Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Marky on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 8:09 am

Mimi wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:
hicks wrote:Jimmy Savile had extremely close links with the royals. J S was also a vile child rapist who was given access to literally anywhere he fancied within the British establishment for well over fifty years.
It is now known that JS was a procurer of children to be abused by VIP's within the British establishment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2468836/Jimmy-Savile-Police-censored-2009-interview-removing-reference-Royal-Family.html.

The Gaspar statements cannot be erased out of the Madeleine McCann mystery, they are there as evidence given by doctors. Therefore I personally fail to see any humour in thinking there could be a  link somewhere.

Agreed Hicks there is nothing funny about that vile man or anyone else who abuses children. The reference to laughter was because of the ludicrous idea that GM has a hold on anyone. He would be sleeping with the fishes before the establishment would protect him.
Mind you something is saving their skins and I hope someone talks soon.

To laugh at someone`s idea and refer to it as `ludicrous` does come across as a put down - I can never understand why anyone would need to humiliate fellow posters who have a common aim in mind.  There is a way of saying one disagrees with another person`s ideas/thoughts without rubbishing their theory with a jeering put-down.  So let`s please try and be respectful of each other.

okay, saville had close links with the royal family. so what. he had close links with government. so what. he was given access to anywhere he fancied within the british establishment for well over fifty years. rather broad brush but again, so what. it is now known he was a procurer of children to be abused by vip's within the british establishment. no, it's an allegation. you're implying a lot but that's all you're doing. personally i think you're trying to be too clever. trying to establish links that most likely don't exist. but it all adds to the intrigue, the mystery. i suppose.

that the gaspars are doctors doesn't make their statements any the more valid than if they ran the corner shop. and on the subject of the gaspars, they witnessed the same thing twice but didn't think anything of it for another two years. in fact he didn't really make anything of it at all. only mrs gaspar's mind went creative. couldn't be that it was a private joke between two male doctors that others may not find particularly amusing could it?

and that's about as polite as i can get. Very Happy

_________________
"The bag or the bat?"
avatar
Marky

Posts : 170
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : Southie

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Guest on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 8:27 am

Haha Marky, I have to confess I am warming to you after having not liked you much in the past (and I'm sure the feeling was is mutual). Very Happy

In fact I don't much agree with your analysis of the case on the whole, I think it's clear we are diametrically opposed, but I do also quite like the sceptisism of your last post, which raises some valid points. Very Happy

I want to say one thing on this issue and then I'm going to run off.

First of all, though I believe there could well be a royal paedophile scandal out there, this is not it for me. The girl was 17.

Secondly, I'm not convinced this is even a sex slave scandal. I'm not saying a 17 year old girl willingly becomes a prostitute; but all the same, it doesn't seem that black and white to me.

And that's the crux of the matter. A case like this simply muddies the waters in the public mind.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Guest on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 8:31 am

Actually that thought occurred to me too.  A lot of trumpeting about "under age girls" and then when you read it properly, it's little more than a technicality.  The legal age in Florida, where this allegedly happened, is 18.  If it had happened somewhere else, e.g. Scotland, it wouldn't have been a "crime" at all.  The only reason it's a huge story at all is because there's royalty involved.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Marky on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 8:34 am

Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:Haha Marky, I have to confess I am warming to you after having not liked you much in the past (and I'm sure the feeling was is mutual). Very Happy

might help to answer if i knew what you called yourself. i don't really recall your current name. sorry. Very Happy

_________________
"The bag or the bat?"
avatar
Marky

Posts : 170
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : Southie

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Marky on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 8:36 am

Resistor wrote:
Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:Haha Marky, I have to confess I am warming to you after having not liked you much in the past (and I'm sure the feeling was is mutual). Very Happy

In fact I don't much agree with your analysis of the case on the whole, I think it's clear we are diametrically opposed, but I do also quite like the sceptisism of your last post, which raises some valid points. Very Happy

I want to say one thing on this issue and then I'm going to run off.

First of all, though I believe there could well be a royal paedophile scandal out there, this is not it for me. The girl was 17.

Secondly, I'm not convinced this is even a sex slave scandal. I'm not saying a 17 year old girl willingly becomes a prostitute; but all the same, it doesn't seem that black and white to me.

And that's the crux of the matter. A case like this simply muddies the waters in the public mind.

Actually that thought occurred to me too.  A lot of trumpeting about "under age girls" and then when you read it properly, it's little more than a technicality.  The legal age in Florida, where this allegedly happened, is 18.  If it had happened somewhere else, e.g. Scotland, it wouldn't have been a "crime" at all.  The only reason it's a huge story at all is because there's royalty involved.

think the palace should tread carefully where issuing denials are concerned. Very Happy

_________________
"The bag or the bat?"
avatar
Marky

Posts : 170
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : Southie

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  chirpyinsect on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 8:45 am

Marky wrote:
Mimi wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:
hicks wrote:Jimmy Savile had extremely close links with the royals. J S was also a vile child rapist who was given access to literally anywhere he fancied within the British establishment for well over fifty years.
It is now known that JS was a procurer of children to be abused by VIP's within the British establishment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2468836/Jimmy-Savile-Police-censored-2009-interview-removing-reference-Royal-Family.html.

The Gaspar statements cannot be erased out of the Madeleine McCann mystery, they are there as evidence given by doctors. Therefore I personally fail to see any humour in thinking there could be a  link somewhere.

Agreed Hicks there is nothing funny about that vile man or anyone else who abuses children. The reference to laughter was because of the ludicrous idea that GM has a hold on anyone. He would be sleeping with the fishes before the establishment would protect him.
Mind you something is saving their skins and I hope someone talks soon.

To laugh at someone`s idea and refer to it as `ludicrous` does come across as a put down - I can never understand why anyone would need to humiliate fellow posters who have a common aim in mind.  There is a way of saying one disagrees with another person`s ideas/thoughts without rubbishing their theory with a jeering put-down.  So let`s please try and be respectful of each other.

okay, saville had close links with the royal family. so what. he had close links with government. so what. he was given access to anywhere he fancied within the british establishment for well over fifty years. rather broad brush but again, so what. it is now known he was a procurer of children to be abused by vip's within the british establishment. no, it's an allegation. you're implying a lot but that's all you're doing. personally i think you're trying to be too clever. trying to establish links that most likely don't exist. but it all adds to the intrigue, the mystery. i suppose.

that the gaspars are doctors doesn't make their statements any the more valid than if they ran the corner shop. and on the subject of the gaspars, they witnessed the same thing twice but didn't think anything of it for another two years. in fact he didn't really make anything of it at all. only mrs gaspar's mind went creative. couldn't be that it was a private joke between two male doctors that others may not find particularly amusing could it?

and that's about as polite as i can get. Very Happy

Mimi first of all let me apologise to you. I think I didn't explain my position very well. I was trying in a cack handed way to clarify that I (and because it was in reply to a comment by Marky) and he were not laughing at the situation per se but more at the idea that Gerry could hold the establishment to ransom. That was in response to Hicks who I thought felt we were finding it amusing. My feeling is that he would not have that power.
If the use of the word ludicrous offends you then it was not my intention and was not me trying to rubbish anyone else`s theory. There is enough of that elsewhere. I wasnt even aware of your personal take on this but I should have considered how it may read to others.
It is possible he knows something so damning that people in power have been persuaded to assist but my take on that is that it is unlikely. I should perhaps have put the word ludicrous in inverted commas because it was meant as a bit of irony given that Gerry uses the word so frequently.
Now I will depart from agreeing with Marky in case anyone thinks I concur with what he has just written.
JS was given the keys to Broadmoor where dangerous and deranged individuals who committed heinous crimes were incarcerated. This was done with the full blessing of HM Gov. He made a cosy little home from home for himself and carried out his lewd practices there. Hardly so what.
He became the doyen of charity work which he used as a means of abusing children who were sick in hospital. Hardly so what.
Those at the BBC and other organisations knew of his behaviour but did nothing yet some of them are feted by the establishment and given honours whilst those who have to deal with the fall out from his sick, depraved ways have to soldier on, often taking their own lives in the process. Hardly so what.
The Queen has, mostly never put a foot wrong in her long reign (I am no Royalist btw) and she has a posse of advisers who are paid to make sure she is abreast of anything that could compromise her position so how did JS manage to slip under the Buck House radar? Was it a case of keep your enemies close?
If you can find excuses for that thing (he was not a man) then you will be in a minority of one.
As for the Gaspars, perhaps they should have said something at the time. Maybe they didn't put as much store on the comments until MBM went missing. We don't know, but to say it was a bad taste joke between 2 men is too apologetic. The Gaspars perhaps didn't say anything at the time to the 2 involved because they didn't want to embarrass themselves or the wives. I would imagine they distanced themselves from the friendship though.
Mimi once again I am sorry if I offended you.

_________________
Everything I write is my own opinion. Nothing stated as fact.
avatar
chirpyinsect

Posts : 4592
Join date : 2014-10-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Marky on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 8:59 am

chirpyinsect wrote: Now I will depart from agreeing with Marky in case anyone thinks I concur with what he has just written.

JS was given the keys to Broadmoor where dangerous and deranged individuals who committed heinous crimes were incarcerated. This was done with the full blessing of HM Gov. He made a cosy little home from home for himself and carried out his lewd practices there. Hardly so what.

He became the doyen of charity work which he used as a means of abusing children who were sick in hospital. Hardly so what.

Those at the BBC and other organisations knew of his behaviour but did nothing yet some of them are feted by the establishment and given honours whilst those who have to deal with the fall out from his sick, depraved ways have to soldier on, often taking their own lives in the process. Hardly so what.

The Queen has, mostly never put a foot wrong in her long reign (I am no Royalist btw) and she has a posse of advisers who are paid to make sure she is abreast of anything that could compromise her position so how did JS manage to slip under the Buck House radar? Was it a case of keep your enemies close?

If you can find excuses for that thing (he was not a man) then you will be in a minority of one.

As for the Gaspars, perhaps they should have said something at the time. Maybe they didn't put as much store on the comments until MBM went missing. We don't know, but to say it was a bad taste joke between 2 men is too apologetic. The Gaspars perhaps didn't say anything at the time to the 2 involved because they didn't want to embarrass themselves or the wives. I would imagine they distanced themselves from the friendship though.

have tidied your post up so it reads easier. in the first instance you need to read what i said again. in the second, if you can find anywhere in that post that even remotely hints at any sort of excuse then you point it out.

Very Happy

_________________
"The bag or the bat?"
avatar
Marky

Posts : 170
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : Southie

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  chirpyinsect on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 9:10 am

Marky. Firstly thank you very much for "tidying up" my post. However I left school many years ago and no longer require that sort of correction.
Secondly, you need to read your post again because it sure comes across to me that you are dismissing the actions of JS by your repeated use of the words "so what".
If I have got that wrong then so what!
avatar
chirpyinsect

Posts : 4592
Join date : 2014-10-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Marky on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 9:15 am

chirpyinsect wrote:Marky. Firstly thank you very much for "tidying up" my post. However I left school many years ago and no longer require that sort of correction.
Secondly, you need to read your post again because it sure comes across to me that you are dismissing the actions of JS by your repeated use of the words "so what".
If I have got that wrong then so what!

well, since you could care less if you've got it wrong i won't bother drawing you any pictures. Very Happy

_________________
"The bag or the bat?"
avatar
Marky

Posts : 170
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : Southie

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Freedom on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 9:32 am

Marky, enough of the stirring and wind-ups please.

You are of course welcome to express your opinions but the wording sometimes leaves a little to be desired in the tact department.
avatar
Freedom
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 13610
Join date : 2014-08-17
Age : 102
Location : The nearest darkened room

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Marky on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 9:40 am

Freedom wrote:Marky, enough of the stirring and wind-ups please.

You are of course welcome to express your opinions but the wording sometimes leaves a little to be desired in the tact department.

yes, mustn't upset the apple cart huh. Very Happy

_________________
"The bag or the bat?"
avatar
Marky

Posts : 170
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : Southie

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Mimi on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 10:19 am

Marky wrote:
Mimi wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:
hicks wrote:Jimmy Savile had extremely close links with the royals. J S was also a vile child rapist who was given access to literally anywhere he fancied within the British establishment for well over fifty years.
It is now known that JS was a procurer of children to be abused by VIP's within the British establishment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2468836/Jimmy-Savile-Police-censored-2009-interview-removing-reference-Royal-Family.html.

The Gaspar statements cannot be erased out of the Madeleine McCann mystery, they are there as evidence given by doctors. Therefore I personally fail to see any humour in thinking there could be a  link somewhere.

Agreed Hicks there is nothing funny about that vile man or anyone else who abuses children. The reference to laughter was because of the ludicrous idea that GM has a hold on anyone. He would be sleeping with the fishes before the establishment would protect him.
Mind you something is saving their skins and I hope someone talks soon.

To laugh at someone`s idea and refer to it as `ludicrous` does come across as a put down - I can never understand why anyone would need to humiliate fellow posters who have a common aim in mind.  There is a way of saying one disagrees with another person`s ideas/thoughts without rubbishing their theory with a jeering put-down.  So let`s please try and be respectful of each other.

okay, saville had close links with the royal family. so what. he had close links with government. so what. he was given access to anywhere he fancied within the british establishment for well over fifty years. rather broad brush but again, so what. it is now known he was a procurer of children to be abused by vip's within the british establishment. no, it's an allegation. you're implying a lot but that's all you're doing. personally i think you're trying to be too clever. trying to establish links that most likely don't exist. but it all adds to the intrigue, the mystery. i suppose.

that the gaspars are doctors doesn't make their statements any the more valid than if they ran the corner shop. and on the subject of the gaspars, they witnessed the same thing twice but didn't think anything of it for another two years. in fact he didn't really make anything of it at all. only mrs gaspar's mind went creative. couldn't be that it was a private joke between two male doctors that others may not find particularly amusing could it?

and that's about as polite as i can get. Very Happy

Marky - why are you so angry?

avatar
Mimi

Posts : 3153
Join date : 2014-09-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Mimi on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 10:35 am

chirpyinsect wrote:
Marky wrote:
Mimi wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:
hicks wrote:Jimmy Savile had extremely close links with the royals. J S was also a vile child rapist who was given access to literally anywhere he fancied within the British establishment for well over fifty years.
It is now known that JS was a procurer of children to be abused by VIP's within the British establishment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2468836/Jimmy-Savile-Police-censored-2009-interview-removing-reference-Royal-Family.html.

The Gaspar statements cannot be erased out of the Madeleine McCann mystery, they are there as evidence given by doctors. Therefore I personally fail to see any humour in thinking there could be a  link somewhere.

Agreed Hicks there is nothing funny about that vile man or anyone else who abuses children. The reference to laughter was because of the ludicrous idea that GM has a hold on anyone. He would be sleeping with the fishes before the establishment would protect him.
Mind you something is saving their skins and I hope someone talks soon.

To laugh at someone`s idea and refer to it as `ludicrous` does come across as a put down - I can never understand why anyone would need to humiliate fellow posters who have a common aim in mind.  There is a way of saying one disagrees with another person`s ideas/thoughts without rubbishing their theory with a jeering put-down.  So let`s please try and be respectful of each other.

okay, saville had close links with the royal family. so what. he had close links with government. so what. he was given access to anywhere he fancied within the british establishment for well over fifty years. rather broad brush but again, so what. it is now known he was a procurer of children to be abused by vip's within the british establishment. no, it's an allegation. you're implying a lot but that's all you're doing. personally i think you're trying to be too clever. trying to establish links that most likely don't exist. but it all adds to the intrigue, the mystery. i suppose.

that the gaspars are doctors doesn't make their statements any the more valid than if they ran the corner shop. and on the subject of the gaspars, they witnessed the same thing twice but didn't think anything of it for another two years. in fact he didn't really make anything of it at all. only mrs gaspar's mind went creative. couldn't be that it was a private joke between two male doctors that others may not find particularly amusing could it?

and that's about as polite as i can get. Very Happy

Mimi first of all let me apologise to you. I think I didn't explain my position very well. I was trying in a cack handed way to clarify that I (and because it was in reply to a comment by Marky) and he were not laughing at the situation per se but more at the idea that Gerry could hold the establishment to ransom. That was in response to Hicks who I thought felt we were finding it amusing. My feeling is that he would not have that power.
If the use of the word ludicrous offends you then it was not my intention and was not me trying to rubbish anyone else`s theory. There is enough of that elsewhere. I wasnt even aware of your personal take on this but I should have considered how it may read to others.
It is possible he knows something so damning that people in power have been persuaded to assist but my take on that is that it is unlikely. I should perhaps have put the word ludicrous in inverted commas because it was meant as a bit of irony given that Gerry uses the word so frequently.
Now I will depart from agreeing with Marky in case anyone thinks I concur with what he has just written.
JS was given the keys to Broadmoor where dangerous and deranged individuals who committed heinous crimes were incarcerated. This was done with the full blessing of HM Gov. He made a cosy little home from home for himself and carried out his lewd practices there. Hardly so what.
He became the doyen of charity work which he used as a means of abusing children who were sick in hospital. Hardly so what.
Those at the BBC and other organisations knew of his behaviour but did nothing yet some of them are feted by the establishment and given honours whilst those who have to deal with the fall out from his sick, depraved ways have to soldier on, often taking their own lives in the process. Hardly so what.
The Queen has, mostly never put a foot wrong in her long reign (I am no Royalist btw) and she has a posse of advisers who are paid to make sure she is abreast of anything that could compromise her position so how did JS manage to slip under the Buck House radar? Was it a case of keep your enemies close?
If you can find excuses for that thing (he was not a man) then you will be in a minority of one.
As for the Gaspars, perhaps they should have said something at the time. Maybe they didn't put as much store on the comments until MBM went missing. We don't know, but to say it was a bad taste joke between 2 men is too apologetic. The Gaspars perhaps didn't say anything at the time to the 2 involved because they didn't want to embarrass themselves or the wives. I would imagine they distanced themselves from the friendship though.
Mimi once again I am sorry if I offended you.

Oh dear chirpy - what have I started. I know my post was tagged onto your reply to Hicks, but the root of my annoyance was at Marky`s perpetual needling of other posters` ideas with constant put-downs. GM having some dirt on the royals may well be ludicrous, but equally may not - there may be reasons we don`t know about. I`m always open to ideas and the royals/MI5 being involved is likely IMO. I just don`t understand why these things can`t be discussed without Marky coming here like a fly swatter and splatting peoples` ideas - it`s just like over yonder ! Anyway thanks for your apology and I understand where you were coming from.
avatar
Mimi

Posts : 3153
Join date : 2014-09-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Marky on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 10:43 am

Mimi wrote:Marky - why are you so angry?

not angry at all simply responding to a post. i suppose you could say that if they knew then what they know now then things would have been different but they didn't. implying that maybe they did is wrong. so saville had links with the royals. yes...and...what are you implying? or yes...so what. i guess i'm just not sensitive enough.

Very Happy

_________________
"The bag or the bat?"
avatar
Marky

Posts : 170
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : Southie

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Marky on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 10:51 am

note to self. do not disagree with other posters ideas or theories or if you must, put it in a way that doesn't make it sound like you are for fear of causing upset or offence.

Very Happy

_________________
"The bag or the bat?"
avatar
Marky

Posts : 170
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : Southie

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Mimi on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 10:55 am

Marky wrote:note to self. do not disagree with other posters ideas or theories or if you must, put it in a way that doesn't make it sound like you are for fear of causing upset or offence.

Very Happy

We`re allowed to disagree with each other Marky.
avatar
Mimi

Posts : 3153
Join date : 2014-09-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  chirpyinsect on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 10:57 am

Mimi thanks for understanding.  I will say that there are suspicions circumstances surrounding the way the Macs seem to be Teflon coated and I don't dismiss the possibility that he has been protected to a certain extent. That part is certainly not ludicrous when we consider that in most cases where the police doubt the veracity of someones`s story they haul them in for some pretty robust questioning. Of course we are not privy to the whole interview when the parents were made arguidos and they may have been subject to some uncomfortable moments. Kate of course. refused to answer 48, mostly innocuous sounding questions. She was aware not to answer them in case she incriminated herself. Quite how an innocent person can do that is beyond me.
What I think is the case is that now that certain people have dipped their toes into the case and reputations need protecting, they are whirling around trying to extricate themselves and have ended up disappearing up their own backsides.
The Mccanns are being protected, not because of something Gerry knows but because something will come out that someone somewhere would rather hide. Keeping the McCanns out of jail assists with that.
IF it was merely something Gerry had knowledge of I think he would have been "dealt" with and it wouldn't have just been his wallet that went missing on that trip back to England.
All IMO
avatar
chirpyinsect

Posts : 4592
Join date : 2014-10-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Dee Coy on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 11:07 am

Marky wrote:okay, saville had close links with the royal family. so what. he had close links with government. so what. he was given access to anywhere he fancied within the british establishment for well over fifty years. rather broad brush but again, so what. it is now known he was a procurer of children to be abused by vip's within the british establishment. no, it's an allegation. you're implying a lot but that's all you're doing. personally i think you're trying to be too clever. trying to establish links that most likely don't exist. but it all adds to the intrigue, the mystery. i suppose. 

An allegation to which more and more evidence is coming to light. Below is a post I made on Jill's forum regarding the new testimonies of men who were abused by leading figures in London as boys. This boy was taken from his care home in Yorkshire to London by a paedophile ring involving Savile's chauffeur:

Dee Coy wrote:A FORMER female MP was involved in a paedophile network at the heart of government, police have been told.

She is alleged to have forced a boy in care to perform a “vile”  sex act at one of a series of drug-fuelled parties in Westminster in the Eighties where boys and girls as young as 13 were allegedly abused.

Last night her alleged victim told the Sunday Express:  "I want justice.”

Andrew Ash, now 45, said he has given Scotland Yard the name of the former MP. We cannot name her for legal reasons.

Mr Ash claims he was frequently ferried down to London from the North of England, where he was in care, to take part in sex parties.

He says they were organised by a paedophile ring involving David Smith, Jimmy Savile’s former chauffeur who killed himself last year before he was due to stand trial for sex offences.

He said: “It wasn’t just politicians, there were also a number of celebrities, including Jimmy Savile, who seemed to have a lot of good links to MPs and powerful businessmen.

“There was usually drugs like cocaine and speed available as well as bottles of champagne.”Of his encounter with the female MP, he said: “She was extremely drunk and was laughing as she did it.“I didn’t really know what was going on but the others around her were goading her on.

“I must have been about 13 years old at the time and felt humiliated.” We can also reveal that security services have been working closely with Yard detectives because of the highly sensitive nature of the allegations.

The Sunday Express understands police seized video footage and photographs of an alleged sex party from a well-known paedophile last year.

Mr Ash claims officers have footage which shows a senior male MP in the same frame as him, although no abuse takes place on camera. He said he is speaking out now because he is frustrated by the lack of action after being interviewed for 70 hours by the Met Police’s Paedophile Unit.

He says he was abused by the male MP on another occasion too. He said: “I remember being filmed with this MP, who was abusing me in a garage of a very prominent building behind a Rolls-Royce
.

Full article:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453381/Female-MP-abused-boy-in-care

According to this report, a young boy was taken from his care home in Yorkshire to sex parties in Westminster. A trip of over four hours - the article implies Savile's chauffeur was involved. Unbelievable.  Obviously highly organised and widespread.

The same sex parties as Elm House and Dolphin Square, or yet more depravity?

I wondered if this man could be the other person referred to in the articles naming 'Nick' that has come forward as well as 'Nick' recently.

I hope this is not this man's real name. One is always aware of the horrendous consequences for some of those who have also spoken out:

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/who-wants-to-silence-britains-child-abuse-victims-forever/

_________________
Philip Larkin wrote:It stands plain as a wardrobe, what we know, Have always known, know that we can't escape, Yet can't accept.
avatar
Dee Coy

Posts : 2178
Join date : 2014-08-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Marky on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 11:15 am

Mimi wrote:
Marky wrote:note to self. do not disagree with other posters ideas or theories or if you must, put it in a way that doesn't make it sound like you are for fear of causing upset or offence.

Very Happy

We`re allowed to disagree with each other Marky.

opinions vary. Very Happy

_________________
"The bag or the bat?"
avatar
Marky

Posts : 170
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : Southie

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Freedom on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 11:20 am

You seem to be the only person at the moment Marky who doesn't appear to think that all opinions are welcome here.

While being a lone voice among others saying something different doesn't of course always mean that the individual's opinion isn't valid or correct, it can at times indicate that the person needs to be less argumentative and more open to listening to the views of others.
avatar
Freedom
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 13610
Join date : 2014-08-17
Age : 102
Location : The nearest darkened room

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Marky on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 11:32 am

Freedom wrote:You seem to be the only person at the moment Marky who doesn't appear to think that all opinions are welcome here.

While being a lone voice among others saying something different doesn't of course always mean that the individual's opinion isn't valid or correct, it can at times indicate that the person needs to be less argumentative and more open to listening to the views of others.

on the contrary but opinions are there to be challenged and that is not always going to sit well with some. Very Happy

_________________
"The bag or the bat?"
avatar
Marky

Posts : 170
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : Southie

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Mimi on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 1:43 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:Mimi thanks for understanding.  I will say that there are suspicions circumstances surrounding the way the Macs seem to be Teflon coated and I don't dismiss the possibility that he has been protected to a certain extent. That part is certainly not ludicrous when we consider that in most cases where the police doubt the veracity of someones`s story they haul them in for some pretty robust questioning. Of course we are not privy to the whole interview when the parents were made arguidos and they may have been subject to some uncomfortable moments. Kate of course. refused to answer 48, mostly innocuous sounding questions. She was aware not to answer them in case she incriminated herself. Quite how an innocent person can do that is beyond me.
What I think is the case is that now that certain people have dipped their toes into the case and reputations need protecting, they are whirling around trying to extricate themselves and have ended up disappearing up their own backsides.
The Mccanns are being protected, not because of something Gerry knows but because something will come out that someone somewhere would rather hide. Keeping the McCanns out of jail assists with that.
IF it was merely something Gerry had knowledge of I think he would have been "dealt" with and it wouldn't have just been his wallet that went missing on that trip back to England.
All IMO

Yes I accept that GM might well have been `dealt with` - it`s what they usually do isn`t it. But in this case wouldn`t it have looked rather too suspicious if GM and/or KM suddenly met with an accident? It could be that that was why CM was hastily sent to them, not as a spokesperson at all, but as a monitor. Plus if I was GM/KM and I had dirt on someone, I would make sure it came to light in the event of my death.
avatar
Mimi

Posts : 3153
Join date : 2014-09-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Mimi on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 1:49 pm

Marky wrote:
Freedom wrote:You seem to be the only person at the moment Marky who doesn't appear to think that all opinions are welcome here.

While being a lone voice among others saying something different doesn't of course always mean that the individual's opinion isn't valid or correct, it can at times indicate that the person needs to be less argumentative and more open to listening to the views of others.

on the contrary but opinions are there to be challenged and that is not always going to sit well with some. Very Happy

I agree with you that opinions can be challenged Marky but not always - it`s no point challenging an opinion just for the sake of it. Most people are totally ok with their ideas being discussed (or `challenged` as you say) but there is only one reason it might not sit well with some and that is the language used - what`s the point in demeaning someone ?
avatar
Mimi

Posts : 3153
Join date : 2014-09-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  chirpyinsect on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 3:13 pm

Mimi wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:Mimi thanks for understanding.  I will say that there are suspicions circumstances surrounding the way the Macs seem to be Teflon coated and I don't dismiss the possibility that he has been protected to a certain extent. That part is certainly not ludicrous when we consider that in most cases where the police doubt the veracity of someones`s story they haul them in for some pretty robust questioning. Of course we are not privy to the whole interview when the parents were made arguidos and they may have been subject to some uncomfortable moments. Kate of course. refused to answer 48, mostly innocuous sounding questions. She was aware not to answer them in case she incriminated herself. Quite how an innocent person can do that is beyond me.
What I think is the case is that now that certain people have dipped their toes into the case and reputations need protecting, they are whirling around trying to extricate themselves and have ended up disappearing up their own backsides.
The Mccanns are being protected, not because of something Gerry knows but because something will come out that someone somewhere would rather hide. Keeping the McCanns out of jail assists with that.
IF it was merely something Gerry had knowledge of I think he would have been "dealt" with and it wouldn't have just been his wallet that went missing on that trip back to England.
All IMO

Yes I accept that GM might well have been `dealt with` - it`s what they usually do isn`t it.  But in this case wouldn`t it have looked rather too suspicious if GM and/or KM suddenly met with an accident?  It could be that that was why CM was hastily sent to them, not as a spokesperson at all, but as a monitor.  Plus if I was GM/KM and I had dirt on someone, I would make sure it came to light in the event of my death.

Yes it would have looked suspicious after the event so maybe all the big fuss th Macs made was to make sure they became high profile in the world press therefore ensuring their survival.
IF GM does know something and did make sure others knew about it in the event of his death, I wonder who else that could be.
avatar
chirpyinsect

Posts : 4592
Join date : 2014-10-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Prince Andrew named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations

Post  Marky on Sun 04 Jan 2015, 6:57 pm

Mimi wrote:
Marky wrote:
Freedom wrote:You seem to be the only person at the moment Marky who doesn't appear to think that all opinions are welcome here.

While being a lone voice among others saying something different doesn't of course always mean that the individual's opinion isn't valid or correct, it can at times indicate that the person needs to be less argumentative and more open to listening to the views of others.

on the contrary but opinions are there to be challenged and that is not always going to sit well with some. Very Happy

I agree with you that opinions can be challenged Marky but not always - it`s no point challenging an opinion just for the sake of it.  Most people are totally ok with their ideas being discussed (or `challenged` as you say) but there is only one reason it might not sit well with some and that is the language used - what`s the point in demeaning someone ?

since i'm not allowed to challenge anyone you can carry on. Very Happy

_________________
"The bag or the bat?"
avatar
Marky

Posts : 170
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : Southie

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum