The Royals

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Surely it's more that they aren't 100% sure of a conviction from the evidence available?

He paid her off, 12 million quid that mommy gave him so she'd drop the case, and now Giuffre is dead.

2 million of which went directly to Giuffre's sex trafficking charity.

So ultimately the taxpayer paid to get him off.

If anyone is any doubt, I'm not sure what to say.

 

[AndyWolves]

He paid her off, 12 million quid that mommy gave him so she'd drop the case, and now Giuffre is dead.

2 million of which went directly to Giuffre's sex trafficking charity.

So ultimately the taxpayer paid to get him off.

If anyone is any doubt, I'm not sure what to say.

Completely agree.

He didn't pay out 12m for no reason at all.

 

[Del Woppio]

If he knows they’re trafficked then he’s an accessory so he should be on trial for it.
If he’s unaware is where I’m approaching it from.

I should state that I have no problem in the authorities going after him. Just can’t understand if it’s so open and shut of a case/cases why he hasn’t been done yet. Being a son of a monarch should not give any immunity to anything in this day and age.

I should bow out at this stage as I’ve got a feeling im looking a bit of a prat for questioning such things.

Even unaware isn't enough cover legally (which he isn't, he's a regular visitor to a sex traffickers private island, and Epstein 'introduced' them. If court rules that any 'reasonable person' would suspect trafficking then you're in the frame for aiding and abetting, and conspiracy, as well as the sex with a minor and soliciting

 

[sycophantia]

He paid her off, 12 million quid that mommy gave him so she'd drop the case, and now Giuffre is dead.

2 million of which went directly to Giuffre's sex trafficking charity.

So ultimately the taxpayer paid to get him off.

If anyone is any doubt, I'm not sure what to say.

I dont think anyone is in doubt, I was just posing the question whether there is a good chance of a jury bringing a conviction.

 

[lemonjelly]

What we do know is he's an habitual liar, who when caught out, lies more deeply. He is incessantly untrustworthy as well as (at best) hugely gullible.
He said he'd cut ties with epstein when epstein was first charged. When photos were published of them together in 2010, he then said he went to end the relationship. We now know the following year he & his vile ex wife we're still preserving that relationship & were "in it together " were close & there was a desire to "play again soon ".

The volume of times he's been dispatched proved strongly suggests his continued denials are unlikely to be true. Public opinion definitely doesn't believe a word he says anymore .

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I dont think anyone is in doubt, I was just posing the question whether there is a good chance of a jury bringing a conviction.

She dropped the case after he paid her off, and killed herself.

Without someone pressing charges, there is no case.

 

[Tredman]

She dropped the case after he paid her off, and killed herself.

Without someone pressing charges, there is no case.

Depends on the local legal jurisdiction I think - pressing charges is not a thing in England if there were an offense committed here. Either way he's got away with it as the star witness is no longer with us. He probably thinks that a win for him.

 

[Wilf Wolf]

Depends on the local legal jurisdiction I think - pressing charges is not a thing in England if there were an offense committed here. Either way he's got away with it as the star witness is no longer with us. He probably thinks that a win for him.

Normal people would think it a win, an entitled twat probably not!

 

[Wellen Wolf]

We were indoctrinated as kids to believe that the royal family's role was purely ceremonial.

In this report it repeatedly refers to a king 'guiding' the government.

Andrew to be stripped of naval title, says UK defence secretary

Former Duke of York to lose honorary rank of vice-admiral a week after having royal title of prince removed

www.theguardian.com

 

[Del Woppio]

Tbf it's Charlie's family, so it's his call imo. It's not as if it's a matter of any operational relevance

 

[lemonjelly]

I think it is more a case of the king working with the government.
The alternative would be the government acts via parliamentary motions. This would take up considerable time and resources.
And that would have happened because parliamentarians would have pushed for it, with risks of some making statements under parliamentary privilege.
So the king grasped the initiative to save parliamentary time etc, plus trying to control some of the narrative as much as possible.

 

[1986]

I think it is more a case of the king working with the government.
The alternative would be the government acts via parliamentary motions. This would take up considerable time and resources.
And that would have happened because parliamentarians would have pushed for it, with risks of some making statements under parliamentary privilege.
So the king grasped the initiative to save parliamentary time etc, plus trying to control some of the narrative as much as possible.

I'd say William has a big say in what's going on too .

 

[AndyWolves]

I wonder what's changed to trigger all of this, unless i'm missing something?

 

[Del Woppio]

It came out recently that he'd lied about when his last contact with Epstein was

 

[lemonjelly]

as did his vile ex wife (i fucking can't stand her).
The pair of them are serial bullshitters, as well as being on the make constantly.
There's also some very spurious links to dodgy crypto people.

 

[Keef]

The book fall of the house of York thats just out, is more about his financial dealings with a small bit of Epstein stuff, reckons Andrew is a useful idiot who is allegedly used by contacts to launder money because he’s never going to have his finances properly scrutinised

 

[Keef]

Locals out and about welcoming Andrew to sandringham

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

So both the King and William and Kate are "deeply concerned" about the revelations in the Epstein files.

No fucking shit. Your family member is clearly up to his fucking neck in it.

Also, I really wish the BBC would refrain from putting "being named in the Epstein files is not an indication of misconduct" in every fucking article. On it's own, maybe that would be the case. However, the photos and email chains that clearly indicate a) he lied through his fucking back teeth on newsnight as everyone else present has basically admitted the Giuffre photo is genuine, b) lied about cutting ties with the convicted sex abuser as he was regularly emailing the pondlife after that date and accepting dinner dates from his little harem, and c) committed misconduct in public office by passing confidential information to a convicted sex abuser within 5 minutes of receiving it are rather more damning. He is guilty as fucking sin, and the whole world knows it. His ex-wife is also just as deep in the shit. And being frank, his daughters don't exactly walk away scot free either - they weren't young kids when they were mixed up in this - they were adults.

 

[Kenny]

Also, I really wish the BBC would refrain from putting "being named in the Epstein files is not an indication of misconduct" in every fucking article.

They are not alone in that. Sky put it after every name they publish in their EF articles.

They are all genuinely terrified of being sued.

 

[Wolftone]

He is guilty as fucking sin, and the whole world knows it.

Yeah but, has to be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Wouldn't want anyone wrongly convicted, would you?