Just wait a little and you will be forgiven just like Charles and
Camilla, by the great British public. They even forgive their politicians.

On 17/11/2019 13:59, Broadback wrote:
Just wait a little and you will be forgiven just like Charles and
Camilla, by the great British public. They even forgive their politicians.


She would have been legal in the UK.

--
Adam

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:40:10 +0000, ARW wrote:

On 17/11/2019 13:59, Broadback wrote:
Just wait a little and you will be forgiven just like Charles and
Camilla, by the great British public. They even forgive their
politicians.


She would have been legal in the UK.

Indeed. I don't think PA personally has *anything* to apologise for, TBH.
If it weren't for the fact he's a royal, no one would give a **** anyway
IMO.

I should say I've not seen the Maitliss interview so there might *just*
be something I've missed. But I doubt it.




--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

On 17/11/2019 17:44:15, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:40:10 +0000, ARW wrote:

On 17/11/2019 13:59, Broadback wrote:
Just wait a little and you will be forgiven just like Charles and
Camilla, by the great British public. They even forgive their
politicians.


She would have been legal in the UK.

Indeed. I don't think PA personally has *anything* to apologise for, TBH.
If it weren't for the fact he's a royal, no one would give a **** anyway
IMO.

I should say I've not seen the Maitliss interview so there might *just*
be something I've missed. But I doubt it.

I wonder if Ms Sturgeon will be apologising for talking to her friend
Alex at some point next January?

On 17/11/2019 18:00, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/11/2019 17:44:15, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:40:10 +0000, ARW wrote:

On 17/11/2019 13:59, Broadback wrote:
Just wait a little and you will be forgiven just like Charles and
Camilla, by the great British public. They even forgive their
politicians.


She would have been legal in the UK.

Indeed. I don't think PA personally has *anything* to apologise for, TBH.
If it weren't for the fact he's a royal, no one would give a **** anyway
IMO.

I should say I've not seen the Maitliss interview so there might *just*
be something I've missed. But I doubt it.

I wonder if Ms Sturgeon will be apologising for talking to her friend
Alex at some point next January?
:-)

On 17/11/2019 17:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:40:10 +0000, ARW wrote:

On 17/11/2019 13:59, Broadback wrote:
Just wait a little and you will be forgiven just like Charles and
Camilla, by the great British public. They even forgive their
politicians.


She would have been legal in the UK.

Indeed. I don't think PA personally has *anything* to apologise for, TBH.
If it weren't for the fact he's a royal, no one would give a **** anyway
IMO.

I should say I've not seen the Maitliss interview so there might *just*
be something I've missed. But I doubt it.


The bloke has never really had a career prospect.

He started off as 2nd? "in line to the throne".

Well that's called a queue for the toilet in Yorkshire.

He knobbed Koo Stark (fair play to him for getting that notch on the bed
post for that one)

But marrying Fergie? FFS.


--
Adam

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:22:19 +0000, ARW wrote:

He knobbed Koo Stark (fair play to him for getting that notch on the bed
post for that one)

Yeah, she was a bit of a sort; I certainly wouldn't be ashamed to walk
down the street with her.

But marrying Fergie? FFS.

Dear God! What on earth did he see in that ghastly bint? And her even
more ghastly father?? What a monumental embarrassment to the Royal Family
that was.

When Andy hitched up with Fergie, I didn't think any royal could *ever*
make a bigger **** up.... Then along came Harry.





--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

On 17/11/2019 20:14, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:22:19 +0000, ARW wrote:

He knobbed Koo Stark (fair play to him for getting that notch on the bed
post for that one)

Yeah, she was a bit of a sort; I certainly wouldn't be ashamed to walk
down the street with her.

But marrying Fergie? FFS.

Dear God! What on earth did he see in that ghastly bint? And her even
more ghastly father?? What a monumental embarrassment to the Royal Family
that was.

When Andy hitched up with Fergie, I didn't think any royal could *ever*
make a bigger **** up.... Then along came Harry.






James was only the milkman....

--
Adam

"Broadback" wrote in message
...

Just wait a little and you will be forgiven just like Charles and Camilla,
by the great British public. They even forgive their politicians.

Liz usually rummages around in her bottom drawers and
managed to find yet another decoration to pin on him.

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 05:47:35 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Just wait a little and you will be forgiven just like Charles and Camilla,
by the great British public. They even forgive their politicians.

Liz usually rummages around in her bottom drawers and
managed to find yet another decoration to pin on him.

Oh, please, spare everyone your idiotic, senile attempts at "humour",
psychopathic Ozzie pest! tsk

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

Yerwot?
Are we all really this shallow that we worry about this sort of thing? Not
everyone has the empathy gene.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Just wait a little and you will be forgiven just like Charles and Camilla,
by the great British public. They even forgive their politicians.

On Sunday, 17 November 2019 13:59:12 UTC, Broadback wrote:
Just wait a little and you will be forgiven just like Charles and
Camilla, by the great British public. They even forgive their politicians.

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend several more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I believe.
Now Ghislaine Maxwell is another matter altogether. Allegedly she
procured and trafficked girls for sexual exploitation by the rich and
powerful. Now that's a very serious offence in both Britain and the US.
What's being done about this vile woman? Where is she even?? I read
something in the Mail about her fleeing to Israel which has no
extradition treaty with anyone, but there's hardly a mention about her
central role in all this. It's as if the MSM are using a very minor
transgression (if that) by Andrew to divert attention away from Maxwell
and what might well be a huge international paedophile network
trafficking young girls for sex between the rich and powerful.



--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I believe.
Now Ghislaine Maxwell is another matter altogether. Allegedly she
procured and trafficked girls for sexual exploitation by the rich and
powerful. Now that's a very serious offence in both Britain and the US.
What's being done about this vile woman? Where is she even?? I read
something in the Mail about her fleeing to Israel which has no
extradition treaty with anyone, but there's hardly a mention about her
central role in all this. It's as if the MSM are using a very minor
transgression (if that) by Andrew to divert attention away from Maxwell
and what might well be a huge international paedophile network
trafficking young girls for sex between the rich and powerful.

What do you mean by 'trafficking'?

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

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 and addressing the third, I have no evidence beyond
Virginia's reported accusations against Ghilaine.
The point is the police *should* be trying to unearth whatever supporting
evidence there may be and bringing it before the prosecuting authorities.




--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

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?

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.

On 19/11/2019 23:02, Norman Wells wrote:


What do you mean by 'trafficking'?


I was curious about what trafficking meant, so did a quick wiki.

In USA law and in the case of a minor it seems to require nothing more
than inducing an under eighteen year old to commit a sex act.

For some reason I naively thought trafficking involved moving or
transporting but it seems to be closer to meaning "trade". Possibly this
follows from the drug context, as in drug trafficker.

It seems to be a very reasonable question. I would certainly appreciate
correction if I have misunderstood.

On 20/11/2019 13:19, Pancho wrote:
On 19/11/2019 23:02, Norman Wells wrote:


What do you mean by 'trafficking'?


I was curious about what trafficking meant, so did a quick wiki.

In USA law and in the case of a minor it seems to require nothing more
than inducing an under eighteen year old to commit a sex act.

So maybe the equivalent of the word "procuring" in English law. Just my
suggestion.

s22 Causing prostitution of women

(1)It is an offence for a person€”

(a)to procure a woman to become, in any part of the world, a common
prostitute ; or

(b)to procure a woman to leave the United Kingdom, intending her to
become an inmate of or frequent a brothel elsewhere; or

(c)to procure a woman to leave her usual place of abode in the United
Kingdom, intending her to become an inmate of or frequent a brothel in
any part of the world for the purposes of prostitution.

unquote

Is it central to the American offence of trafficking that the woman ends
up selling sex for money or being part of a brothel?



For some reason I naively thought trafficking involved moving or
transporting but it seems to be closer to meaning "trade". Possibly this
follows from the drug context, as in drug trafficker.

It seems to be a very reasonable question. I would certainly appreciate
correction if I have misunderstood.

On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly photoshopped.

Now Ghislaine Maxwell is another matter altogether. Allegedly she
procured and trafficked girls for sexual exploitation by the rich and
powerful. Now that's a very serious offence in both Britain and the US.
What's being done about this vile woman? Where is she even?? I read
something in the Mail about her fleeing to Israel which has no
extradition treaty with anyone, but there's hardly a mention about her
central role in all this. It's as if the MSM are using a very minor
transgression (if that) by Andrew to divert attention away from Maxwell
and what might well be a huge international paedophile network
trafficking young girls for sex between the rich and powerful.



Indeed.

The truth is what they tell you it is.



--
€œThere are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isnt true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.€�

€”Soren Kierkegaard

On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?

On 20/11/2019 08:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly photoshopped.

Really?Â* What makes you think that?


The photograph does not show sexual activity. In fact, it proves nothing
at all. There's no need to photoshop such a picture, unless you want to
display it on your wall as a proud memento of meeting a Prince. If such
things please you.

Andrew agrees that he visited Epstein many times. The girl visited
Epstein many times. The fact that both appear on a photograph is not
proof that he had any sexual contact with her.

On 2019-11-20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?

I don't believe it was photoshopped. You can see some distortion on the left
and right of each frame where the walls look bowed. If you look at the edges
where there is a lot of contrast, you can see some significant chromatic
aberration. If you look at Bonnie Prince Andrew's trousers, you can still see
some chromatic aberration, albeit not as severe. Only the centre of the frame
looks relatively distortion and aberration free. That is consistent with a
cheap, nasty lens. The photo was most likely captured with an inexpensive 35mm
film camera with built in flash, possibly a disposable model. Nothing suggests
it has been postprocessed.

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 07:29:35 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly photoshopped.

Which doesn't prove anything either way.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:52:21 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I believe.
Now Ghislaine Maxwell is another matter altogether. Allegedly she
procured and trafficked girls for sexual exploitation by the rich and
powerful. Now that's a very serious offence in both Britain and the US.
What's being done about this vile woman? Where is she even??

She was last seen in public in the Great Satan...Los Angeles, to be
precise.

I read
something in the Mail about her fleeing to Israel which has no
extradition treaty with anyone,

It is not unknown for jews to flee to 'Israeel' to avoid prosecution
and that is where her jew father, Cap'n Bob Maxwell (né Jan Ludvik
Hyman Binyamin Hoch) is buried. But the 'Israeelis' have been known
to extradite their own kind to the Great Satan...the case of Eddie
"Crazy Eddie" Antar comes to mind.

but there's hardly a mention about her
central role in all this. It's as if the MSM are using a very minor
transgression (if that) by Andrew to divert attention away from Maxwell
and what might well be a huge international paedophile network
trafficking young girls for sex between the rich and powerful.

It is more likely that the Great Satan's FBI are building a case
against her and will swoop on the jew **** when the time is ripe.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 05:04:49 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassturder®™", farted
again:

FLUSH most of the clinically insane ****

It is more likely that the Great Satan's FBI are building a case
against her and will swoop on the jew **** when the time is ripe.

It is more likely that you ARE clinically insane. Just reading one of your
abnormal idiotic posts will convince everyone of it!

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"There will always be progressives such as Harriet Harperson who want to
take that extra step forward. Paedophiles are still a long way from
being widely accepted."
MID: