Ghislaine Maxwell (1 Viewer)

Nick · Dec 31, 2021

Get the impression that some of the media are justifying her sex trafficking underage kids. She just did it with fancy islands and shit loads of money, no different to a dodgy bloke in Rotherham getting his mates some young girls above a takeaway.

Reminds me of another Maddy McCann situation, if she was living in a council house smoking weed and getting kids round for her boyfriend to touch she would have been "monster".

CCFCSteve · Dec 31, 2021

She’s proper fucked up. There’s a decent docuseries on sky documentaries. Worth a watch. Weird relationship with her old man and continued with Epstein.

chiefdave · Dec 31, 2021

Andrew saying he only knew Epstein because he was such good friends with Maxwell isn't looking like a great defence at the moment.

BodicoteSkyBlue · Dec 31, 2021

Saw the thread title & thought she’d croaked already!!

rob9872 · Dec 31, 2021

The difference imo is the kids parents. Where did they think they were going? These weren't on the streets but from good backgrounds and flown in each time. Not condoning him or her but paid a few hundred dollars each time to go back could've easily said no once they knew the score so seems odd all saying how distraught they are 10 to 20 years later.

shmmeee · Dec 31, 2021

rob9872 said:
The difference imo is the kids parents. Where did they think they were going? These weren't on the streets but from good backgrounds and flown in each time. Not condoning him or her but paid a few hundred dollars each time to go back could've easily said no once they knew the score so seems odd all saying how distraught they are 10 to 20 years later.

Not sure if intended but this comes across very much as the original police response to Rotherham of “fuck it they’re all chav slags anyway”.

Id rather not blame either set of girls for their own abuse TBH. Teenagers can lie and be hard to parent no matter what your income. Abusers can be convincing and groom families and kids no matter their class.

Nick · Dec 31, 2021

rob9872 said:
The difference imo is the kids parents. Where did they think they were going? These weren't on the streets but from good backgrounds and flown in each time. Not condoning him or her but paid a few hundred dollars each time to go back could've easily said no once they knew the score so seems odd all saying how distraught they are 10 to 20 years later.

Same could be said for girls hanging around a takeaway though.

It really isn't much different apart from the amount of money flying about to mask it and make it seem luxurious.

rob9872 · Dec 31, 2021

Fair play shmmeee that wasn't intended, but reading back can see why interpreted. As I said though not condoning them anyhow.

Grendel · Dec 31, 2021

I don’t think there is very much sympathy for Ghislaine Maxwell and nor should there be. Also whatever one thinks of the judicial system in the Us she won’t be seeing the light of day again while the Rochdale bunch will.

It’s a fairly refreshing verdict that wealth and power does not always usurp the law

clint van damme · Dec 31, 2021

the BBCs reporting has been a disgrace. Their language sympathetic to her, they've gone to family members, sympathisers and potential co-conspirators for comment.

And who was she trafficking these under age girls for? It wasn't just Epstein was it?

Sick Boy · Dec 31, 2021

…what does everyone think will happen with Andrew? Unsurprisingly there’s been little attention on the monarchy continuing to defend him.

clint van damme · Dec 31, 2021

Grendel said:
I don’t think there is very much sympathy for Ghislaine Maxwell and nor should there be. Also whatever one thinks of the judicial system in the Us she won’t be seeing the light of day again while the Rochdale bunch will.

It’s a fairly refreshing verdict that wealth and power does not always usurp the law

which is also a disgrace, and it's not just Rochdale lot either.

Grendel · Dec 31, 2021

Sick Boy said:
…what does everyone think will happen with Andrew? Unsurprisingly there’s been little attention on the monarchy continuing to defend him.

They haven’t really defended him at all - it’s pretty much a given fact the main royals outside of the Queen have ostracised him,

CCFCSteve · Dec 31, 2021

Sick Boy said:
…what does everyone think will happen with Andrew? Unsurprisingly there’s been little attention on the monarchy continuing to defend him.

Has the monarchy defended him ? He’s pretty much been sidelined from what I can see.

Will be interested to see what deal Maxwell cuts and who she throws under the bus….which could include Andrew. Tough shit if he’s guilty. I bet there’s a few famous squeaky bums at the moment

Sick Boy · Dec 31, 2021

Grendel said:
They haven’t really defended him at all - it’s pretty much a given fact the main royals outside of the Queen have ostracised him,

Apart from paying millions for his legal fees?

CCFCSteve · Dec 31, 2021

Sick Boy · Dec 31, 2021

Queen ‘to spend millions funding Prince Andrew’s defence against sex abuse claims’

The Queen will reportedly use income from her private Duchy of Lancaster estate to fund the case

www.independent.co.uk

rob9872 · Dec 31, 2021

CCFCSteve said:
Has the monarchy defended him ? He’s pretty much been sidelined from what I can see.

Will be interested to see what deal Maxwell cuts and who she throws under the bus….which could include Andrew. Tough shit if he’s guilty. I bet there’s a few famous squeaky bums at the moment

Come on that fit the intended royal bashing narrative.

Sick Boy · Dec 31, 2021

rob9872 said:
Come on that fit the intended royal bashing narrative.

Double standards proven, thanks.

Grendel · Dec 31, 2021

Sick Boy said:
Apart from paying millions for his legal fees?

I said the family excluding the Queen - they have effectively removed him from the family business and let’s be honest the Republicans in the US Have hardly moved heaven on earth to finish off Clinton

Whatever one thinks of Prince Andrew whi
Is certainly not the sharpest sword in the royal armoury he hasn’t actually been found guilty in any court of law and wont be. The action taken here is a Civil Action

Grendel · Dec 31, 2021

Sick Boy said:
Queen ‘to spend millions funding Prince Andrew’s defence against sex abuse claims’

The Queen will reportedly use income from her private Duchy of Lancaster estate to fund the case

www.independent.co.uk

There are no legal proceedings

Nick · Dec 31, 2021

clint van damme said:
the BBCs reporting has been a disgrace. Their language sympathetic to her,

That's what I was on about by the media. Shocking.

Also how even now that she's been proven guilty they still said "accusers" and not "victims".

rob9872 · Dec 31, 2021

Nick said:
That's what I was on about by the media. Shocking.

Also how even now that she's been proven guilty they still said "accusers" and not "victims".

Probably still running scared from when her dad was running the show 50/50 with Murdoch

Sick Boy · Dec 31, 2021

Grendel said:
There are no legal proceedings

Grendel · Dec 31, 2021

Sick Boy said:

There aren’t any?

Sick Boy · Dec 31, 2021

Grendel said:
There aren’t any?

Then what exactly is and has the money been spent on?

Grendel · Dec 31, 2021

Sick Boy said:
Then what exactly is the money being spent on?

It’s a civil action and is spent from the families own generated income - there are zero criminal actions

Sick Boy · Dec 31, 2021

Grendel said:
It’s a civil action and is spent from the families own generated income - there are zero criminal actions

Yeah, as described in the article.
I’m just highlighting the double standards that are being trotted out because it’s the Royals.

Grendel · Dec 31, 2021

Sick Boy said:
Yeah, as described in the article.
I’m just highlighting the double standards that are being trotted out because it’s the Royals.

there are no double standards at all. If Mr Clinton was charged and he defended himself via his families accumulated wealth that’s not the party in power as an institution defending him. Would you rather he sought legal aid?

OffenhamSkyBlue · Dec 31, 2021

Grendel said:
It’s a civil action and is spent from the families own generated income - there are zero criminal actions

They are still "legal proceedings" though, Grendel. Just civil rather than criminal. You still take "legal action" against someone if you are suing them for libel, for example.

clint van damme · Dec 31, 2021

Grendel said:
there are no double standards at all. If Mr Clinton was charged and he defended himself via his families accumulated wealth that’s not the party in power as an institution defending him. Would you rather he sought legal aid?

Depending on how this goes we might see that scenario getting played out in real life!

BodicoteSkyBlue · Dec 31, 2021

I expect she will get one of those weird American sentences they give out, 180 yrs and no parole.
At which point if I was her I’d be pulling out my little black book and start haggling for a lesser sentence.

*however she may meet with a mysterious accident if she follows that course of action.

Skybluefaz · Dec 31, 2021

Sick Boy said:
…what does everyone think will happen with Andrew? Unsurprisingly there’s been little attention on the monarchy continuing to defend him.

He can't be far away from a trip down a Paris tunnel.

OffenhamSkyBlue · Dec 31, 2021

Skybluefaz said:
He can't be far away from a trip down a Paris tunnel.

I presume that isn't the euphemism he'll be subjected to if Ms Maxwell throws him under the bus!!!

RedSalmon · Dec 31, 2021

CCFCSteve said:
Has the monarchy defended him ? He’s pretty much been sidelined from what I can see.

Will be interested to see what deal Maxwell cuts and who she throws under the bus….which could include Andrew. Tough shit if he’s guilty. I bet there’s a few famous squeaky bums at the moment

Read an article in the Guardian that speculated that she may already have tried to cut a deal and the prosecutors are not interested as they do not want to deal with her. Maybe she was the 'big fish' they were after so why should they do deals to reduce her sentence to prosecute other 'smaller fish'? I don't think we have heard the last of it yet, am sure other things will follow.

Thought it was breathtakingly arrogant of her not to take the stand as she felt the prosecution "had not proven their case". That must have influenced the jurors.

Ghislaine Maxwell (1 Viewer)

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency