell me why you think that her age is relevant.

[TheOak88]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Tell me why you think that her age is relevant.

 

Ok, so the charge that is being banded about is Child Sex Trafficking.

 

In the eyes of the law, you are not legally an adult until you are 18. The girl was 17, as such not a legal adult, and as such this means the crime (if one was committed) would qualify as Child Sex Trafficking. 

 

Although, for example, the age of consent in the UK is 16, there are still laws in place to protect legal minors when it comes to sex abuse. For example, say a teacher has sex with their 17 year old pupil. This is illegal. Regardless of the fact the girl is old enough to consent. 

 

Does this help?

[¼½¾]

On 16/11/2019 at 22:59, Trapper John McIntyre said:

'I don't sweat'

 

The disorder which stopped him sweating affects people differently.  It can affect the whole body, patches over the body or a localised area.

 

When the girl said he was sweating profusely, she didn't specify where he was sweating. I reckon he had a profusely sweating sheugh.

[doctor jambo]

2 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

 

Ok, so the charge that is being banded about is Child Sex Trafficking.

 

In the eyes of the law, you are not legally an adult until you are 18. The girl was 17, as such not a legal adult, and as such this means the crime (if one was committed) would qualify as Child Sex Trafficking. 

 

Although, for example, the age of consent in the UK is 16, there are still laws in place to protect legal minors when it comes to sex abuse. For example, say a teacher has sex with their 17 year old pupil. This is illegal. Regardless of the fact the girl is old enough to consent. 

 

Does this help?

Not really.......

Unless you are aware that she was trafficked.

Otherwise every teeny bopper who heads to Magaluf  aged 16/17 who ends up with a barman or bouncer would have them arrested, which is obviously not the case.

This unseemly haste to brand everyone a paedo is, well, a bit over the top, when in this case it is patently untrue- and that is what is being insinuated -"underage " .

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

5 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

 

Ok, so the charge that is being banded about is Child Sex Trafficking.

 

In the eyes of the law, you are not legally an adult until you are 18. The girl was 17, as such not a legal adult, and as such this means the crime (if one was committed) would qualify as Child Sex Trafficking. 

 

Although, for example, the age of consent in the UK is 16, there are still laws in place to protect legal minors when it comes to sex abuse. For example, say a teacher has sex with their 17 year old pupil. This is illegal. Regardless of the fact the girl is old enough to consent. 

 

Does this help?

 

Against Prince Andrew? 

 

[TheOak88]

5 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Against Prince Andrew? 

 

 

Potentially that he was involved yeah. 

[TheOak88]

8 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Not really.......

Unless you are aware that she was trafficked.

Otherwise every teeny bopper who heads to Magaluf  aged 16/17 who ends up with a barman or bouncer would have them arrested, which is obviously not the case.

This unseemly haste to brand everyone a paedo is, well, a bit over the top, when in this case it is patently untrue- and that is what is being insinuated -"underage " .

 

 

No offence but that is a ridiculous comparison to draw. 

 

You seem very very keen to class this as a misdemeanour/misunderstanding. 

 

 

 

 

[doctor jambo]

5 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

 

No offence but that is a ridiculous comparison to draw. 

 

You seem very very keen to class this as a misdemeanour/misunderstanding. 

 

 

 

 

It is until we know he was aware of the trafficking

[TheOak88]

1 minute ago, doctor jambo said:

It is until we know he was aware of the trafficking

 

We don’t know the answer to that question so no point debating it. 

 

A poster asked me why the girl’s age was relevant and I explained why. Because PA is potentially going to be investigated as to his involvement in child sex trafficking or soliciting of an underage prostitute. 

 

I haven’t said at any point a crime has been committed as we don’t know yet if one has or not. I was just clarifying the relevance of the girls age to any investigation and why the media are reporting it as a material fact. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

13 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

 

We don’t know the answer to that question so no point debating it. 

 

A poster asked me why the girl’s age was relevant and I explained why. Because PA is potentially going to be investigated as to his involvement in child sex trafficking or soliciting of an underage prostitute. 

 

I haven’t said at any point a crime has been committed as we don’t know yet if one has or not. I was just clarifying the relevance of the girls age to any investigation and why the media are reporting it as a material fact. 

 

I believe that the media are using her age as a cynical ploy to deflect attention away from more serious implications such as the 'forced to have sex' aspect.

You believe that the media are highlighting her age for any future investigation in child sex trafficking.

 

Seems to me that we aren't that far apart from each other, as we only disagree on the use of her age, what we both agree on is that there could be far more serious implications for P.A. to come out of this, it all depends on what he knew at the time.

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, TheOak88 said:

 

Her age is relevant in this case. That’s probably why the news are mentioning it. 

 

He says he never met her. He said that repeatedly. If he's telling the truth, then her age is not relevant.

[Robbo-Jambo]

22 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

He says he never met her. He said that repeatedly. If he's telling the truth, then her age is not relevant.

Correct

[TheOak88]

36 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

He says he never met her. He said that repeatedly. If he's telling the truth, then her age is not relevant.

 

Did you mean to quote me?

 

I never said he met her?

[Maple Leaf]

13 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

 

Did you mean to quote me?

 

I never said he met her?

 

Apologies.