The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Andrew went with Epstein to Thailand.. Come on people, think! I am not going to take the ''innocent until proven guilty'' route here. I am going to stand with the underage women who were RAPED and then labelled as prostitutes to get away with it. Epstein should rot in jail for the rest of his life, and if Andrew's association proves that he also participated in sexual intercourse with minors, he should rot alongside him.
 
Andrew went with Epstein to Thailand.. Come on people, think! I am not going to take the ''innocent until proven guilty'' route here. I am going to stand with the underage women who were RAPED and then labelled as prostitutes to get away with it. Epstein should rot in jail for the rest of his life, and if Andrew's association proves that he also participated in sexual intercourse with minors, he should rot alongside him.

I do agree with you but the thing is, Andrew has to be proven to have had the contacts with minors that you allege he has had. That, in and of itself, is a big *IF*. It remains to be proven to be true. Until then, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. ?
 
To a degree, we are all judged by the company we keep. Prince Andrew chose to continue to interact with someone who was well known enough to "like them young" that jokes were made about it, and his private plane was known as the Lolita Express. These accusations against Jeffrey Epstein are not new, but they are persistent, and if you are a person who has paid attention to the recurrent stories (over years) about this in the press, then there comes a point where giving him the benefit of the doubt turns into willful blindness. I am skeptical over whether the law will be successful in bringing someone with as much money and as many powerful friends as Epstein has to anything resembling justice, but at the minimum, Andrew's association with him does him no credit at all, and inevitably calls into question his own activities and judgment.
 
Last edited:
To a degree, we are all judged by the company we keep. Prince Andrew chose to continue to interact with someone who was well known enough to "like them young" that jokes were made about it, and his private plane was known as the Lolita Express. These accusations against Jeffrey Epstein are not new, but they are persistent, and if you are a person who has paid attention to the recurrent stories (over years) about this in the press, then there comes a point where giving him the benefit of the doubt turns into willful blindness. I am skeptical over whether the law will be successful in bringing someone with as much money and as many powerful friends as Epstein has to anything resembling justice, but at the minimum, Andrew's association with him does him no credit at all, and inevitably calls into question his own activities and judgment.

That's just the thing. Regardless of any real proof or any indictment that Andrew was ever really involved, just the fact that he is named as someone close to Epstein is doing him a whole world of hurt. At this point, people have already associated him with with being close to Epstein as a buddy and more and more details are emerging of what could have happened in Andrew's case and it doesn't look good. Regardless if he did or didn't participate in misdeeds towards underage girls, it does really *looks* like he could have. That, in and of itself, is more damaging to his reputation than any pictures or actual videos of Andrew engaging in sex with a minor could.

It can suck to be an innocent bystander at times and not have a clue (or a vague clue) what is going on around him. So much points to just how Andrew isn't as innocent in all of this and to be honest, I do have my doubts that he's so innocent but its not my place to pass judgment on what seems to be. Until we know more facts, I'm not passing judgment on Andrew.
 
Until we know more facts, I'm not passing judgment on Andrew.

I'm willing to judge him on his actions after he knew Epstein was convicted, imprisoned and a registered sex offender. For that he was definitely 'out of order' & to my knowledge, he's never been required to explain publicly why he continued associating with him. We know it cost him his trade role (against his wishes) but has he ever tried to justify why he attended a party at Epstein's house after those shocking events?
 
I'm willing to judge him on his actions after he knew Epstein was convicted, imprisoned and a registered sex offender. For that he was definitely 'out of order' & to my knowledge, he's never been required to explain publicly why he continued associating with him. We know it cost him his trade role (against his wishes) but has he ever tried to justify why he attended a party at Epstein's house after those shocking events?

I remember too the "sweetheart deal" that Epstein got which basically, in Florida, gave him a huge slap on the wrist and sent to bed without his dessert. It could have been taken publicly as "it is what it is" when the details of his conviction were made known.

Now, we know more. The allegations are coming back basically to bite Epstein in the back of the front and the bite is hungry. We'll actually know more as Epstein is actually prosecuted for the crimes he should have been in the first place.

This is what I mean by in the case of Epstein that the truth will hopefully *not* set him free. No sweetheart deals but actual and real disclosure and prosecution for crimes committed and disclosure of all involved.
 
Well, this stumbled out: Andrew's acquaintance with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's ex girlfriend

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.me...g-women-to-buckingham-palace-report-says/amp/

This could have a drip, drip, drip effect that could build up on Andrew. And if evidence shakes out that Andrew did commit a crime he needs to answer for it. Paying the diplomatic immunity card is bad optics even if it is his right.
 
If Charles was looking for a reason to reduce Andrew's royal role, this may be it.

I would have hoped that members of the BRF would be more wary and circumspect about people befriending them in order to gain respectability.
 
Well, this stumbled out: Andrew's acquaintance with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's ex girlfriend

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.me...g-women-to-buckingham-palace-report-says/amp/

This could have a drip, drip, drip effect that could build up on Andrew. And if evidence shakes out that Andrew did commit a crime he needs to answer for it. Paying the diplomatic immunity card is bad optics even if it is his right.

I hope this isn’t true... but if it is, it answers a question I’ve had for a long time.
 
Firstly, Andrew is in no way connected to the current charges. His name is not one of the many discovered. However, along comes these articles written by anonymous authors and/or anonymous sources crawling out of the woodwork to sell their stories.

Where were they when all the people that "knew" who was who and what was what in the intervening years?

Jeffrey Epstein's arrest shows the power of one newspaper's investigation

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/08/media/jeffrey-epstein-julie-brown-miami-herald/index.html

Let's face it, it was only through the persistence of one woman with the backing of her editor to turn this around and make TPTB start seeking other avenues such as NY.
 
It has been a long time since I have admired an individual Newspaper Reporter or even a Mixed Media reporter. It is amazing what one woman, Julie K Brown, with passion and a determination for justice whatever the cost, can do.
 
*Not* Club Fed

Seems like Jeffrey Epstein is finding out that being incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correction Center in NYC is not the "cushy" punishment he scored before. He was found almost unconscious this morning from neck injuries. Its possible it was a suicide attempt but also possible that he was attacked.

I believe in full justice and if you do the crime, you do the time but should he have been attacked, that is unacceptable to me.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loc...ide-Attempt-or-Assault-Sources-513174311.html
 
Seems like Jeffrey Epstein is finding out that being incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correction Center in NYC is not the "cushy" punishment he scored before. He was found almost unconscious this morning from neck injuries. Its possible it was a suicide attempt but also possible that he was attacked.

I believe in full justice and if you do the crime, you do the time but should he have been attacked, that is unacceptable to me.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loc...ide-Attempt-or-Assault-Sources-513174311.html
Honestly, I don't care what happens to Epstein as a principle in itself. However, it is imperative that no harm be allowed to befall him that will prevent him from ratting out his friends—he needs to be kept safe until he's divulged all he knows. Otherwise, quite a few child rapists will be able to live happy knowing that their secret is safe.
 
Sad but true. A man is known by the company he keeps.
 
The article isn't directly about Prince Andrew, but it certainly makes you wonder if he knew about some of Jeffrey Epstein's bizarre ideas. Either way, it doesn't in any way reflect well on Prince Andrew's judgment.
 
I'm sure there are a whole lot of people out there crossing all their body parts that their association with Jeffrey Epstein doesn't come out and is made public. Even those that just associated with Epstein on a business level and had no clue about Epstein's private life and ideas. Andrew's name keeps on cropping up though as a "friend". and that one photograph will just not go away.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/ente...plained-amid-sex-trafficking-case/1692505001/
...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... I think he is full fledged psychopath, who knows lots of dirty secrets of some rich and powerful people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As it has been some time since the Epstein scandal was in the main media, it is worth again noting that the moderating team had previously determined that this thread was specifically for Prince Andrew's involvement / connections in the scandal, not the wider Epstein scandal.

As such, several recent posts have been removed as there was no link to Prince Andrew. Please try and moderate your comments / linked media sources to the topic.
 
I find it weird and very pointed that Andrew's name is being sullied for no other reason than he is who he is.

Epstein's courted the great and the good and his girlfriend paved the way for the international movers and shakers. Andrew was just one of the great and the good that includes Nobel Laureate's, US Presidents and Royalty.
It's a convoluted story but this is the bottom line: The current charges against Epstein do not involve Prince Andrew in any way.
It is a pity that the tabloids feel the need for a good York bashing with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink insinuation of guilt by association while retreading the same old photos.
 
The media will connect Andrew to the Epstein scandal because they always love a bit of dirt on the royals - it's what gets them sales, sadly.
 
It's not like there aren't legitimate questions about Andrew's involvement and knowledge of this show thing though, hence this thread is nearly 10 years old. He isn't simply being sullied for who he is, we all know his ex wife admitted to borrowing a substantial amount of money from him, he lost his trade envoy job over his links to Epstein *after* he had been convicted last time and has been accused of having sex with one of Epstein's underage girls and we know there's proof he at least met her.

At the very least he has shown terrible judgement when it comes to this man, him and many others it seems. I don't know if Andrew will be implicated in any of the latest round but it's not surprising he's being talked about, though there hasn't been a lot (yet?) this time really, at least in the UK.
 
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy (2010-2019)

Andrew is NOT a victim here. He got himself into the scandal, nobody else did.



Nowhere did I say that Andrew was a victim. And by “sadly” I was referring to the whole culture about trying to find digs on the royals, not just Andrew. I’m certainly not an apologist for someone involved in such a scandal! I’m quite saddened at this reaction from what I thought was an easy enough to understand post, but it seems that whenever I post someone will twist my words or read too much into what I say. All I was doing was referring to the media culture of scandals after another poster mentioned about the sullying of Andrew. It wasn’t meant as a sympathy post. Yes, he got himself into the scandal, that’s clear - but the media is now looking for every tiny detail that may be slightly negative and it’s that aspect that annoys me, not the fact that Andrew is being mentioned (as I said, the culture in general).

I apologise if I sounded rude in some places, or if this wasn’t your intention, but I’m just a bit fed up of having to explain myself every time I join in an animated discussion. It’s put me off joining the big debates here and I was a bit sceptical about whether I should post in this one or not. TRF should be fun!
 
Last edited:
I'd have sympathy for Andrew if the media were making a fuss simply because he was friends with Epstein before his criminal acts were known, but Andrew actively engaged and met with Epstein after his first conviction, so Andrew must have known what Epstein had been convicted of and chosen not to care.

This is a Royal Forum so of course the focus here is on Andrew, likewise he is the only real major British person of note to keep cropping in this again and again with so much evidence of meetings between the two etc so of course the media are making a fuss over it.
 
Spending time with a convicted pedophile is pretty sketchy; but it really depends on what UKTI decides. Public outry in the papers alone can't affect Andrew's role one way or the other.

Except Epstein wasn't convicted of having sex with anyone under the age of consent. There are lots of allegations, probably mostly true-but that is not what is on his criminal record. He pled guilty to two counts of felony prostitution.

A number of people are coming out now saying they had no idea the seriousness of all the allegations until recently, they hadn't heard them and only knew about the prostitution plea deal.

Obviously Epstein is also a very skilled con-man. A lot of important businessmen, scientists and others have been taken in by him
 
Last edited:
Nowhere did I say that Andrew was a victim. And by “sadly” I was referring to the whole culture about trying to find digs on the royals, not just Andrew. I’m certainly not an apologist for someone involved in such a scandal! I’m quite saddened at this reaction from what I thought was an easy enough to understand post, but it seems that whenever I post someone will twist my words or read too much into what I say. All I was doing was referring to the media culture of scandals after another poster mentioned about the sullying of Andrew. It wasn’t meant as a sympathy post. Yes, he got himself into the scandal, that’s clear - but the media is now looking for every tiny detail that may be slightly negative and it’s that aspect that annoys me, not the fact that Andrew is being mentioned (as I said, the culture in general).

I apologise if I sounded rude in some places, or if this wasn’t your intention, but I’m just a bit fed up of having to explain myself every time I join in an animated discussion. It’s put me off joining the big debates here and I was a bit sceptical about whether I should post in this one or not. TRF should be fun!
In my opinion, it's the job of any self-respecting journalist to go down to the bottom and get the details. You don't take down powerful, priviliged men by only scratching the surface.
 
:previous: In my opinion you are right . . . when someone such as Epstein has been arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced, go fill your boots. But trial by media for someone who the Prosecutions has already stated was not involved or included in this case in NY, is just not on. Publishing speculation is not the work of self-respecting investigative journalists, certainly not if it is the DM.

You cannot go around calling people paedophiles just because of their acquaintance with Jeffrey Epstein.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous: In my opinion you are right . . . when someone such as Epstein has been arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced, go fill your boots. But trial by media for someone who the Prosecutions has already stated was not involved or included in this case in NY, is just not on. Publishing speculation is not the work of self-respecting investigative journalists, certainly not if it is the DM.

You cannot go around calling people paedophiles just because of their acquaintance with Jeffrey Epstein.



Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to say, but you explained it much more eloquently than me so it seems my words were twisted again!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom