Michael W Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 (edited) That is quite the line of attack. Still behind "I can't sweat" and "travelled all the way to New York to tell Epstein I can't be friends with him in person", though. The man is a genuine moron. Not a chance the legal time have undertaken this without his authorisation either. Edited October 31, 2021 by Michael W 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 30 minutes ago, Michael W said: That is quite the line of attack. Still behind "I can't sweat" and "travelled all the way to New York to tell Epstein I can't be friends with him in person", though. The man is a genuine moron. Not a change the legal time have undertaken this without his authorisation either. I'm sure you're correct, just saying that it's "no holds barred" now... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 25 minutes ago, btb said: I'm sure you're correct, just saying that it's "no holds barred" now... Sounds like what American lawyers do when they know they're going to lose, so when they go to pick up their massive fee from their client they can say they tried everything including going medieval on the bi... young lady. Same as Weinstein's lawyers tried on his accusers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofarl Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 Our client is a prince and by accepted custom he can have sex with whomever he pleases. Furthermore we shall be demanding £5 million for the indignation the prince has suffered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Ferrino Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 I think it's quite sweet how mummy has taken a couple of weeks off to coordinate all of this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 Quite the coincidence that this supposed Epstein settlement covered any mention of royalty. If not Andrew, how many other blue bloods was he supposed to have arranged jailbait for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 11 hours ago, BFTD said: Quite the coincidence that this supposed Epstein settlement covered any mention of royalty. If not Andrew, how many other blue bloods was he supposed to have arranged jailbait for. A lot of the, erm, great and good turned up at Epstein's parties including two ex-POTUS's (Clinton & Trump) there was speculation that the relative lenience of Epstein's original criminal sentence was due to this. Epstein subsequently settled a number of civil cases, I might be cynical but the supposed exemption of royalty (& others?) from any further civil action was probably connected to this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 5 hours ago, btb said: A lot of the, erm, great and good turned up at Epstein's parties including two ex-POTUS's (Clinton & Trump) there was speculation that the relative lenience of Epstein's original criminal sentence was due to this. Epstein subsequently settled a number of civil cases, I might be cynical but the supposed exemption of royalty (& others?) from any further civil action was probably connected to this. When settling a civil suit, is it standard practice to say, "oh, and you're also not allowed to go after any of my chums who obviously weren't involved in this thing that I definitely didn't do?" Asking for a mate, obvs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 1 hour ago, BFTD said: When settling a civil suit, is it standard practice to say, "oh, and you're also not allowed to go after any of my chums who obviously weren't involved in this thing that I definitely didn't do?" Asking for a mate, obvs. It seems strange to me too that any civil settlement would include a "don't sue my mates" clause but that's what's being alleged and staying down the rabbit hole there are bigger fish (outside normal island) than PA concerned. Hope that helps your mate. ********************* Even on normal island PA isn't the only one to have worries over their involvement with Epstein as today's resignation of Barclay's CEO Jes Staley shows... Barclays chief Jes Staley steps down after Epstein investigation | Barclays | The Guardian 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted November 2, 2021 Share Posted November 2, 2021 7 hours ago, btb said: Even on normal island PA isn't the only one to have worries over their involvement with Epstein as today's resignation of Barclay's CEO Jes Staley shows... Barclays chief Jes Staley steps down after Epstein investigation | Barclays | The Guardian "Staley stayed in contact with Epstein for seven years after the financier was convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008, and visited Epstein in Florida while the financier was still serving his sentence and out on work release in 2009. Staley said their relationship tapered off after he left JP Morgan. His final visit involved sailing his yacht to Epstein’s private island in 2015. " Crazy how wide this thing is. Mad that it's been able to get out with so many vested interests. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted November 2, 2021 Share Posted November 2, 2021 Looking forward to Kevin Spacey’s Christmas video this year 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted November 2, 2021 Share Posted November 2, 2021 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/02/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-claims-sexual-assault "Before we get into it all, let me begin by saying nothing could ever make me question the immense dignity, sanctity and class of the US legal process. It’s really just the latest jewel in the royal family’s many, many crowns that the 95-year-old Queen’s son is now being represented by the guy also defending Armie Hammer over his whole cannibal-fetish-rape situation. Hammer denies all, but you probably know that........................." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted November 2, 2021 Share Posted November 2, 2021 (edited) 19 hours ago, Priti priti priti Patel said: "Staley stayed in contact with Epstein for seven years after the financier was convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008, and visited Epstein in Florida while the financier was still serving his sentence and out on work release in 2009. Staley said their relationship tapered off after he left JP Morgan. His final visit involved sailing his yacht to Epstein’s private island in 2015. " Crazy how wide this thing is. Mad that it's been able to get out with so many vested interests. Thing I still can't get my head around is that so many seem to have stood by him after the 2008 conviction. At this point he's a known paedophile and I don't understand why people continued to associate with him. Was he really that important and influential that this could be overlooked? It's hard to avoid thinking that they were scared of what he might do to them if they cut him off, although it's unlikely we'll ever find out unless Maxwell spills the beans. Staley seems angry with the report's conclusions about him, but he visited Epstein's Island in 2015 (on his private yacht no less). I'm not saying this means he did anything untoward, but it's incongruous with his protestations that his relationship with Epstein wasn't that close and was purely business. Client or not, sailing your private yacht to their private island is a massive red flag. Prince Andrew is the same - he knew Epstein was a convicted paedophile and his excuse he went to New York to end his relationship with him is illogical. Quite apart from being the damage being pictured with a convicted Paedophile would do to him, what was he getting out of the relationship? The man has demonstrated numerous times that he is a moron, granted, but it doesn't make any sense. Then there's Bill Gates, who has had numerous spells as the world's richest man. What did a man in his position need from Jeffrey Epstein? There was genuinely no-one in the world who needed him less. Seems to be a lot of regret being expressed at relationships with Epstein, but knowing what he was after his first conviction, continuing the relationships was a conscious choice. Edited November 2, 2021 by Michael W 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted November 2, 2021 Share Posted November 2, 2021 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/02/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-claims-sexual-assault "Before we get into it all, let me begin by saying nothing could ever make me question the immense dignity, sanctity and class of the US legal process. It’s really just the latest jewel in the royal family’s many, many crowns that the 95-year-old Queen’s son is now being represented by the guy also defending Armie Hammer over his whole cannibal-fetish-rape situation. Hammer denies all, but you probably know that........................." It's her final para that I find telling... Quote There are two overriding impressions to be gleaned from this latest filing. One, that Prince Andrew has finally decided he’s in the dogfight of his life, and will now say absolutely anything to prevail in it. And two, that his total blindness to the silly little tragedies of Virginia Roberts Giuffre and all the silly little girls like her has lifted not one iota, despite everything that has happened. PA is going into the civil case looking like a slimeball with one tactic - to smear Giuffre - which if it works will leave him looking even more of a slimeball. His only hope is that it's Uh-merica and that his legal team can reconvene the jury that freed OJ.... Edited November 2, 2021 by btb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted November 2, 2021 Share Posted November 2, 2021 23 minutes ago, Michael W said: Thing I still can't get my head around is that so many seem to have stood by him after the 2008 conviction. At this point he's a known paedophile and I don't understand why people continued to associate with him. Was he really that important and influential that this could be overlooked? It's hard to avoid thinking that they were scared of what he might do to them if they cut him off, although it's unlikely we'll ever find out unless Maxwell spills the beans. He probably just told them all it wasn't true, but he'd had to settle because someone was out to get him. It's amazing what people will turn a blind eye to when somebody's offering them wild parties in incredible luxury at beautiful locations with other rich and famous people, and plenty of completely willing and deffo of age women to boff. Presumably he must have been good company too, if you weren't a naïve schoolgirl. The kind of guy you'd share a pint and a game of pool with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofarl Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 (edited) Maybe noncing aside, this Epstein chap was some laugh. He should try that defence. Aye he was a bit of a wrong un. But Christ could he tell a funny story. He was a right witty bugger. Oh and I knew f**k all about Jeffs secret shagging club. Edited November 3, 2021 by Lofarl 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 41 minutes ago, Lofarl said: Maybe noncing aside, this Epstein chap was some laugh. He should try that defence. Aye he was a bit of a wrong un. But Christ could he tell a funny story. He was a right witty bugger. Oh and I knew f**k all about Jeffs secret shagging club. I'd keep buggery references to a minimum of I was defending him. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Fifer Posted December 7, 2021 Share Posted December 7, 2021 Can't remember if there is/was a dedicated Epstein thread, but the past 24 hours of Andrew Neil's twitter have been a right laugh. Jennifer Arcuri, former flame/benefactor of our righteous Prime Minister, was tweeting photos of him/screenshots of him being in the "little black book" leading to Neil taking "legal action". The original tweet has of course been deleted but still a lot of nonsense going on on twitter, including Neil aiming to take legal action against anyone who retweeted it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WullieBroonIsGod Posted December 7, 2021 Share Posted December 7, 2021 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted December 7, 2021 Share Posted December 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Big Fifer said: Can't remember if there is/was a dedicated Epstein thread, but the past 24 hours of Andrew Neil's twitter have been a right laugh. Jennifer Arcuri, former flame/benefactor of our righteous Prime Minister, was tweeting photos of him/screenshots of him being in the "little black book" leading to Neil taking "legal action". The original tweet has of course been deleted but still a lot of nonsense going on on twitter, including Neil aiming to take legal action against anyone who retweeted it. Retweeted or "liked" you would assume since now liking on twitter can also republish content. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.