Half Rice Half Chips Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Prince Andy could be in line for the beast watch thread http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/02/u-s-lawsuit-claims-prince-andrew-slept-with-underage-sex-slave A U.S. lawsuit against investment banker Jeffrey Epstein has ensnared a prominent member of the British Royal Family in a scandal involving allegations of sexual slavery. Epstein, a disgraced hedge fund mogul who is registered as a sex offender, is being sued by women who say he loaned them out as sex slaves to his rich and powerful friends more than a decade ago, including Prince Andrew. According to The Guardian, the Duke of York was named in a motion by an anonymous woman in a Florida court this week as part of proceedings against Epstein. The woman alleges that between 1999 and 2002, while she was still underage, she was forced to have sexual relations with this prince in New York, London and on a Caribbean island owned by Epstein. Prince Andrew is Queen Elizabeths third child and younger brother to Prince Charles, placing him fifth in the line of succession to the British throne. Buckingham Palace denies any wrongdoing by the prince, telling the BBC it would not comment in detail on a U.S. lawsuit to which the Duke of York is not a party. However, for the avoidance of doubt, any suggestion of impropriety with under age minors is categorically untrue, a spokesperson said. The lawsuit, first reported by Politico, alleges that Epstein used several sex slaves as a way to ingratiate himself with other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives and foreign leaders. He also allegedly required his victims to provide detailed descriptions of their encounters with these men so that he could potentially blackmail them, the court filing said. The lawsuit comes in the wake of Epsteins 2008 guilty plea for soliciting a minor for prostitution, for which he served 13 months of an 18-month sentence. Two women who filed the lawsuit say their rights were violated by the plea deal and are now joined by two additional women identified as Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 seeking redress from the billionaire. Prince Andrews association with Epstein has previously embarrassed the royal family. In 2010, the two were photographed together after the financier had finished serving his prison sentence. The royal subsequently stepped down as a U.K. trade envoy, a role he had held for a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Half Rice Half Chips Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 Shit, it's already in the beast watch thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Shit, it's already in the beast watch thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venti Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Shit, it's already in the beast watch thread! Had a BEAST tab up type post ^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 No doubt someone somewhere is surprised by this in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhoy who invented weetabix Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 The guy likes his jam roll. Headline news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 This c**t is the very definition of an oxygen thief. He has been fannying about on tax-payers money for years - making absolutely no positive contribution to anything. I can feel my blood pressure rising as I type this so I better go and have a lie down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Half Rice Half Chips Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 He wasted the best years of his life on that fat pig Ferguson, he's bound to be a bit fucked up after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermik Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 She was 17, he was about 40. Lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I'm shocked..... Said nobody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Who the f**k cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I'm shocked..... Said nobody ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1420330635.303339.jpg 'separate boys from girls says top head' That's it sorted then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Who the f**k cares? That a member of the royal family may have sexually abused a child or that he could be immune from prosecution from it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t1t3h Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I read this last night and found it quite interesting. http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/08/prince-andrew-201108?utm_content=buffere808a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer&mbid=social_retweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eindhovendee Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 This c**t is the very definition of an oxygen thief. He has been fannying about on tax-payers money for years - making absolutely no positive contribution to anything. I can feel my blood pressure rising as I type this so I better go and have a lie down. They all are, not just the beast Andrew. It's 2015 and we have a Queen! At least we get to opt out of believing in the sky fairy. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-family-granted-new-right-of-secrecy-2179148.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 That a member of the royal family may have sexually abused a child or that he could be immune from prosecution from it? This is the issue that requires a thread of it's own - whether HRH is guilty or innocent, should he/they be untouchable? The answer is no, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.