TomOnBoard wrote: » I don't know why people will infect a serious thread about a disgusting paedophile (Epstein) with blatant deflections that are simply ludicrous and soo easily disproved
TomOnBoard wrote: » Furthermore, there isn't one of those beautiful ladies photographed one on one with Andrew who will ever see 18 again as at the date they were photographed. Indeed, there are some beautiful 30+ year bold in there. I don't know why people will infect a serious thread about a disgusting paedophile (Epstein) with blatant deflections that are simply ludicrous and soo easily disproved
MadYaker wrote: » So you think it’s all perfectly acceptable and prince Andrew has absolutely no questions to answer whatsoever?
He said it was a "mistake" to meet Epstein after he left prison in 2010. "During the time I knew him, I saw him infrequently and probably no more than only once or twice a year," the 59-year-old prince said. "I have stayed in a number of his residences. At no stage during the limited time I spent with him did I see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction." The duke - who said he first met Epstein in 1999 - added that he had "tremendous sympathy" for all those affected by Epstein's behaviour.
TomOnBoard wrote: » I think Andrew probably has lots of questions to answer and I hope he will be made to answer them. As to whether it is perfectly acceptable or otherwise that he hangs around with younger women, he joins millions of older/old men of wealth and power who do so in the fleshpots of the world. Go anywhere that rich and powerful men congregate on their yachts and in their clubs, and there'll be older men cosying up to younger women. There point is, unless they are doing it with under-age girls, or they are forcing their attentions in some way on the women, it is legal. Whether it is all perfectlty acceptable as you ask, is defined I assume by one's morals. What is perfectly acceptable to one person is totally wrong to another. When someone posts a series of photos here and portrays them as some kind of 'proof' that Andrew is guilty of a crime, those photos better stand up. And the ones that were posted did not. Rather than portraying Andrew being involved in a crime, they portrayed him being together with women who looked to be well into their 30's. They could have come from Hello magazine. This thread was about Epstein's long-proven criminality and then became more about his suicide. It deflects from Epstein' crimes to post up meaningless photos that prove nothing about Andrew or anyone else. That is what I was responding to. And your attempt to put words that I never said into my mouth says much more about you and your thoughts than it does about mine. That's the kind of ould 'hide behind the keyboard' foolishness that comes from too much time 'interacting' on Reddit and 4-chan, and is beneath what counts for discussion on here.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Made to answer questions about what? Have there been any allegations made against him personally?
TomOnBoard wrote: » ??
skimpydoo wrote: » The movie Eyes Wide Shut.
Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: » These are visible photos who show Andrew with younger women, not necessarily underage. They prove the connection to Epstein. Andrew remained friends with Epstein after the 2008 conviction, now claiming to not know anything.
TomOnBoard wrote: » Andrew's connection to Epstein has been long documented. It didn't need a Hello photo spread to do so. The OP placed these photos as some kind of 'proof' of Andrew's involvement in Epstein's paedophilia. Frankly, all they proved is that young women up to their 30s will hang out of a saggy Prince in this 21st Century, just like they hung out of other decrepit Princes back into The Middle Ages!
Treppen wrote: » Young women up to their 30s ??? Where does your scale start? Woody Allen adopted his partner ... Anyway the question remains, why would anyone want to associate with Jeffrey? Particularly after his conviction of procuring 'a' prostitute who happened to be a minor. But he's the scapegoat, so nothing else to see here then I suppose.
TomOnBoard wrote: » It's actually quite simple... The scale starts at Legality! Anything outside that ought to be crushingly dealt with in accordance with the Law! Does that answer your question?
Anything outside that ought to be crushingly dealt with in accordance with the Law!
TomOnBoard wrote: » And in the meantime, while all this discussion continues in respect of Andrew Windsor, charges have now been dropped against Epstein himself. Therefore, the Prosecution's case for forfeiture of Epstein's New York property has now fallen foul of his suicide, and, unless civil proceedings are successfully taken, Epstein wins that one (albeit posthumously). That's a $77 million property his estate gets to keep on foot of his death!
Treppen wrote: » No it doesn't. What age was the 'prostitute' which he was charged for...if you say the scale starts at legality. You mentioned women 'up to 30'
Treppen wrote: » agree. Do you agree the case he was convicted for was crushingly dealt with?
Treppen wrote: » Forget about Epstein, he's the scapegoat.
TomOnBoard wrote: » I don't know what that means. How should we forget about Epstein when he is the subject of this discussion?
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » It's like we can predict the future, we all said it, that when it comes to it the camera's will have been not working, and wouldn't you know it. I'm shocked, oh wait, not I'm not, we knew this would be the convenient case
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » The evidence was there all the time he was taken out. Shame the authorities are afraid to tell us how it is. Suicide needs to be forgot and a murder investigation needs to be opened. Whoever ordered the hit is high up in the food chain. This is a maxium security jail and only powerful people could have got at Epstein.
Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: » The way this is going to be dealt with is silence. I mean the coroners report hasn’t been fully released has it?
