No one’s asking you to have an expert opinion.
But the least you could do is not assert tons of bullshit if you’re not going to fact-check it first.
3 Likes
I can’t figure out if this will be a public hearing or not ?
1 Like
There is a post from Private Eye that shows Epstein and Andrew were rattled by a story that they ran about them back in 2011:
It’s interesting that they were clearly on to something, but other journalists held back.
5 Likes
This is the bit that I want to know more about. And being honest, I think most adults should know that there were some really dark forces at work manipulating world order, markets, everything.
I wonder if my staunch Brexit supporting work colleague would see a different light if he knew Epstein was involved? Unlikely as I’ve sent some pretty spectacular mental gymnastics at work but I like to hope.
2 Likes
lol … at the cover. 
2 Likes
Sarah’s Trust 
Does anyone seriously believe that Sarah Ferguson’s charity exists to help anyone but Sarah Ferguson.
5 Likes
Poor dear! She’s had so much bad luck with ‘financial advisors’.
1 Like
Same for me. If I’m honest, I ignore all this stuff. I don’t need all the details to know that there are powerful people with twisted, depraved or even criminal behaviours.
I hope that justice will eventually crack down on them, but I won’t hold my breath, especially not with the kind of people in power at the white house right now.
Thanks for posting. The Rev.'s comment in the comments section is “interesting…”.
1 Like
By ‘interesting’ you mean ‘fucking retarded’, right?
2 Likes
To me that’s the important bit. People know it happens but we all shrug our shoulders at it.
I’d like to hope enough people see enough and start to pay attention.
5 Likes
I’m guessing that is what the quotes were for.
1 Like
That is fair. But I find it important to know a bit more, because the internet will be full of manipulated and false accusations against a hell of a lot of people. To me, it is important to know who is also innocent and who were only attending dinners and stuff with Epstein.
Because it IS important to note that most people who met Epstein and are covered in the mails, do not belong to his inner and sub-inner party click. But on social media, everyone who had dealings with him are guilty.
Fact is, some have been blinded by glamour, been incredibly stupid. Others are involved in shady lobbying bordering on illegal (also illegal). Others are people who knew well about Epstein and his harem, but assumed they were above legal age and were the type who doesn’t care. Others sex and drugs. Others again, sex with 14 year olds and 15 year olds. Some all of the above.
So I do think it is important. In my country, Terje Roed-Larsen and his wife Mona Juul are scandalised as fuck, but we have no indications they had anything to do with his sex life. Just his political fixer role.
Then we have our retarded and immature crown princess englamoured with Epstein (he was a charismatic and seemingly incredibly nice guy, you know Janus). Then we have former foreign minister and Davos boss Børge Brende discussing things he shouldn’t with Epstein.
So far, no indications of sex or his harem other that possibly our crown princess (sex and drugs, not harem).
It’s important to know what these very critically placed people knew and what they didn’t know.
That doesn’t mean that they have anything to do personally with sex trafficking etc. Lobbying, wild parties, dinners, different. Important to know that Epstein had many masks and faces.
3 Likes
All very fair too. I’ll just make it like in the ancient times before internet: ignore everything, and then, maybe, read something at some point about a trial involving people who had something to do with this guy, and that will be it.
Just like @Mascot, I couldn’t bring myself to wade into all this dirty stuff on internet, knowing that much could be fake or twisted. But you surely trust your sources, so I surely won’t try to stop you to inform yourself about this. 
2 Likes
Sometimes I get incorrect info because people make mistakes, but usually I filter well.
I get my info now from the mass media, but also from people who download the now publically available documents (I have downloaded some myself). It is possible to double check these. Some are fake, one must be wary. I myself made a mistake yesterday on twitter by reposting an epstein document about Trump that looked valid from a source I did not know. I then had took that down when I realised that it was disinformation. So one must be wary, very true.
But Terje Rød-Larsen, Mona Juul, Thorbjørn Jagland and the crownprincess. These people, I need to know everything that is in the mails about them to fully understand what they have done or not done. Because simply, too many rumours lots of disinfo being pushed by political opponents. I need to know the facts.
3 Likes
I think what’s transparently obvious is that as Epstein is going about his role as a financier and networker, he is also scouting and massaging his contacts to see if they can be drawn into the ‘inner circle’.
While we might be tempted to give people the benefit of the doubt that they may have just been part of his business circle rather than his trafficking ring, a lot of those people can have no defence of ignorance when they continued their correspondence and relationship after his conviction.
And I’m not even really sure a defence of ignorance is really tenable anyway. I find it very hard to believe that people doing business with him were not aware to some degree what he was up to. Much in the same way Jimmy Savile was almost an open secret within the BBC in the seventies and eighties.
5 Likes
Much in the same vein ;
4 Likes
Publicly he was acting in a way that was just morally questionable (collections of different women half his age) but not illegal. Not too dissimilar to how Heffner was viewed. And for as looked down on as Heff was for a long time, there was always a portion of the population who thought it was cool and wanted in and viewed it as just a normal exchange between consenting adults.
So many of the people being taken down by these documents now are people for whom there is no illegality implied, either directly or as someone who looked the other way, but more people who have just exposed as having grubby pathetic attitudes towards women and as embarrassing shells of men.
1 Like
I disagree. Maybe to you you or I he just looked like a dirty old man.
There were definitely people who knew what he was up to. The intelligence services knew enough to have an ongoing interest in whether his friendship with Thatcher could compromise her or the government.
The Pollard Report found that senior management of the BBC were aware of complaints against him, and his reputation as a sex offender, but he was protected within a culture that turned a blind eye to the extra curricular activities of its talent.
Nurses at Stoke Mandeville hospital used to coach children to pretend to be asleep when ‘Jimmy was doing his rounds’.
And don’t get me started on the police. The first complaint against him was in 1958. The last one a couple of years before his death. He had friends in the police and they obviously fucking knew.
1 Like