@Cougar – it’s not the media who are making it up as such, it’s a tactic from the girls lawyers to generate publicity/pressure.

It’s our history and the very foundation of our nation

Was this info known by US prosecutors before the plea bargaining?

Edit, Jambo you could say the same about slavery

Its not just the media or this womans lawyers that have made it into a story
prince andrew’s frirendship with and publicly stated support of a notorious paedophile, before and after his conviction has given it legs

against a background of a series of very high profile sexual abuse scandals and Theresa Mays disastrously handled investigation into historic child abuse, public interest is justifiably high

@aa, it’s not clear what the Federal prosecutors knew before they agreed the plea bargain.

It’s our history

So is genocide, slavery and imperialism, to a name a few things.

Do you want those back as well?

“….the very foundation of our nation.”

More like a national embarrassment.

it’s not clear what the Federal prosecutors knew before they agreed the plea bargain.

If they knew this and let it get covered up I reckon releasing all the info is a valid response.

@kimbers, I am not sure I would say Epstein was “notorious”, there are others who’ve done far worse. Prince Andrew apologised for his contact and severed all ties with him. You are quite right to point out the “backdrop” I have no doubt the US lawyers want to create maximum publicity. Theresa May has put forward a number of very credible senior figures to chair the enquiry.

Well we can move on from the Monarchy as it’s clear there won’t be a sensible discussion

It’s our history and the very foundation of our nation

What does that actually mean?

Should there ever be any chance that Teflon Andrew will get into any kind of legal proceedings you can be quite sure that anyone giving evidence will either be paid off or suffer a nasty car accident.
When the royals want rid of you they are very good at “car accidents”. Look at that one in Paris as an example.

22K a week ski chalet? Wonder what extras were included…

Its one of those things I genuinely cannot grasp. Why would anyone think that the concept of royalty is anything other than abhorrent?

Because having a doddery old girl who means well and doesn’t have to worry about pandering to the voters in charge (technically) is slightly less dangerous than some of the alternatives?

Theresa May has put forward a number of very credible senior figures to chair the enquiry.

The victims groups certainly don’t share that opinion. They think the whole thing is a shambolic farce. Thats what it looks like from where I’m sitting too.

What Theresa May has repeatedly demonstrated is that she doesn’t get it at all. And that her idea of ‘independent and impartial’ differs quite considerably from that of the victims, who seem to be being treated as a nuisance, rather than what they are: people who’ve been forced to endure horrific sexual abuse

It is. As opposed to what, an overage minor? An underage major?

Underage minor. That would imply to be someone who has reached neither the age of consent (16) nor the age of majority (18). Since anyone under the age of majority is classed as a minor then yes, it is possible to be an overage minor.

As said, interesting choice of words. He did.

Because having a doddery old girl who means well and doesn’t have to worry about pandering to the voters in charge (technically) is slightly less dangerous than some of the alternatives?

That would a valid line if she did anything other than just agree with the gov of the day.

Its not just the media or this womans lawyers that have made it into a story
prince andrew’s friendship with and publicly stated support of a notorious paedophile, before and after his conviction has given it legs

Kimbers has it: Epstein was running an international racket, with girls as young as 12, hidden cameras n all.

Add to the mix that Prince Andrew is a Heavy Duty Arms Dealer and this is far more of a story than is being generally revealed…

Ive read a few times lately that andrew’s dodgy assossciates might make him unsuitable as a uk trade envoy arms dealer

wtf? this makes him the perfect person to do business with suadi princes,other amoral scumbags like the governments of bahrain, israel, sri lanka, sudan, egypt etc turns out he has the contacts to throw in a few sex slaves as sweeteners

Its just a shame that prince andrew, eppstein etc wont be a receiving a phone call from this guy at some point

Prince Andrew is a Heavy Duty Arms Dealer

As I understand it, He worked for a Government department that promotes UK business abroad.

The UK has an arms industry, which obviously sells stuff abroad, and he did his job by promoting it.

I’m not sure that makes him a “heavy duty arms dealer” does it ?

Perhaps you should do some research neal 😉

Feel free to correct me if my assumptions are wrong.

theres plenty out there on andys dodgy dealings

http://www.channel4.com/news/prince-andrew-cheerleader-in-chief-for-the-arms-industry

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12663378

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrews-trip-to-yemen-was-followed-by-arms-deal-2237614.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/30/prince-andrew-wikileaks-cables

Feel free to correct me if my assumptions are wrong.

Your assumptions are wrong… 😀

#Team JHJ all day !

Always intrigued by the “monarchy is abhorrent” view. Someone else on here recently made a comment about “being a subject”.

Historically our royals have done horrendous things and abused their powers, stuff that makes this story about Prince Andrew look really tame. But given her current mainly symbolic role, I’m fairly “royalist” in my views. I haven’t been persuaded that they do more harm than good – Queenie pays more tax than Starbucks iirc.

But I certainly don’t feel like I’m anyone’s subject. It’s just a part of our national quirkiness.

Just realised I’m babbling and this should probably be another thread.

Queenie pays more tax than Starbucks iirc.

Possibly, but she makes a good deal less coffee.

So if they do nothing why have one family born to inherited privilege? The idea is just wrong imo.

Wonder how many of the weapons that led to (and continue to fuel) the worlds current tragedies Prince Andrew/The Royal Family sold and/or profited from?

Sometimes it almost seems as if it’s a game to deal with whoever has the dodgiest human rights:

Bahrain:

Saudi Arabia:

and candidate for ‘hate week’ Assad (who was nearly knighted)

We are as a country well dodgy just look at the Genocidal nutters we supported under the Thatcher government and the torturers we assisted under Blair.

The Royal family are just an imported figure head and have no real Historic right to rule we could always pick an arbitory date and trace a more authentic bunch personally I’d go for 1059.

@kimbers, I am not sure I would say Epstein was “notorious”, there are others who’ve done far worse. Prince Andrew apologised for his contact and severed all ties with him. Y

Oh right, so because paedophilia and sexual slavery isn’t quite as bad as genocide we should just give him a free ride. 😕

Also, I believe Andrew was pictured with Epstein immediately after his release from prison.

As I understand it, He worked for a Government department that promotes UK business abroad.

The UK has an arms industry, which obviously sells stuff abroad, and he did his job by promoting it.

I’m not sure that makes him a “heavy duty arms dealer” does it ?

Yet again – rather than dealing with the actual issues you choose to pick up on an irrelevant and pedantic point. I really don’t get it.

MoreCashThanDash – Member

Queenie pays more tax than Starbucks iirc.

I pay more tax than Starbucks.

Paying tax on what? Land and property they’ve never had to work for. The Duchy of Cornwall, Cornwall being one of the poorest counties, soaks up money locally and then provides scholarships at Gordounston for the kids of the privileged. How people defend the monarchy leaves me dumbfounded. Are we not grown up enough to be citizens? These people are ripping the p out of everyone else and are so arrogant and blase about it they think they can use and abuse and get away with it. Going by some of the comments on here, I’m sure they will, and be applauded for it.

Yet again – rather than dealing with the actual issues you choose to pick up on an irrelevant and pedantic point. I really don’t get it.

How is it irrelevant ?

It was brought up, as if to illustrate a point. And I questioned it.

Add to the mix that Prince Andrew is a Heavy Duty Arms Dealer and this is far more of a story than is being generally revealed…

The insinuation being, he must be guilty of everything else because JHJ says he’s an arms dealer.

He had a job to promote UK business abroad, we are the 5th largest arms exporter in the world, and he promoted it.

It doesn’t relate to the recent accusations, and is a pointless thing to bring up.
Despite what JHJ claims above.

If he’s guilty then he deserves prosecution and whatever punishment fit the crime.

But bringing up pointless exaggerations as a way to “prove” he’s guilty doesn’t help anyone.

Back under your bridge neal 😉

Nothing in the least pointless or exaggerated in what I’m trying to explain:

like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeffrey Epstein was a member of both the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations.

Quick example, here is good old Zbigniew, doing what him and his chums do best (under CIAs Operation Cyclone):

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvO3qAlyTg[/video]

Could be argued that the Afghanistan war and indeed the recent Pakistani School massacre were a result of the legacy of this… some even suggest it had a contributory factor in 9/11

Hope I’m not getting too exaggerated for you…

Back under your bridge neal

Is it trolling to disagree with you ?

I agree that if he’s guilty he needs punishment, same as anyone else.

Trying to make out that he’s guilty because you think he’s an arms dealer doesn’t help.

Prince Andrew representing British Industry including the arms trade isn’t news. He should be congratulated for doing so. He served in the Falklands war so I would imagine he is quite a compelling sales person when it comes to arms deals. There is nothing remotely dodgy about that at all. I would say quite different things about Mark Thatcher in that regard FWIW.

There is nothing remotely dodgy about that at all

Really, nothing at all?

Another one for Jive’s photos of Andrew with despots collection

Andrew brokers jets to Indonesia (whose leaders used the last arms we supplied against civilians)

His brother too.

22K a week ski chalet? Wonder what extras were included..

@Chunki he was in Verbier, that’s what Richard Branson rents his place there out for.

@grum, Ian Watkins got 35 years – I was making the comparison that someone who gets 18 months probably hasn’t committed a “notorious” crime. A serious crime yes but not a “notorious one”

@aa – not there is nothing remotely dodgy in assisting in promoting British business including weapons.