• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ghislaine Maxwell

smartcooky said:
Just because people do illegal things does not mean the laws governing them are "absurd". Lots of people commit burglaries, car thefts and murders. That does not make the laws governing those crimes "absurd".
Click to expand...
Of course not. But for any given law, those who don't like it will always call it absurd.

smartcooky said:
Oh, of course he would say that. He's in the firing line so he has a considerable self-interest in this issue.
Click to expand...
As the saying goes, he must be coughing in his panties by now.

smartcooky said:
You can't, so you enforce the laws by prosecuting those who exploited her.

If she is a sex worker, you prosecute the pimp.
If she is pimping herself out, prosecute the Johns (in most jurisdictions, ignorance is not a defence against statutory rape).
If she is working as a stripper, prosecute the strip club owners.
Click to expand...
It varies in different jurisdictions, of course. But one applies the law of the land, whichever land that might be. Disagree with it? Then one is free to campaign for a change in whatever law in whatever land.

smartcooky said:
A sexual relationship between a 14 year old girl and a 38 year old man (as it was in this case) is against the law. It is also immoral.
Click to expand...
I find that whole thing a bit creepy.

smartcooky said:
NONE OF THIS should need to be explained to a grown-up!!
Click to expand...
Agreed in principle, but the evidence seems to indicate it does need to be explained for some reason that I cannot fathom.

smartcooky said:
If you believe that such a relationship is acceptable, then that makes you and people who think like you part of the problem - you become enablers for scum like Epstein and Maxwell.
Click to expand...
Also agreed.

smartcooky said:
Yup. I have had it with Vixen's disgraceful "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" attitude to this. Children and young people can and do reach maturity at different rates. The laws are there to protect them from exploitation by the likes of Epstein and Maxwell
Click to expand...
Yes. Quick mention of the Romeo and Juliet laws in various places. Those exist because we all know damn well that teens are going to be experimenting. It's what I did when I was a teen same as pretty much any other teen. But with another teen. Not a 38 year old. That would be gross.
 
Jeffrey Epstein’s former lawyer lobbied Donald Trump to pre-emptively pardon Ghislaine Maxwell during the final days of his presidency after talks with her family.

Alan Dershowitz, 83, a former Harvard Law School professor, represented Epstein during the noughties and Trump during his first impeachment trial. He has since been accused of abuse by one of Epstein’s under-age victims, which he denies.
Click to expand...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ghislaine-maxwell-trial-lawyer-asked-donald-trump-pre-emptive-pardon-3666htt66

More egg on the face for the BBC for hosting this creep without a huge disclaimer about his obvious personal interest in the case.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Just because people do illegal things does not mean the laws governing them are "absurd". Lots of people commit burglaries, car thefts and murders. That does not make the laws governing those crimes "absurd".



Oh, of course he would say that. He's in the firing line so he has a considerable self-interest in this issue.



You can't, so you enforce the laws by prosecuting those who exploited her.

If she is a sex worker, you prosecute the pimp.
If she is pimping herself out, prosecute the Johns (in most jurisdictions, ignorance is not a defence against statutory rape).
If she is working as a stripper, prosecute the strip club owners.

A sexual relationship between a 14 year old girl and a 38 year old man (as it was in this case) is against the law. It is also immoral.

NONE OF THIS should need to be explained to a grown-up!! If you believe that such a relationship is acceptable, then that makes you and people who think like you part of the problem - you become enablers for scum like Epstein and Maxwell.



Yup. I have had it with Vixen's disgraceful "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" attitude to this. Children and young people can and do reach maturity at different rates. The laws are there to protect them from exploitation by the likes of Epstein and Maxwell
Click to expand...

Where did I say a relationship between a 38-year-old and 14-year-old is acceptable? It was a statement of fact which 'Carolyn' herself stated in the witness stand. Nor do I have a ""old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" attitude.

I think you just like working yourself up into a hysteria over something that is completely imaginary to yourself.
 
Vixen said:
Where did I say a relationship between a 38-year-old and 14-year-old is acceptable? It was a statement of fact which 'Carolyn' herself stated in the witness stand. Nor do I have a ""old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" attitude.
....
Click to expand...


Here is what you said:
Vixen said:
.....
As an example, the witness, 'Carolyn' - the one recently interviewed - was already in a relationship with a 38-year-old guy when she embarked on a four-year relationship with Epstein, returning 'hundreds of times'. She says she's worked as a stripper and sex worker. How do you force 'Carolyn' to wait until she is 18?.....
Click to expand...

Your claim plain as day is that "Carolyn" began voluntary "relationships" with Epstein and a 38-year-old man when she was 14, and it's her behavior that needs to be discouraged. The legal and practical fact is that she is a victim of skillful, experienced predators. She is not responsible for what others have done to her. You clearly think otherwise.
 
Vixen said:
Where did I say a relationship between a 38-year-old and 14-year-old is acceptable? It was a statement of fact which 'Carolyn' herself stated in the witness stand. Nor do I have a ""old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" attitude.

I think you just like working yourself up into a hysteria over something that is completely imaginary to yourself.
Click to expand...


As Bob001 points out, what you said indicated that you did. You took a position that...

a. Blames "Carolyn" for the relationship

b. Uses that relationship to justify Maxwell and Epstein's actions

The meaning of what you said seems clear.
 
Bob001 said:
Here is what you said:


Your claim plain as day is that "Carolyn" began voluntary "relationships" with Epstein and a 38-year-old man when she was 14, and it's her behavior that needs to be discouraged. The legal and practical fact is that she is a victim of skillful, experienced predators. She is not responsible for what others have done to her. You clearly think otherwise.
Click to expand...


Where did I say it was 'acceptable'? It took the FBI twenty years to prosecute Maxwell. Scotland Yard, the social services and Carolyn's mother, in the UK, did absolutely nothing about 14-year-old Carolyn's 38-year-old boyfriend, and you are attacking me simply for making a bland statement of fact citing Carolyn herself in the witness stand?

A thing is neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so. ~ Shakespeare
 
smartcooky said:
As Bob001 points out, what you said indicated that you did. You took a position that...

a. Blames "Carolyn" for the relationship

b. Uses that relationship to justify Maxwell and Epstein's actions

The meaning of what you said seems clear.
Click to expand...

I haven't justified Maxwell's and Epstein's actions at all. If Carolyn's own mother, Scotland Yard, La Gendarmie, FBI, Social Services, teachers, family and friends did nothing at all to intervene in 14-yer-old Carolyn's relationship with the 38-year-old man and the middle-aged Epstein, how does that translate into my 'finding it acceptable' and believing 'if they bleed they are ready to breed,' using your own vulgar terminology?

If anyone is a hypocrite, it is all of those people who had underage sex and are now claiming with shock and horror that other people are also doing it. At least I am one of the very - I suspect - tiny minority of people here who has never had underage sex in my life.

Take the beam out of your eye. Put your own house in order.

Don't insinuate I am an 'enabler of predators' ever again.

Get the issue into perspective.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
I know this aspect has now been resolved so this is a bit OT, but your quote about camera phones in the UK specifies a built in camera. The first phone I had (in the UK) that could take photos was a clamshell, Samsung iirc, with a small external camera that clipped onto the serial port. I don't remember exactly when I had it but at the time I got it this was considered a cool new thing not a work around for an older device that lacked a critical feature (& while I like to be an early adopter, for budget reasons I'm generally jumping on board once the prices have started to drop) so it was definitely before built in cameras were widespread, whether it was before they were available at all I couldn't swear.
Click to expand...
Several of the phone/PDA combos of the early '00s had camera options via expansion slots, including the Aero, Journada and iPaq. Treo too IIRR. There was a camera module for MMC slots such as the Communicator.
 
Vixen said:
I haven't justified Maxwell's and Epstein's actions at all. If Carolyn's own mother, Scotland Yard, La Gendarmie, FBI, Social Services, teachers, family and friends did nothing at all to intervene in 14-yer-old Carolyn's relationship with the 38-year-old man and the middle-aged Epstein, how does that translate into my 'finding it acceptable' and believing 'if they bleed they are ready to breed,' using your own vulgar terminology?

If anyone is a hypocrite, it is all of those people who had underage sex and are now claiming with shock and horror that other people are also doing it. At least I am one of the very - I suspect - tiny minority of people here who has never had underage sex in my life.

Take the beam out of your eye. Put your own house in order.

Don't insinuate I am an 'enabler of predators' ever again.

Get the issue into perspective.
Click to expand...
That's a whole lot of straw you're spewing.
 
Vixen said:
.....
If anyone is a hypocrite, it is all of those people who had underage sex and are now claiming with shock and horror that other people are also doing it. At least I am one of the very - I suspect - tiny minority of people here who has never had underage sex in my life.
.....
Click to expand...


Your own words betray your prejudice. The issue is not "underage sex." The issue is not what randy teens do when the 'rents are away. The issue is adult predators manipulating and abusing vulnerable children for their own sexual gratification. It's just breathtaking that you refuse to grasp the distinction.
 
Bob001 said:
Your own words betray your prejudice. The issue is not "underage sex." The issue is not what randy teens do when the 'rents are away. The issue is adult predators manipulating and abusing vulnerable children for their own sexual gratification. It's just breathtaking that you refuse to grasp the distinction.
Click to expand...

... but not unexpected.
 
Bob001 said:
Your own words betray your prejudice. The issue is not "underage sex." The issue is not what randy teens do when the 'rents are away. The issue is adult predators manipulating and abusing vulnerable children for their own sexual gratification. It's just breathtaking that you refuse to grasp the distinction.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered the question, where were Scotland Yard, the Social Services, her mother, her school teacher, her other relatives, la gendarmerie, the FBI, when all of this was going on between 14-year-old 'Carolyn' and her 38-year-old boyfriend and middle-aged part-time friend Epstein?

You claim you have the answers.
 
angrysoba said:
I think the mystery is solved.

Although the Guardian story claims the photograph was sent by text, which I consider near impossible for the time, the Daily Mail, which got the interview says Giuffre showed Andriano the infamous photograph when she was back in Florida and the only thing sent by text was her saying she was in London at the time meeting Prince Andrew.

Anyway, sorry about that. It raised red flags for me, but it turns out it was a red herring after all. I blame the Grauniad but I really should have tracked down the initial report from the apparently more sensible, on this occasion, Daily Mail (which for once did not Fail).
Click to expand...
The Grauniad article has been updated, with this note:

This article was amended on 9 January 2022. Andriano said Giuffre showed her the picture of her with Prince Andrew in person, she did not send it via text as stated in an earlier version.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom