Epstein / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor / Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
mackenzie said:
It is certainly alleged that she did groom others, which is horrible to think about really. However, we have to remember how young she was
Click to expand...
She clearly was no angel but the fact is it is illegal to have sex with a teenage prostitute under 18 so any of the men that did so broke the law.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Not really, Kaz, just from the feature this week from one of the girls who waived her own right to anonnmity and said Giuffre was responsible for procuring a number of girls, and this particular one had been a close friend when she was only 14.
Click to expand...
You have to understand what grooming kids does to them , it brainwashes them , they might be under duress ,trafficed, it is victim blaming without ever being in their shoes
 
mackenzie said:
It is certainly alleged that she did groom others, which is horrible to think about really. However, we have to remember how young she was, and that offences such as this are sometimes repeated by victims.
Click to expand...

Without a shadow of doubt, but the more I have read this week from some of the other girls, it appears she played an active role in procurement, under the guise of them first earning an easy $300 dollars, girls much younger than her.
 
Ha ha .
9c7ed8580d13df6e875b7984b0c5bf41.jpg
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Without a shadow of doubt, but the more I have read this week from some of the other girls, it appears she played an active role in procurement, under the guise of them first earning an easy $300 dollars, girls much younger than her.
Click to expand...
I agree. Turned my stomach when I read it. I think the question here should be whether she would have still done it had she not met Epstein, and I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
 
kaz7 said:
You have to understand what grooming kids does to them , it brainwashes them , they might be under duress ,trafficed, it is victim blaming without ever being in their shoes
Click to expand...
Nah, she should be charged too, if she's groomed others.
Being a victim doesn't give you an excuse if you then do it too.
Otherwise a lot of paedophiles would be excused their behaviour because they were also abused as kids.
 
kaz7 said:
Also groomed and brainwashed
Click to expand...
Induced and used unconscionably by people with literally all the 'privilege', recognition and power in the world. Never mind.

At least Ma'am eventually realised that's on a par with Harry loving a wife who was a bit out of step with the family image.

Lost a bit of respect for her. Took ages for her to sort things out after Diana and Fergie. And now here we are. Not clever. But that's what you will always get with families that value protection of reputation over loving acceptance.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
He is well & truly on his own now and regardless of the outcome he won't be getting any of his titles and patronages back.

The stripped back Royal Family is happening by default. I'm an admirer of the Queen but not a huge monarchist so after she is sadly gone my preference would be to skip Chas & Cam and go straight to William & Kate. They are a great brand for the UK if we are still to have a monarchy.
Click to expand...
The Marchioness of Cholmondeley may disagree with you on that front.
 
kaz7 said:
You have to understand what grooming kids does to them , it brainwashes them , they might be under duress ,trafficed, it is victim blaming without ever being in their shoes
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but when a 17-year-old girl rings in a 14-year-old, supposedly a friend, then leaves that girl in a room with Epstein and then tells her she did a good job, I struggle with it.

I don't profess to understand it, I just have little respect for someone who has snares others into the abuse.

As you would expect, some of these girls put her in the same bracket as Maxwell.
 
mackenzie said:
I agree. Turned my stomach when I read it. I think the question here should be whether she would have still done it had she not met Epstein, and I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people who have unfortunately been abused who have gone on to commit crimes of their own, sadly.

It does not make them above the law, however.

We have people who become scum throughout society because of the terrible upbringing they encounter, yet we do not refrain from punishing them.
 
kaz7 said:
The bombshell news was announced by Buckingham Palace this evening

Buckingham Palace said in a statement this evening: "With The Queen's approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to The Queen.

"The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen
Click to expand...

Not looking good...

The Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, honoured by the British government in an attempt to improve relations within Europe during the cold war had his knighthood revoked the day before his execution by a revolutionary firing squad.
 
Two Gun Bob said:
If this chap is our Queens favourite son then I would hate to see what she has propensity to do with a prodical one. It's not every day of the week that your mum kicks you into touch when you've not even had a trial. Her son staunchly refutes the allegations legered against him and has openly said he would defend himself vehemently against these most scurlious of charges so why then has she ostrazised him?

My twopenny worth is that the Queen has obviously been advised to protect the monarchy and what is left of it and nothing more nothing less. I would say her hands are probably tied because the only other alterative explanation is of a mother washing her hands of her own offspring.

Five million or so is fook all Andrew so get the plaintiff paid and remove the pressure from our monarch allowing her to enjoy this very special of Platinum years.
Click to expand...
I would say her hands are probably tied because the only other alterative explanation is of a mother washing her hands of her own offspring.

Or has Andrew finally confessed
 
Two Gun Bob said:
If this chap is our Queens favourite son then I would hate to see what she has propensity to do with a prodical one. It's not every day of the week that your mum kicks you into touch when you've not even had a trial. Her son staunchly refutes the allegations legered against him and has openly said he would defend himself vehemently against these most scurlious of charges so why then has she ostrazised him?

My twopenny worth is that the Queen has obviously been advised to protect the monarchy and what is left of it and nothing more nothing less. I would say her hands are probably tied because the only other alterative explanation is of a mother washing her hands of her own offspring.

Five million or so is fook all Andrew so get the plaintiff paid and remove the pressure from our monarch allowing her to enjoy this very special of Platinum years.
Click to expand...
She’s acted to protect the monarchy but the monarchy is stronger than it was in years gone by.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
There are plenty of people who have unfortunately been abused who have gone on to commit crimes of their own, sadly.

It does not make them above the law, however.

We have people who become scum throughout society because of the terrible upbringing they encounter, yet we do not refrain from punishing them.
Click to expand...
I agree. Which in itself shows what a very complex area/scenario this can be
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top