Ghislaine Maxwell

[Vixen]

Nope, you're dodging, again, and I'm not buying your BS!

The alleged "award-winning scientists" you claim were part of the Epstein/Maxwell Empire would be clients, therefore they are fair game for debate.

The alleged "members of the Deep State" you claim were on your so-called Lolita List would also be clients of the Epstein & Maxwell, therefore they are also fair game for debate.

If you keep dodging, and fail to come up with the evidence to back your claim, I will have to conclude that you have no evidence, and therefore, you were lying. Of course, you could just admit that you were wrong, and retract your claim, but given my previous experiences, I doubt you will do that.

Ok, have it your way. This is all to do with that evil ^!&** snatching little children off the street away from their parents and sex trafficking them for the personal abuse by herself and her boyfriend, who, by the way, had a massage table. This is so disgusting she should get at least 35-years for it and the ^!&** fully deserves having prison guards assault her whilst awaiting trial.

We don't need a trial because her wickedness is quite obvious from her depraved appearance. Dressing up underwear in the US flag. Disgusting.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Ok, have it your way. This is all to do with that evil ^!&** snatching little children off the street away from their parents and sex trafficking them for the personal abuse by herself and her boyfriend, who, by the way, had a massage table. This is so disgusting she should get at least 35-years for it and the ^!&** fully deserves having prison guards assault her whilst awaiting trial.

We don't need a trial because her wickedness is quite obvious from her depraved appearance. Dressing up underwear in the US flag. Disgusting.

And all those observations were made by precisely no one.

 

[Vixen]

And all those observations were made by precisely no one.

Let's make this very simple. The whole thing boils down to the age of some of the sex workers, ne c'est pas?


Consider this: A pub or restaurant serves a 16-year-old an alcoholic drink*.

Verdict: disgusting fiend, serving children: should get life.

2. A pub manager serves a 15-year-old an alcoholic drink.

Does it suddenly become a heinous crime?

3. A pub manager sells a four-year-old an alcoholic drink. Is this on a par with no.2, above?

Yes, because it is all part of the same legislation that prohibits it.

4. Is pub manager in no. 2 equally excoriable and despicable as pub manager no. 3?


*In the UK this is perfectly legal. In the USA you have to be 18, or 21 in most states.

Now apply the same reasoning to Maxwell.

 

[Samson]

But this isn't 'time'. Maxwell is on remand. It surely cannot be beyond the wit of the prison authorities to devise a better way of checking on 'suicide risk' prisoners? For example, perhaps a small inobtrusive electrode - rather like the ECG monitors - on the temple to measure the electrical brain activity, which would tell them when she's asleep, when in REM, and when awaking.

I get that the prison guards are acting under orders as the bosses are determined that they won't be caught out in an Epstein-style death a second time and that it is understandable her bail fails because she went on the lam and is an author of her own misfortune in this. However, it is not the remit of the prison guards to mete out punishment.

Yeah

Suicide by co conspirator is propensity evidence.
Birds of a feather flock together.

The pied piper would love obedience.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Consider this: A pub or restaurant serves a 16-year-old an alcoholic drink*.

*In the UK this is perfectly legal. In the USA you have to be 18, or 21 in most states.

No it isn't, the drinking age in the UK is 18. And if you think serving a four-year-old is on a par with serving a 15-year-old, there really is no hope for you at all.

 

[Leftus]

Exactly. Sleep deprivation is a well-known form of torture. A lack of sleep can drive people mad. If Maxwell does commit suicide, the horrible irony is that it will be because of the unbearable remand conditions rather than any initial intention.

Conditions she actively contributes to. So, we should let free anyone who can wallow in their own filth that they created? Sorry there is a pea under the mattress, that the water comes only from a tap, or whatever violation of luxury to which she has become adjusted, but she does not get to maintain her lifestyle at taxpayers expense while awaiting trial (which she has postponed as well).

 

[Vixen]

No it isn't, the drinking age in the UK is 18. And if you think serving a four-year-old is on a par with serving a 15-year-old, there really is no hope for you at all.

I didn't say they were on a par (although the drinking laws do). I was asking you if YOU think the two examples are on a par. A simple yes or no will suffice.


NB: Google told me the legal age for being served a drink in a pub or restaurant was 16.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I didn't say they were on a par (although the drinking laws do). I was asking you if YOU think the two examples are on a par. A simple yes or no will suffice.

No, I do not think they are on a par, and neither does the law, whether it's the same law being broken or not. There are plenty of laws that cover a wide range of seriousness of the offence. Criminal damage, for example, covers everything from snapping someone else's pencil in half to taking a sledgehammer to their car, and the laws on theft apply whether you steal a quid or a million.

NB: Google told me the legal age for being served a drink in a pub or restaurant was 16.

Only under very specific circumstances. The drinking age is 18.

 

[zooterkin]

No it isn't, the drinking age in the UK is 18.

I suspect Vixen is referring to the fact that it's legal to serve alcohol to 16 and 17 year olds in a pub or restaurant with a meal.

And if you think serving a four-year-old is on a par with serving a 15-year-old, there really is no hope for you at all.

It's never legal to give alcohol to a 4 year old in the UK, as far as I know. You can give alcohol to a child over the age of 5 at home, though.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I suspect Vixen is referring to the fact that it's legal to serve alcohol to 16 and 17 year olds in a pub or restaurant with a meal.

Yes, those are the very specific circumstances I referred to. The teenager needs to be with a responsible adult too.

It's never legal to give alcohol to a 4 year old in the UK, as far as I know. You can give alcohol to a child over the age of 5 at home, though.

Correct.

 

[carlitos]

Yeah

Suicide by co conspirator is propensity evidence.
Birds of a feather flock together.

The pied piper would love obedience.

A stitch in time saves nine.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, those are the very specific circumstances I referred to. The teenager needs to be with a responsible adult too.

If I understand Vixen's analogy correctly, this means she is arguing that it's not rape rape if the "victim" is in the company of a responsible adult at the time. Presumably the adult responsible for the raping counts for this purpose.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks for the clarifications re drinking age. So people do NOT think that serving someone aged 15 who looks 16 (or 18) is on the same level as serving someone obviously a child.

So now apply the same logic to the laws re Age of Consent.

1. A woman in the UK aged 17 has sex with a man aged 40, he believes she is consenting. She is consenting. = No crime committed ceteris paribus

2. A woman in the USA aged 17 (in most states) ditto = Big crime - rape - violation of a minor.

3. Sex with a child under 12 = Are the two examples above on a par with this?


So maybe all those screaming in block capitals: SERIAL RAPIST!!! and demanding 35 years jail, when none were in category 3, will see that their hysteria is way OTT. (I believe this is all she is being charged with = procuring four underage women as sex workers plus perjury re a deposition.)

Are we seeing perspective now?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Seems to me the point of detention before trial is to prevent a guilty person committing further crimes and to make sure the accused turns up for trial, and it's purpose is absolutely not to be any part of the punishment for an anticipated conviction.

In this case I think the risk of further similar crimes pre-trial is low. But I'd say the risk of her fleeing justice is very high. However there's no good reason for remand conditions to be horrible. Their point is detention, not punishment.

Now I have zero knowledge of how horrible Maxwell's jail conditions really are, I'm only saying that it shouldn't be made deliberately so, because the innocent accused are put through that as well as the guilty.

 

[theprestige]

Thanks for the clarifications re drinking age. So people do NOT think that serving someone aged 15 who looks 16 (or 18) is on the same level as serving someone obviously a child.

Ethically, perhaps they're different. Legally, they're pretty much on the same level.

And ethically, if you're a bartender considering serving an apparently of-age minor without first verifying their age, you're letting the owner of the establishment (and yourself) in for a lot of trouble in fines and loss of license.

So now apply the same logic to the laws re Age of Consent.

1. A woman in the UK aged 17 has sex with a man aged 40, he believes she is consenting. She is consenting. = No crime committed ceteris paribus

2. A woman in the USA aged 17 (in most states) ditto = Big crime - rape - violation of a minor.

3. Sex with a child under 12 = Are the two examples above on a par with this?


So maybe all those screaming in block capitals: SERIAL RAPIST!!! and demanding 35 years jail, when none were in category 3, will see that their hysteria is way OTT. (I believe this is all she is being charged with = procuring four underage women as sex workers plus perjury re a deposition.)

Are we seeing perspective now?

I'm not. Rape is rape, regardless of the age of the victim. Date rape is rape, regardless of the apparent compliance of the victim. Statutory rape is rape, regardless of how few hours away from the age of majority the victim happens to be.

And there is a legal (and I believe moral) obligation on the partner to verify age before moving forward. "I didn't know she was actually underage" is not a defense that works in most cases. It certainly doesn't work for me.

So. Victims have come forward, alleging trafficking by Maxwell and her co-conspirators, and alleging rape by them and their customers. If those allegations are true, then Maxwell is complicit in sex trafficking and rape, many times over. I think "serial rapist" is a reasonable epithet for that kind of thing, even if Maxwell herself never participated in the actual acts of rape. Just being a co-conspirator puts her all the way in bed with the rapists.

If you want to withhold judgement until the allegations are proven to your satisfaction, that I can understand.

But you seem to be arguing that we should withhold judgement because the alleged actions aren't actually a big deal even if true. That I don't understand. Do you just... not think sex trafficking and rape are serious problems?

---

ETA: Also, what's the Prince's line of defense supposed to be? "No, no! I believed I had engaged the services of an ethical pimp! It would have been ungentlemanly of me to doubt their honor and ask for proof that the barely-legal morsels they sent to warm my bed were in fact barely legal! I'm blameless here! Just another defrauded customer!"

 

[theprestige]

Seems to me the point of detention before trial is to prevent a guilty person committing further crimes and to make sure the accused turns up for trial, and it's purpose is absolutely not to be any part of the punishment for an anticipated conviction.

In this case I think the risk of further similar crimes pre-trial is low. But I'd say the risk of her fleeing justice is very high. However there's no good reason for remand conditions to be horrible. Their point is detention, not punishment.

Now I have zero knowledge of how horrible Maxwell's jail conditions really are, I'm only saying that it shouldn't be made deliberately so, because the innocent accused are put through that as well as the guilty.

I don't think they're being made purposely horrible, except to the degree necessary to mitigate the risk of suicide (or "suicide").

The argument seems to be that whatever the baseline of horribleness that all detainees are subjected to, wealthy detainees should be subjected to something much less horrible, much closer to the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. Because it's just not fair that the rich and powerful accused should be forced to languish in exactly the same conditions that the Poors routinely put up with.

 

[GlennB]

NB: Google told me the legal age for being served a drink in a pub or restaurant was 16.

I googled UK drinking age and it said 18, clear as day. I have no idea what google search you performed, but it was poor.

People younger than that can have non-alcoholic drinks in pubs, but that isn't the subject.

 

[timhau]

Now I have zero knowledge of how horrible Maxwell's jail conditions really are, I'm only saying that it shouldn't be made deliberately so, because the innocent accused are put through that as well as the guilty.

I agree. However, if the conditions really are substandard, why is that an issue only now that they have a rich white woman in the cell?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I googled UK drinking age and it said 18, clear as day. I have no idea what google search you performed, but it was poor.

People younger than that can have non-alcoholic drinks in pubs, but that isn't the subject.

It's not really that simple. Just to clarify it depends whether you mean buying alcohol or having alcohol bought for you. Vixen said "serve". A 16 year old can lawfully be served an alcoholic drink with a meal, but it has to be an adult who pays for it.

 

[Bob001]

It's not really that simple. Just to clarify it depends whether you mean buying alcohol or having alcohol bought for you. Vixen said "serve". A 16 year old can lawfully be served an alcoholic drink with a meal, but it has to be an adult who pays for it.

In this context of adults grooming and abusing teens, that's really weird.