Don't rorry Pince Watsit
 

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

Don't rorry Pince Watsit
 

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

Don't rorry Pince Watsit
 

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!

Don't rorry Pince Watsit
 

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?

Don't rorry Pince Watsit
 

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?
:-)

Don't rorry Pince Watsit
 

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

Don't rorry Pince Watsit
 

"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.

More Heavy Trolling by Senile Nym-Shifting Rodent Speed!
 

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:

Don't rorry Pince Watsit
 

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.

Don't rorry Pince Watsit
 

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!

Don't rorry Pince Watsit
 

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

Don't rorry Pince Watsit
 

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.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell (was: Don't worry Pince Watsit)
 

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!

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

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?

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

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!

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

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

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

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?

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

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.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

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.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:
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.

Hasving photoshopped quite a lot, the differences in shadow and height
and context all show up clearly


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.

Especially when its faked.


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On 20/11/2019 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:
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.

Hasving photoshopped quite a lot, the differences in shadow and height
and context all show up clearly


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.

Especially when its faked.



Prince Andrew said in the interview that his advisers (and presumably he
can pay for good advisers) tell him that it is impossible to tell
whether or not it is faked because it is a photograph of a photograph
and you'd need to locate the original.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:

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.

You discount 'sole purpose of visit' then?

What did he go for, tea and scones?

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On 20/11/2019 11:53, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:
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.

Hasving photoshopped quite a lot, the differences in shadow and height
and context all show up clearly


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.

Especially when its faked.



Prince Andrew said in the interview that his advisers (and presumably he
can pay for good advisers) tell him that it is impossible to tell
whether or not it is faked because it is a photograph of a photograph
and you'd need to locate the original.


If you see a room in which a person cast a shadow in one direction and
another person is clearly lit up from the other side, and the person who
is in it is clearly taller than the person she is next to despite being
allegedly 6" shorter...



--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell (was: Don't worry Pince Watsit)
 

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.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

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.

It's REAL DUMB Pedophilic serb nazi Bitchslapping Time, AGAIN!
 

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:

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On 20/11/2019 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


If you see a room in which a person cast a shadow in one direction and
another person is clearly lit up from the other side, and the person who
is in it is clearly taller than the person she is next to despite being
allegedly 6" shorter...

Yes. It's a bit like lying. People can spin a good web but
inconsistencies can catch the lie.

If we can't spot inconsistencies, we just don't know.

I saw one newspaper did point out that the photo did seem remarkably
consistent with known context, but of course that might just mean a
forger did a good job.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On 20/11/2019 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:53, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:
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.

Hasving photoshopped quite a lot, the differences in shadow and
height and context all show up clearly

I think you need to explain your reasoning more carefully.

It looks to me like an image originally on film taken with a compact
camera where the inbuilt flash is to the left of the lens. This puts
shadows on the right hand side of all objects in the field of view.

If the negative still exists and is in sequence with others from that
night then it would be definitive (or show that there was a very complex
and long planned conspiracy against him).

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.

Especially when its faked.

Prince Andrew said in the interview that his advisers (and presumably
he can pay for good advisers) tell him that it is impossible to tell
whether or not it is faked because it is a photograph of a photograph
and you'd need to locate the original.

If you see a room in which a person cast a shadow in one direction and
another person is clearly lit up from the other side, and the person who
is in it is clearly taller than the person she is next to despite being
allegedly 6" shorter...

Are we talking about the same photo?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...nterview#img-3

She is very clearly at least 4" shorter than he is in this photo.
(and we cannot see if she is wearing heals)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

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.

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.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

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.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 11:26:47 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:

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.

Hasving photoshopped quite a lot, the differences in shadow and height
and context all show up clearly

So.
lots of people buy faked autographs, it doesn't mean anything, it doesn't prove you haven't met that person and it doesn't mean you have met that person.

I have a photo of a ship on Mars. yes I photoshopped it , does it prove I;ve been to Mars ? But I did take the photo of the ship from a greek island but I doubt I could prove that I had been to that isalnd or Greece or anywhere.




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.

Especially when its faked.

or made to look like a fake.

A friend of mine who's been to many countries around the world found a faked picture of himself posing in front of many of the worlds great scenes.
Another friend had faked all the pictures but only used places that he has actually been to so while the pictures were all faked the person had actually been to all of those places.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 13:03:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:53, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:
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.

Hasving photoshopped quite a lot, the differences in shadow and height
and context all show up clearly


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.

Especially when its faked.



Prince Andrew said in the interview that his advisers (and presumably he
can pay for good advisers) tell him that it is impossible to tell
whether or not it is faked because it is a photograph of a photograph
and you'd need to locate the original.


If you see a room in which a person cast a shadow in one direction and
another person is clearly lit up from the other side, and the person who
is in it is clearly taller than the person she is next to despite being
allegedly 6" shorter...

It must be aliens.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On 20/11/2019 12:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:

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.

You discount 'sole purpose of visit' then?

What did he go for, tea and scones?

I do not know. But I think we should be told.

For some reason Emily Maitlis didn't ask him how he spent his time chez
Epstein. I am sure she felt hugely intimidated, and despite years of
experience as a journalist it seems she felt as shy as a schoolgirl.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e...drew-8hhclpwcf

quote

It is impossible ever to feel ready for an interview like this one. It
will be one of a kind. But at 1pm on Thursday I am bundled into the cab
to the palace, with Jake Morris, the investigations producer, at my
side. He has researched each question, cross-checked dates and quotes.
€œWhat if I forget to ask about the photo?€� I panic. €œWhat if I dont
dare talk about sex in a bath?€�

€œIll shout out anything you forget,€� he says. It is too odd a thought
even to contemplate. But at that moment I just believe he will.

This time, once we cross the courtyard of Buckingham Palace, we are
taken into the Queens own entrance. We will film in the south drawing
room €” in truth, a modest ballroom €” and we will reach it through a
seemingly endless journey the length of the extraordinary Marble Hall,
where investiture ceremonies are performed. The walk is dazzling,
stately and, frankly, intimidating.

I quickly sidle off to the loo, see I have chocolate on my teeth, and
start to scrub with what I realise too late is a palace hand towel.

This is the most disastrous start to any interview I can imagine. And
then I suddenly recognise it for what it is: pure stomach-gripping nerves.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

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.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On 20/11/2019 14:51, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 12:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:

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.

You discount 'sole purpose of visit' then?

What did he go for, tea and scones?

I do not know. But I think we should be told.

For some reason Emily Maitlis didn't ask him how he spent his time chez
Epstein.

Some questions you just know will not result in any clarification or
revelation.

He wasn't being questioned under oath and threat of perjury by a
seasoned QC who already knows the answers to any question he asks and
can disprove any wrong ones. He wasn't under any pressure not to lie or
mislead. If he was hiding anything that's therefore exactly what he'd
have done.

"Yes, we had tea and scones".

Who's to say otherwise?

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On 20/11/2019 15:07, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 14:51, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 12:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:

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.

You discount 'sole purpose of visit' then?

What did he go for, tea and scones?

I do not know. But I think we should be told.

For some reason Emily Maitlis didn't ask him how he spent his time
chez Epstein.

Some questions you just know will not result in any clarification or
revelation.

As Maitlis says in her Times piece, she was surprised by how forthcoming
he was, so ready to answer all questions put to him.

What would he have said? Did they play numerous games of cards,
backgammon and tennis? Did they watch movies together on TV? Did they
embark on earnest discussions about philosophy, religion or economic
policy? Was the Duke single minded about his desire to market British
business and British goods throughout the world, via Epstein's valuable
contacts?

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

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.

This explanation is by a former federal prosecutor

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...lly-works.html

That link was a follow up to an intriguing account of the
still somewhat mysterious sources of Epsteins wealth

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...s-fortune.html

At a guess it was possibly Jeffreys seeming ability to conjure large sums of
money out of thin air, rather than teenagers per se, that was his primary attraction
for HRH.


michael adams

....

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:51:43 +0000, The Todal
wrote:

On 20/11/2019 12:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:

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.

You discount 'sole purpose of visit' then?

What did he go for, tea and scones?

I do not know. But I think we should be told.

For some reason Emily Maitlis didn't ask him how he spent his time chez
Epstein. I am sure she felt hugely intimidated, and despite years of
experience as a journalist it seems she felt as shy as a schoolgirl.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e...drew-8hhclpwcf

quote

It is impossible ever to feel ready for an interview like this one. It
will be one of a kind. But at 1pm on Thursday I am bundled into the cab
to the palace, with Jake Morris, the investigations producer, at my
side. He has researched each question, cross-checked dates and quotes.
“What if I forget to ask about the photo?” I panic. “What if I don’t
dare talk about sex in a bath?”

“I’ll shout out anything you forget,” he says. It is too odd a thought
even to contemplate. But at that moment I just believe he will.

This time, once we cross the courtyard of Buckingham Palace, we are
taken into the Queen’s own entrance. We will film in the south drawing
room — in truth, a modest ballroom — and we will reach it through a
seemingly endless journey the length of the extraordinary Marble Hall,
where investiture ceremonies are performed. The walk is dazzling,
stately and, frankly, intimidating.

I quickly sidle off to the loo, see I have chocolate on my teeth, and
start to scrub with what I realise too late is a palace hand towel.

This is the most disastrous start to any interview I can imagine. And
then I suddenly recognise it for what it is: pure stomach-gripping nerves.

Overawed by a minor royal. Perhaps they should have chosen someone
with more backbone for the interview?

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 20/11/2019 14:51, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 12:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 11:14, The Todal wrote:

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.

You discount 'sole purpose of visit' then?

What did he go for, tea and scones?

I do not know. But I think we should be told.

For some reason Emily Maitlis didn't ask him how he spent his time chez
Epstein.

Some questions you just know will not result in any clarification or
revelation.

He wasn't being questioned under oath and threat of perjury by a seasoned
QC who already knows the answers to any question he asks and can disprove
any wrong ones. He wasn't under any pressure not to lie or mislead. If
he was hiding anything that's therefore exactly what he'd have done.

"Yes, we had tea and scones".

Who's to say otherwise?

Those he ****ed. Interesting that there have been
so few who have actually said that even now.

Don't worry Ghislaine Maxwell
 

On 20/11/2019 15:07, The Todal wrote:
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.


Epstein was reportedly charged under 18 U.S. Code §€¯1591 (Sex
trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion) which is
similar to "procuring" but applies only where a person is under 18 and
for a "commercial sex act"[1]. The latter is defined as "any sex act, on
account of which anything of value is given to or received by any
person". I've no idea if "anything of value" means (in UK terms)
"money's worth" or extends to wider benefits.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...77-sec1591.htm

"§1591. Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion

"(a) Whoever knowingly€”

(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, or maintains
by any means a person; or

(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from
participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in
violation of paragraph (1),

knowing, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force,
threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any
combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in
a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18
years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be
punished as provided in subsection (b).

etc etc etc"

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid