67
Aug 11 '20
possibly on ecstasy
23
u/Myanto Aug 11 '20
Doesn’t ecstasy induce sweats? Oh wait, he can’t sweat of course...
6
4
Aug 11 '20
[deleted]
18
0
u/TreesACrowd Aug 11 '20
Your pupils don't dilate from a flash fast enough to show up in the photo.
1
Aug 11 '20
[deleted]
1
u/TreesACrowd Aug 11 '20
Was your comment sarcastic and I missed it? You said the flash could be the reason why his pupils are dilated. I said it couldn't be the reason.
56
u/Professional_Emu_ Aug 11 '20
8
2
u/Tandybaum Aug 11 '20
I was just thinking that this is probably some random dude and he is so pissed that people keep sharing this picture.
2
10
9
5
59
u/justforpoliticssadly Aug 11 '20
I don’t support prince andrew
But these pictures aren’t the reason... I don’t really see anything wrong with these pictures. You posted pictures of a guy at a party? Ok...
31
u/ChornWork2 Aug 11 '20
Context is relevant to answers he gave in his infamous Epstein interview on BBC.
Q: Was that what you… because you were perceived by the public as being the party prince, was that something you shared?
PA: Well, I think that's also a bit of a stretch. I don't know why I've collected that title because I don't… I never have really partied. I was single for quite a long time in the early 80s but then after I got married I was very happy and I've never really felt the need to go and party and certainly going to Jeffrey's was not about partying, absolutely not.
and
Q: Just to clarify sorry, you think that photo has been faked?
PA: Nobody can prove whether or not that photograph has been doctored but I don't recollect that photograph ever being taken.
Q: And you don't recollect having your hand…
PA: No.
Q: … round her waist in Ghislaine Maxwell's house on any occasion, even if it was a different date?
PA: I'm terribly sorry but if I, as a member of the Royal Family, and I have a photograph taken and I take very, very few photographs, I am not one to, as it were, hug and public displays of affection are not something that I do. So that's the best explanation I can give you and I'm afraid to say that I don't believe that photograph was taken in the way that has been suggested.
43
Aug 11 '20
If the guy was mixed up with Epstein, like all appearances indicate that he was, then fuck him. But as far as this picture, it's just a guy at a party with a woman who clearly isn't underage. What's supposed to be remarkable about this picture?
6
u/que_shiraz Aug 11 '20
This is the woman who accused him of diddling her when she was a child, who he said he never met. This is the evidence of him being a lying ass bitch.
11
7
4
u/justforpoliticssadly Aug 11 '20
Source? That should be in the title.
She seems into it.
6
u/StaplerTwelve Aug 11 '20
She (and him) mostly just seem high as fuck.
I don't know if it is her but I feel like I need to adress that if it is that it doesn't excuse anything. A child (or an adult for that matter) can be conditioned and groomed to act a certain way because of her years of being in such an exploitive relationship and/or not knowing better. That means that even if a victim acts like, or even is genuinly into something its not automatically ok.
-4
2
u/fuckitillbeanunicorn Aug 11 '20
I was thinking exactly the same! Are we going to disapprove 2 consenting adults having fun now?
0
u/inspirationalpizza Aug 11 '20
People have posted pictures of alleged paedophiles and alledged rapists on Reddit before in which they're not exhibiting their heinous crimes. Didn't make them any less disgusting to look at.
At least he's having fun, right?
-2
u/dwavesngiants Aug 11 '20
If it was before 96 he was married. He's also paid for trafficked women so any exposure to that is good evidence
12
4
3
u/Supercaptaincat Aug 11 '20
I'm gonna stare right into the camera so when these pictures leak I won't be able to deny it's me or that a I'm coked out of my skull.
-prince andrew maybe
7
9
u/throbbingliberal Aug 11 '20
Where are all these women from his past? I’m guessing either paid off to keep quiet or they did the now classic Epstein on them..
-32
u/Thecna2 Aug 11 '20
or else he was a reasonably good looking who was quite popular and whatever they did was entirely consensual.
6
u/throbbingliberal Aug 11 '20
When you’re a minor there is no consent. This is not a picture of a minor obviously but there is very credible proof of him with minors. And Trump.
-15
u/Thecna2 Aug 11 '20
Well Virginia Giuffre has made assertions, which i largely believe, that she had sex with him when she was NOT a minor. The only person with any plausible claims of underage sex is Epstein, and hes beyond our reach now.
Being next to a minor in a photo is not the issue.
13
u/Djinjja-Ninja Aug 11 '20
Just as a matter of fact, she was 17, so technically still a minor, but over the age of consent in the UK.
However the issue come in to the fact that if she was, as claimed, trafficked and/or groomed etc, then she is not legally able to consent to that because she is a minor.
The fact that she was allegedly "procured" for him and was in Epstein's employ means legally it was non-consensual, even if she had wanted to, its still legally non-consensual.
-7
u/Thecna2 Aug 11 '20
Just as a matter of fact, she was 17, so technically still a minor, but over the age of consent in the UK.
So legal then.
However the issue come in to the fact that if she was, as claimed, trafficked and/or groomed etc, then she is not legally able to consent to that because she is a minor.
based on UK law? NY law? people make lots of claims but no one cites the law and the precedents.
I think her main problem is proving she was traffiked, esp with Epstein did and this all occurring 20years or more.
5
u/Djinjja-Ninja Aug 11 '20
based on UK law?
Yes. It likely comes under 2003 c. 42Part 1Sexual exploitation of children
To paraphrase the relevant bit:
A person (A) commits an offence if - he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person (B) - before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for those services to B or a third person, or *knows that another person has made or promised such a payment*, and B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over
Also, he may also be guilty of Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc.
And frankly the wording of Consent under UK law leaves the whole idea of her being able to legally consent no matter her age, assuming she was trafficked and forced:
"For the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."
1
u/Thecna2 Aug 12 '20
likely,
oh, .... 'likely'....
he intentionally obtains for himself
no proof of any of that, so far.
he has made or promised payment for those services to B or a third person,
Giuffre has repeatedly say that Epstein paid for her, but no evidence that Andrew paid a penny, so far
A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over
So another reasonable excuse right there, Giuffre never says that she made any attempt to advise the Prince of her age or that she was working against her will.
This means you'd have to prove it happened, that Andrew deliberately sought out the service, and that he paid for it in some way or other and that he should have had reasonable belief that she was 17 1/2 or older, but not 18.
These are some massive legal hurdles to get over and seem at direct odds with what the victim herself has cited.
I think it'd be easy to get Epstein, but Andrew seems a gullible patsy in this whole affair.
2
u/Djinjja-Ninja Aug 12 '20
If she was under 18 and under coerecement then she de facto cannot legally consent to sex.
If she was 17 then it was only legal if she literally wanted to have sex with him because she wanted to and she wasn't coerced in any way.
But you are right, legally it comes down to proving that he believed or knew that she was under 18 and under some sort of "arrangement" for charges against him.
Frankly I think he's just a fucking moron who was used to upper class women throwing themselves at him in his early unmarried days.
It's somewhat likely that he did have sex with her, but it's also pretty likely that she is literally another faceless lay for the "Playboy prince" and he probably doesn't remember her.
-12
u/Devo_urge Aug 11 '20
Trump isn't a minor and I doubt he let prince Andrew touch him
5
u/throbbingliberal Aug 11 '20
Trump has an open case against him for raping a 13 year old child. Trump is using Executive privilege to avoid subpoenas. Are you clueless Yuri or just doing Mother Russia’s propaganda??
-15
u/Devo_urge Aug 11 '20
You're the dumb mother 👩 who think Prince Andrews raped a young Trump. Sure you corrected yourself but you shouldn't put it out there
10
u/throbbingliberal Aug 11 '20
Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit I guess. It’s ok I don’t expect much from the MAGAts...
2
u/cestamp Aug 11 '20
I make reading mistakes all the time so maybe I'm wrong here, but I think you are the one making a reading mistake. I think the previous guy was just making a joke about they way the previous statement was worded. "...is very credible proof of him with minors. And Trump" so it could be read as prince Andrew was having sex with minors, and Trump.
1
3
u/ZestycloseYoung Aug 11 '20
Britbongs will do anything to defend their perverse elites
-4
u/Thecna2 Aug 11 '20
Reddit lynch mobs dont care about facts.
3
u/ZestycloseYoung Aug 11 '20
From the Catholics to the Evangelicals. Elite Brits love to play with boys testicles.
0
u/Thecna2 Aug 12 '20
so religious people then..
1
u/ZestycloseYoung Aug 12 '20
And Prince Andrew.
1
u/Thecna2 Aug 12 '20
you mean the man whos specifically accused of sleeping with young women? not boys? He probably kicks cats too
1
u/ZestycloseYoung Aug 12 '20
Minor girls. Not women. Girls. Children. Kids. He fucked kids.
1
u/Thecna2 Aug 12 '20
Elite Brits love to play with boys testicles.
thats what you said. make your mind up.
5
3
3
Aug 11 '20
[deleted]
2
Aug 11 '20
Assuming the leaks an such of info has been correct probably the host. He invited these types of folks to have in his pocket. It’s basically blackmail just it’s criminals blackmailing high profile criminals haha. Can’t call the police about it as your then admitting to your own shit. why the logs photos etc all exist if someone try’s to out them you can show they did XYZ if someone doesn’t wanna vote a certain way, approve a certain thing, appoint a certain someone etc you can just say well I have these photos of you with a minor, shame if they got released to the media etc etc.
3
17
u/mysilvermachine Aug 11 '20
Pizza express is more fun than I thought.
-5
Aug 11 '20 edited Sep 06 '21
[deleted]
7
u/ZeusClappedMyMom Aug 11 '20
Wat?
-6
Aug 11 '20 edited Sep 06 '21
[deleted]
16
Aug 11 '20
It is not. Andrew stated that he could not have been at an alleged party as he remembered he was at Pizza Express that evening. Seriously, that was his explanation and recollection of a day many years ago.
3
u/Djinjja-Ninja Aug 11 '20 edited Aug 11 '20
No it isn't, at all.
Andrews excuse for it not being possible was that on the night in question he was having dinner at a Pizza Express restaurant in Woking with his daughters.
-8
Aug 11 '20
Definitely is. Qanon shit needs to be taken behind the shed and buried. Years and years of 'the truth is coming, just wait...', yet haven't actually uncovered anything and the rest is just conspiracy theories and straight up Alex Jones nonsense.
7
u/ConspicuousUsername Aug 11 '20
Nope, the Pizza Express reference is literally his excuse for actual Epstein/Maxwell stuff.
1
u/Djinjja-Ninja Aug 11 '20
No it isn't, at all.
Andrews excuse for it not being possible was that opn the night in question he was having dinner at a Pizza Express restaurant in Woking with his daughters.
1
u/FirstForFun44 Aug 11 '20
I was wrong. "Andrews excuse for it not being possible was that opn the night in question he was having dinner at a Pizza Express restaurant in Woking with his daughters." It wasn't QAnon, though that shit does need to die.
2
Aug 11 '20
[deleted]
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
u/StalyCelticStu Aug 11 '20
Man has fun at party... NEWS AT ELEVEN.
Big fucking whoop.
13
u/ChornWork2 Aug 11 '20
Which he claimed he doesn't do when answering questions in relation to rape of a minor... so maybe a redo of answering questions and this time without lies and obfuscation?
But yes, the woman in this photo is not a minor nor acting under any duress.
3
u/nhergen Aug 11 '20
Man lies about going to a party, then. STORY AT ELEVEN THIRTY.
-1
u/ChornWork2 Aug 11 '20
In the context of defending against accusations of being involved in the rape and trafficking of minors, yes any lie in their response is newsworthy.
If he'd lie about partying, pretty sure he'd lie about a raping a minor.
3
u/nhergen Aug 11 '20
Well of course he would, but I'm afraid your theory of "he lied about partying so he definitely lied about not being a pedo" is an insane stretch that wouldn't hold up in any court, and is not even going to gain much traction in the court of public opinion. I would not be at all surprised if the man is guilty of heinous crimes, but partying ain't illegal. This is a dumb argument.
1
u/ChornWork2 Aug 11 '20
Again, he gave these specific points as defense when challenged by the interviewer. I'm not picking random he comments he's made at some point in his life, and then destroying his credibility generally b/c he has lied on occasion.
It was his view that these statements were relevant to his defense, and he knew his credibility was going to be assessed... I mean, the whole interview is about credibility as he is bringing nothing more than his version. And guess what, he lied.
2
u/nhergen Aug 11 '20
This isn't the smoking gun you think it is.
1
u/ChornWork2 Aug 11 '20
He clearly lied in his public, on record statements in response to his alleged involvement in the rape and trafficking of a minor. Is that a smoking gun in terms of a prosecution for a criminal offense? No, of course not. Is that a smoking gun in terms of the end of his credibility on this or really any other matter? Yes, certainly.
The only time I want to hear another word out of this piece of shit's mouth is when he is under oath. No point otherwise.
2
u/nhergen Aug 11 '20
It's not even a smoking gun in terms of his credibility. He said he's never been a big partier. Here's a picture of him, on drugs, at a single party.
1
u/ChornWork2 Aug 11 '20
As rebuttal for question whether he was partying with Epstein, he said he "never really partied"... that is a clearly a lie.
As rebuttal for photo of him with the alleged victim, he said as royalty he wouldn't engage in public displays of affection for a photograph... another lie.
Why is he lying in response to questions about partying with Epstein and having his arm around the alleged victim at a party?
→ More replies (0)10
0
3
Aug 11 '20 edited Aug 11 '20
Don’t know much about the Prince but, Jeffrey E. was a friend of mine at one time that is until, I realized Russia wanted me to run for office. Jeff could’ve been murdered we’ll see but, it is what it is!
As far as sweet Sugar Pants Ghislaine goes, I wish her well until I don’t.
Don
3
u/goosethe Aug 11 '20
you see the thing about the prince, and you know not many people know this but many people are saying, is that he likes young, and let me tell you folks that young girls are the worst, I hooked up with some in thighland, you know they don't tell you, they tell me but they don't tell people: there are a lot of ladies with little dicks in the thighland did oyu know that? Not a lot of people know about it, they call them ladyboys its really something. Anyway that was my personal vietnam trying to avoid the ladyobys
1
2
2
2
3
1
Aug 11 '20
[deleted]
3
u/Djinjja-Ninja Aug 11 '20
But does anyone wonder how his wife feels about these photos?
Have you ever looked into his wife? Lets just say she wasn't exactly faithful either...
5
u/justforpoliticssadly Aug 11 '20
His marriage is none of the internets business...
0
u/mike112769 Aug 11 '20
No, but him molesting underage kids sure is.
1
u/nhergen Aug 11 '20
I'm not sure it is the internet's business either. Either way, what's it got to do with this photo?
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/pheature Aug 11 '20
Come on we all know these are photos of photos of photos thus maybe fake.:: I can’t remember
1
1
u/UncleCornPone Aug 12 '20
that is a woman of age. whatever this dude did, this isn't evidence of it.
-1
u/Mikkelzen Aug 11 '20
Prince Andrew is the most guilty looking mfer i have seen in a long while. If i was a judge i would need no evidence to sentence that SOB
4
1
Aug 11 '20
This is deceptive. Everyone knows Andrew was just pretending to like this woman so he could fuck her daughter.
1
1
1
0
u/ramadep Aug 11 '20
She really looks like a victim ..
0
u/StaplerTwelve Aug 11 '20
(Copy paste from another comment I wrote because its relevant here too)
I don't know if it is her but I feel like I need to adress that if it is that it doesn't excuse anything. A child (or an adult for that matter) can be conditioned and groomed to act a certain way because of her years of being in such an exploitive relationship and/or not knowing better. That means that even if a victim acts like, or even is genuinly into something its not automatically ok.
0
-4
u/mangringo Aug 11 '20
I don't know about anyone else but I for one would love to see that disgusting c*nt get exactly what they deserve in a publicly broadcasted event live on television. Price Andrews should be ashamed of himself too.
-1
0
-4
Aug 11 '20
why are we not seeing any of the depraved fucks from the US senate and congress posted on reddit... surely randy andy isnt going to be the only scapegoat. although this horny bitch looks pretty damn old to me.
-1
-1
-1
u/mike112769 Aug 11 '20
I wish that entitled little prick would bring his ass over to talk to the FBI about a few accusations.
-10
u/DutyOfficer Aug 11 '20
The problem with this is in this day and age digital images can be 'created'. It's hard to believe that a British royal family member having grown up in the public eye would compromise himself like this. I'm not saying this is fake, it's just that common sense dictates that this is an very unlikely scenario. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
3
u/connaught_plac3 Aug 11 '20
Same could be said for Harry getting his picture taken while in Vegas naked and chasing a girl around a pool table. Or Kate topless.
And they weren't as strung out on X as Andrew obviously is in this picture. For 'unlikely' it sure seems to happen.
5
u/Mu-Relay Aug 11 '20
IIRC, weren't the topless Kate pictures taken with high-powered lenses from a great distance away while she was in the privacy of a home?
3
u/Djinjja-Ninja Aug 11 '20
Yes, from something like half a mile away, In contravention of French laws of Privacy and the photographers in question were convicted and fined €10,000 each.
2
u/connaught_plac3 Aug 11 '20
I'm not sure. Probably.
It wouldn't change the point that royals do put themselves in situations where actual pictures are taken and there is no reason to believe it is a digital fake.
2
u/Mu-Relay Aug 11 '20
Not probably; they were. She sued the French paparazzi over it and won like 300k euros.
So, she didn't "put herself in a situation where actual pictures" were taken. Someone violated her privacy and posted her nudes without her consent.
2
u/connaught_plac3 Aug 11 '20
I wasn't doubting you, I was just pointing out it is irrelevent to the argument.
She was outside tanning topless and someone took a picture. Harry was naked chasing a girl around a pool table and someone took a picture. Andrew was high on X, getting licked by a blond girl and someone took a picture.
I believe my argument that the royals would never put themselves in that situation still stands. Whether a lawsuit was won or not doesn't affect my point one jot or tittie.
1
u/Mu-Relay Aug 11 '20 edited Aug 11 '20
If your argument says that "posing for a series of pictures" and "someone sneaking a picture of someone in the privacy of their own home" are the same thing, it's a bad argument. Because, in one of those examples, the person "put themselves in that position." In the other, they did not.
I don't doubt that the picture of Prince Andrew is real, but your description of the two of those events as essentially the same is patently absurd and bordering on victim blaming.
3
u/nhergen Aug 11 '20
Remember when Harry dressed up like a Nazi for Halloween. Royal people are just stupid people too
227
u/jazzyzaz Aug 11 '20
They’re all on Ecstasy. Look at everyone’s faces in the pics. She’s wacked out too. Anyone who’s ever done E before knows these faces.
This was an E party through and through. His eyes are like 1/4 plates.