The grand old duke of york, he had 10,000.........
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays  07 Jan 22 3.47pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
I rather enjoyed this take on the Maxwell case.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
BlueJay  UK 07 Jan 22 5.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Even aside from how suspect that is, it sounds like there was a staggering amount of categorised 'content' throughout the property, with clear indications of what some of it related to. And I wonder what it means that some items were 'already' sealed with evidence tape. Possibly either from his 2005 arrest? (in which case why was it sealed, had it not been looked at), or perhaps something of a sick joke from Epstein himself to use 'evidence tape' on compromising material that he had on others. Edited by BlueJay (07 Jan 2022 5.56pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 07 Jan 22 6.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
It’s really not on to say that a girl who was sex trafficked and groomed from the age of 14 was a slapper It’s the worst form of victim blaming and I genuinely object. Please stop it. Where are the people on here who claimed to care about paedophilia now? While I hate phrases like 'victim blaming' I think you're right. I think Cryrst is talking about the obvious intentions of the woman now....who is plainly out for the cash grab....though to be honest I can't blame her as she is probably screwed up and was almost certainly sexually exploited as a child and so it's taking money from people who don't deserve it anyway. How I see it...it doesn't even matter that much If a girl is highly sexed at 14 and wants to make money from it or whatever. We should still be in a society that's doesn't encourage that...and certainly not one that let's rich guys use that as exploitation. Yes, it's true that grey areas exist but this can't mean that we don't have cut off lines like 16 when it comes to people making....presumably.... their own choices. This whole episode is about trafficking and exploitation by these waankers. I want to know what is being covered up....the cover up must not be allowed to stand. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Jan 2022 6.13pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  07 Jan 22 6.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
Even aside from how suspect that is, it sounds like there was a staggering amount of categorised 'content' throughout the property, with clear indications of what some of it related to. And I wonder what it means that some items were 'already' sealed with evidence tape. Possibly either from his 2005 arrest? (in which case why was it sealed, had it not been looked at), or perhaps something of a sick joke from Epstein himself to use 'evidence tape' on compromising material that he had on others. Edited by BlueJay (07 Jan 2022 5.56pm) Also shows a staggering amount of hubris that he kept this material at his own property.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 becky over the moon 07 Jan 22 6.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
While I hate phrases like 'victim blaming' I think you're right. I think Cryrst is talking about the obvious intentions of the woman now....who is plainly out for the cash grab....though to be honest I can't blame her as she is probably screwed up and was almost certainly sexually exploited as a child and so it's taking money from people who don't deserve it anyway. How I see it...it doesn't even matter that much If a girl is highly sexed at 14 and wants to make money from it or whatever. We should still be in a society that's doesn't encourage that...and certainly not one that let's rich guys use that as exploitation. Yes, it's true that grey areas exist but this can't mean that we don't have cut off lines like 16 when it comes to people making....presumably.... their own choices. This whole episode is about trafficking and exploitation by these waankers. I want to know what is being covered up....the cover up must not be allowed to stand. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Jan 2022 6.13pm) ...and therin lies the heart of the matter - Andrew didn't have sex with her until she was 17 - over the legal age of consent - nor is there any evidence that he was in anyway involved in her trafficking before that time. I in no way approve of what he did, but he needs to be judged on facts, and facts that relate wholly and solely to his involvement with her. As far as I can see (and I happily accept I could well be wrong) that leave him as nothing more than a dirty old man.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Stirlingsays 07 Jan 22 7.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
...and therin lies the heart of the matter - Andrew didn't have sex with her until she was 17 - over the legal age of consent - nor is there any evidence that he was in anyway involved in her trafficking before that time. I in no way approve of what he did, but he needs to be judged on facts, and facts that relate wholly and solely to his involvement with her. As far as I can see (and I happily accept I could well be wrong) that leave him as nothing more than a dirty old man. I think it comes down to how much Andrew knew about in terms of the situation he was in....As in these girls were trafficked and did he know Epistein dealt in underage girls....Even if he knew I should think plausible deniability provides him with wiggle room. But certainly Andrew being interested in shagging young and attractive girls attracted to his celebrity and money is about as surprising as fat people liking cake. Above age and willing it just becomes an embarrassing personal matter for him if we all find out. It smells worse than last week's leftovers....Because Andrew is surrounded by advisers who must have looked into Epstein. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Jan 2022 7.25pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the.universal 07 Jan 22 7.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
I in no way approve of what he did, but he needs to be judged on facts, and facts that relate wholly and solely to his involvement with her. As far as I can see (and I happily accept I could well be wrong) that leave him as nothing more than a dirty old man. 17 is a minor under US law. Which somewhat changes the argument.
Vive le Roy! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 07 Jan 22 7.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
...and therin lies the heart of the matter - Andrew didn't have sex with her until she was 17 - over the legal age of consent - nor is there any evidence that he was in anyway involved in her trafficking before that time. I in no way approve of what he did, but he needs to be judged on facts, and facts that relate wholly and solely to his involvement with her. As far as I can see (and I happily accept I could well be wrong) that leave him as nothing more than a dirty old man. He was around Epstein enough that it makes me wonder what else went on. As you say though we can only go on what is known (and as others add, what that means legally might rely on a few factors). I tend to think that he's a little bit unlucky to have become the sole focus of this. The interview he did was disastrous, and just intensified the spotlight on him. It also, in my view, increased the likelihood of him becoming the convenient fall guy for all of the other rich and powerful types that no doubt did worse by several magnitudes. It created the perception that something is being done as result of Epstein's depravity, when really I suspect the worst of the worst have got away with it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 07 Jan 22 7.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
While I hate phrases like 'victim blaming' I think you're right. I think Cryrst is talking about the obvious intentions of the woman now....who is plainly out for the cash grab....though to be honest I can't blame her as she is probably screwed up and was almost certainly sexually exploited as a child and so it's taking money from people who don't deserve it anyway. How I see it...it doesn't even matter that much If a girl is highly sexed at 14 and wants to make money from it or whatever. We should still be in a society that's doesn't encourage that...and certainly not one that let's rich guys use that as exploitation. Yes, it's true that grey areas exist but this can't mean that we don't have cut off lines like 16 when it comes to people making....presumably.... their own choices. This whole episode is about trafficking and exploitation by these waankers. I want to know what is being covered up....the cover up must not be allowed to stand.
Highly sexed? You are amazing I thought from previous posts you had a modicum of understanding of paedophilia and grooming. She was on the streets at 13 and had to get by. Maxwell saw her as an easy victim when she was 17. Her description of sex with PA would not indicate she did it for fun.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 07 Jan 22 7.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Highly sexed? You are amazing I thought from previous posts you had a modicum of understanding of paedophilia and grooming. She was on the streets at 13 and had to get by. Maxwell saw her as an easy victim when she was 17. Her description of sex with PA would not indicate she did it for fun. Mmmm....a bit disappointing. You don't seem to understand the difference between a general point and an individualised one. I would have thought the words, 'a girl' would have made that plain. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Jan 2022 8.01pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| becky over the moon 07 Jan 22 8.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by the.universal
17 is a minor under US law. Which somewhat changes the argument. But the 'offence' took place in London where she was over the age of consent.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 07 Jan 22 8.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
So no 14 or 15 year old girls or boys ever had sex.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.