On 20/11/2019 18:32, pamela wrote:
On 14:15 20 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 12:39, pamela wrote:
On 08:51 20 Nov 2019, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 02:07, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:02:34 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

What do you mean by 'trafficking'?

How do you define 'paedophile'? And what evidence do you have?

Ignoring the first two *daft* (even by Usenet standards) questions
for obvious reasons

No, you can't just gloss over them. You suggested:

"what might well be a huge international paedophile network
trafficking young girls for sex between the rich and powerful".

I don't know what is meant by 'trafficking' in such a context. It's a
strange and rather archaic expression to me that needs some
explanation.
What do *you* mean by it?

Stop being daft. Look it up.

Yes, I have. This is what the NSPCC (who ought to know) says:

"Trafficking is where children and young people tricked, forced or
persuaded to leave their homes and are moved or transported and then
exploited, forced to work or sold."

You don't seem to know the background to this case at all. The
trafficking by Epstein and his madam, Maxwell, was notorious and
Epstiein was eventually imprisoned on trafficking charges.

Now for some *facts*. Epstein was convicted in Florida for procuring an
underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. He was
arrested on charges of sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York
but was not convicted. He died before the case could be brought.

I am not aware of any circumstances that would add up to the NSPCC
definition of 'trafficking' above. Nor can I find any indication that
any of the girls was unwilling.

The NSPCC definition is not used in America. Stop being silly by picking
and switching.

Then what definition is? I asked 'What do you mean by 'trafficking'?"
and you said I was being daft to ask. Now you're disputing the meaning
of the word yourself.

You're looking ever more ridiculous with every passing day.

No one is doing the same as you by picking the American age for legal sex
and then trying to apply it to Andrews's sexual relationships in London.
That would be foolish and what you are doing is equally foolish.

I've taken all the occasions and all the locations Ms Roberts alleged.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Why doesn't it to you?

Google is your friend although you seem to prefer asking naive
questions.

Then you seem to associate 'young girls' with 'paedophile' activity
with no clarification. Is a 17-year old 'a young girl'? And is
anyone who has sex with a 17-year old girl 'a paedophile'?

Clarification is needed to understand what you're saying. So, do say.

As it happens, Epstein was a convicted paedophile.

So what?

What's more, Prince Andrew was consorting with an underage girl.

You think 17 is underage? Not in the UK it isn't.
And I don't think 'consorting' is a crime anyway.

It is a crime if he had sex with a 17 year old in a jurisdiction where it
is illegal.

Got any evidence that he did?

If so, what is it?

You entered this discussion without knowing the facts of the case and as
you have learnt them and seen you're wrong, you are now trying to wheedle
your argument.

Hardly.

It's such a pity your abilty to read and comprehend ordinary English is
so limited.