[Soldier Boy]

My thoughts are, if there was nothing to hide they wouldn't be locking them away. So I don't particularly think we need to know the specifics of what's in them to make a judgement call.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Really typical.
However it is and should be wrong

Indeed. Imagine if that rule applied to Politicians? What's the difference here?

[bitontheslide]

it's just another example of the unwarranted privilege that the royal family has over the common folk

It's basically a super injunction with zero cost or justification

[jet]

It says in the article that

'any files involving British royalty are sealed away under lock and key until 105 years from that member's birth'.

Not just Andrew's then.

[Soldier Boy]

Originally Posted by jet

It says in the article that

'any files involving British royalty are sealed away under lock and key until 105 years from that member's birth'.

Not just Andrew's then.

Perched for April 2031?

"She actually liked murdering puppies!"

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Perched for April 2031?

"She actually liked murdering puppies!"

The files contain in detail the Royals working activities; their charities, oversea’s trips, head of State visits, their correspondence and dealings with the Government, security matters etc, not each individual's personal attributes or failings.

[Soldier Boy]

Originally Posted by jet

The files contain in detail the Royals working activities; their charities, oversea’s trips, head of State visits, their correspondence and dealings with the Government, security matters etc, not each individual's personal attributes or failings.

Unless they're Andrew in which case they contain his little black book, containing direct personal contact details for celebrity child sex traffickers.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Unless they're Andrew in which case they contain his little black book, containing direct personal contact details for celebrity child sex traffickers.

You wish

[Soldier Boy]

Originally Posted by jet

You wish

You don't think he had the details in a book? I guess you must believe he had their phone numbers memorised .

To be clear again: Epstein was a prolific child sex trafficker. Andrew was in frequent contact with him.

This isn't rumours or gossip, the above is simply fact.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

You don't think he had the details in a book? I guess you must believe he had their phone numbers memorised .

To be clear again: Epstein was a prolific child sex trafficker. Andrew was in frequent contact with him.

This isn't rumours or gossip, the above is simply fact.

To be clear: I know all that. Of course he would have had contact details.

You were talking about his ‘little black book’ being exposed by files, to which I replied ‘you wish’ as they are not the sort of details that would be available.

[Soldier Boy]

Originally Posted by jet

To be clear: I know all that. Of course he would have had contact details.

You were talking about his ‘little black book’ being exposed by files, to which I replied ‘you wish’ as they are not the sort of details that would be available.

Ahh "I wish" there was more hard evidence of their evident connection, but that evidence isn't there, which you are apparently happy about, because the ambiguity protects the image of the Royals.

I understand now. Royals > uncovering the truth about paedo pimps.

I'll add that one to the list of "things that British Royals are more important than".

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Ahh "I wish" there was more hard evidence of their evident connection, but that evidence isn't there, which you are apparently happy about

I’m happy enough with the evidence to date, it seems you need more. Do you have some doubts then?

[Soldier Boy]

Originally Posted by jet

I’m happy enough with the evidence to date, it seems you need more. Do you have some doubts then?

I'm sure you are happy enough with the evidence to date - he's still trooping about with the rest of the Royals enjoying his gold-plated existence. I'm personally hoping there's some nice juicy evidence that would put him in a cell. But we know that would never happen. Hence the locked files.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I'm sure you are happy enough with the evidence to date - he's still trooping about with the rest of the Royals enjoying his gold-plated existence. I'm personally hoping there's some nice juicy evidence that would put him in a cell. But we know that would never happen. Hence the locked files.

As the case with Virginia Giuffre' is already settled, you want more ‘juicy’ evidence? Like what? That other girls suffered abuse from him to satisfy your desire for him to be locked up? Was one not enough for you?

….and once again, the files of all the Royals are locked for the same time period.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I'm sure you are happy enough with the evidence to date - he's still trooping about with the rest of the Royals enjoying his gold-plated existence. I'm personally hoping there's some nice juicy evidence that would put him in a cell. But we know that would never happen. Hence the locked files.

You do know locking files away is nothing new and it happens in politics

[Soldier Boy]

Originally Posted by jet

As the case with Virginia Giuffre' is already settled, you want more ‘juicy’ evidence? Like what? That other girls suffered abuse from him to satisfy your desire for him to be locked up? Was one not enough for you?

That he was well aware of Epstein's activities before, during and after his attendance of these parties ... instead of his gormless feigning of ignorance.

….and once again, the files of all the Royals are locked for the same time period.

No idea why you keep repeating this. That makes it worse, not better.

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

You do know locking files away is nothing new and it happens in politics

And if it's not new, it must be fine?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

No idea why you keep repeating this. That makes it worse, not better.

Because you keep repeating 'that's why Andrew's files are locked up'. It is not.
I'm not attempting to make it better, all their files being locked up is a FACT.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

That he was well aware of Epstein's activities before, during and after his attendance of these parties ... instead of his gormless feigning of ignorance.

If that got him locked up, he would be in the company of dozens of high - profile American males who Virginia Guiffe claims to have known all about Epsteins acitivities and participated in them with her, but she has never brought cases against.

[Soldier Boy]

Originally Posted by jet

If that got him locked up, he would be in the company of dozens of high - profile American males who Virginia Guiffe claims to have known all about Epsteins acitivities and participated in them with her, but she has never brought cases against.

The same high-profile American males who quite blatantly had Epstein murdered in his cell... so I can understand her not ****ing with them.

I'm well enough aware that Andrew isn't the worst of what Epstein was involved in and he was clearly in some ways naive and out of his depth.

It however doesn't make him any less of a predatory creep.

[bitontheslide]

I don't know about anyone else, but any parties/get togethers have followed my age profile through my life. So now, it's all middle aged +

Kids were around obviously when we were younger, but there comes a point when the grow up 15+ and the last thing they want is to be seen in the company of their parents.

With that in mind, Andrew as a middle aged man, was attending parties with lots of young teen girls. There is no way that could be considered innocent or naive. I don't really know who he is trying to kid. Yes, he wasn't the only one, but he is a relatively easy target with a big bag of cash, so he was obviously the first one to be fingered.

I'm not sure how much or indeed if there is anything related to that being locked up out of view, i would imagine anything not in the public domain was destroyed a while ago

[arista]

BBC News Text:
["Prince Andrew faces fresh scrutiny over
his Jeffrey Epstein links after a US judge ruled
evidence from an accuser be made public".
The papers says 40 documents relating
to a woman who has previously accused
the royal of groping her breasts at
Epstein's New York mansion in 2021,
will be published in early January.
The Duke of York has always denied
any wrongdoing.]

[arista]

This is Related
to the Sun Front Page

[bitontheslide]

great news for all the lawyers getting a big christmas bonus to try and stop their clients being named

[arista]

[arista]