Good to see him burning in hell and the world is a better place without him. Unfortunate that he died before he got a chance to testify and send more people to join him in prison.
You mean his asosiates or old friends decided to take him out before he could rat anyone out perhaps.
Or his less savory contracts whom might have very good reasons to not want to be revealed and not lacking in willingness to use illegal means.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Good to see him burning in hell and the world is a better place without him. Unfortunate that he died before he got a chance to testify and send more people to join him in prison.
Very likely linked.
Even if we exclude elites and evil deep state shadow forces, there's still potential illegal contacts who have good reason to clean house before there's is found.
jhe90 wrote: You mean his asosiates or old friends decided to take him out before he could rat anyone out perhaps.
Or his less savory contracts whom might have very good reasons to not want to be revealed and not lacking in willingness to use illegal means.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Good to see him burning in hell and the world is a better place without him. Unfortunate that he died before he got a chance to testify and send more people to join him in prison.
Very likely linked.
Even if we exclude elites and evil deep state shadow forces, there's still potential illegal contacts who have good reason to clean house before there's is found.
Ayy, why should the poloticians be fearfull.
They got the money and connections.
It is more likely that if he got offed that the criminal side pulled the strings.
jhe90 wrote: You mean his asosiates or old friends decided to take him out before he could rat anyone out perhaps.
Or his less savory contracts whom might have very good reasons to not want to be revealed and not lacking in willingness to use illegal means.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Good to see him burning in hell and the world is a better place without him. Unfortunate that he died before he got a chance to testify and send more people to join him in prison.
Very likely linked.
Even if we exclude elites and evil deep state shadow forces, there's still potential illegal contacts who have good reason to clean house before there's is found.
Ayy, why should the poloticians be fearfull.
They got the money and connections.
It is more likely that if he got offed that the criminal side pulled the strings.
Yeah, that's definitely more likely. Dealing with criminals is a double edged sword.
Well now he's dead in totally not suspicious circumstances, there's certainly no need to do any more investigating of anybody he might have had links to.
Members of the inbred royal family being involved in paedophile sex rings run by dark money is about as surprising as water being wet.
So why do so many British seem to love and speak only fondly of the Royal Family, is it just when their in American and don't want to air dirty laundry?
Members of the inbred royal family being involved in paedophile sex rings run by dark money is about as surprising as water being wet.
So why do so many British seem to love and speak only fondly of the Royal Family, is it just when their in American and don't want to air dirty laundry?
Tradition, kings are as Epitome to the political identity to them as emperors are anathema to us swiss.
Members of the inbred royal family being involved in paedophile sex rings run by dark money is about as surprising as water being wet.
So why do so many British seem to love and speak only fondly of the Royal Family, is it just when their in American and don't want to air dirty laundry?
Goodwill for the Royals is mainly generated by the Queen because she has been a steady presence for so long. Hopefully when she dies, more people will wake up to the idea that Royalty is fethed and should be abandoned.
Goodwill for the Royals is mainly generated by the Queen because she has been a steady presence for so long. Hopefully when she dies, more people will wake up to the idea that Royalty is fethed
and should be abandoned.
Yea their are also Russians who think that "Stalin was a strong leader" who "led the country to victories against the Nazis". WWII is over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tradition, kings are as Epitome to the political identity to them as emperors are anathema to us swiss.
You Swiss have a great setup. Your one of the few republics still left in this age of tyranny.
Members of the inbred royal family being involved in paedophile sex rings run by dark money is about as surprising as water being wet.
So why do so many British seem to love and speak only fondly of the Royal Family, is it just when their in American and don't want to air dirty laundry?
Tradition, kings are as Epitome to the political identity to them as emperors are anathema to us swiss.
For the vast majority, this is nonsense.
Public opinion for the queen is largely positive, because most folks think a constitutional head of state is better than a political one and she's kept completely out of politics her entire life, but public opinion of the rest of the family predominantly ranges from indifference to scathing outside of the real hard core loyalists who are a dwindling number. The royal list was massively slashed and estates began to pay taxes in recent memory specifically as a result of plummeting public opinion.
Even where support for the royal family, more realistically simply for the monarch, is strong, it's generally connected to other nostalgic enthusiasm for tradition or to duty. I've never heard anyone justify hereditary power as the 'epitome' of anything. Of anything good, anyway. I guess there might be aomeone out there who simply thinks monarchs are brilliant as an idea, but I've never encountered one.
Ouze wrote: No surprise. He knew way too much about a great variety of powerful people.
On the other hand, he was also guilty of raping children and organizing the rape of children by other people. Even ignoring his connections with important people there are plenty of people who would have gladly killed him or looked the other way while his guilty conscience did the work. He would hardly be the first child rapist to meet a 100% justified end in prison.
Members of the inbred royal family being involved in paedophile sex rings run by dark money is about as surprising as water being wet.
So why do so many British seem to love and speak only fondly of the Royal Family, is it just when their in American and don't want to air dirty laundry?
Tradition, kings are as Epitome to the political identity to them as emperors are anathema to us swiss.
For the vast majority, this is nonsense.
Public opinion for the queen is largely positive, because most folks think a constitutional head of state is better than a political one and she's kept completely out of politics her entire life, but public opinion of the rest of the family predominantly ranges from indifference to scathing outside of the real hard core loyalists who are a dwindling number. The royal list was massively slashed and estates began to pay taxes in recent memory specifically as a result of plummeting public opinion.
Even where support for the royal family, more realistically simply for the monarch, is strong, it's generally connected to other nostalgic enthusiasm for tradition or to duty. I've never heard anyone justify hereditary power as the 'epitome' of anything. Of anything good, anyway. I guess there might be aomeone out there who simply thinks monarchs are brilliant as an idea, but I've never encountered one.
What you described is exactly what i meant, it is part of the political identity and Epitome in the way of it supposedly beeing better then a voted in politician.
He attempted to kill himself just a week ago. I see no need to jump into conspiracy theories without solid reason to. Guy is hardly the first rich asshat to off himself rather than face the fall.
I was kinda crazy as a teen and as a young adult. Its a miracle I don't have a record and am still alive for that matter. I know a lot of people who have been to jail. Far from what most people will tell you about shanks and shower rape (that's in prison not country jail) jails are the kind of places where even joking about hurting yourself or someone else will get you locked up in solitary and under constant watch and this is for DUI offenders and bar fighters. Imagine the kind of surveillance that this kind of high profile figure would get. He didn't die by accident, the question is if this was direct murder or purposeful neglect.
Either way, Epstein lost his political worth earlier this week when mountains of evidence, depositions, and records were ordered released by the Second Circuit. Some people got cleared of anything worse than hanging out with a sleazeball, which isn't really a crime (including the two big names who probably meant the most in current politics whose last names begin with T and C). Some big names did get mentioned (former Senator George Mitchell stands out), but most of the politicians who are getting their names thrown out are no longer active in politics and haven't been since the mid-2000s. The article I read didn't specify, but I got the impression most of these files were from before the 2007 case against Epstein. I doubt anything that happened after will actually be of much political worth (it's what happened then that is).
Ouze wrote: No surprise. He knew way too much about a great variety of powerful people.
On the other hand, he was also guilty of raping children and organizing the rape of children by other people. Even ignoring his connections with important people there are plenty of people who would have gladly killed him or looked the other way while his guilty conscience did the work. He would hardly be the first child rapist to meet a 100% justified end in prison.
It's a case of too many with means and motive rather than too few.
As far as politics and the hammer comming down, give it a few for the stupid to reach critical mass.
He attempted to kill himself just a week ago. I see no need to jump into conspiracy theories without solid reason to. Guy is hardly the first rich asshat to off himself rather than face the fall.
Being murdered before you can inform on people is hardly wild as far as conspiracies go. Not a single mole man involved (for better and for worse). Additionally, the whole point of being put on suicide watch is that uh it isn't possible to commit suicide. This is either a case of an absolute fluke of cosmic incompetence from the guards or the dude was murked so he wouldn't talk about his wealthy customers.
He attempted to kill himself just a week ago. I see no need to jump into conspiracy theories without solid reason to. Guy is hardly the first rich asshat to off himself rather than face the fall.
Being murdered before you can inform on people is hardly wild as far as conspiracies go. Not a single mole man involved (for better and for worse). Additionally, the whole point of being put on suicide watch is that uh it isn't possible to commit suicide. This is either a case of an absolute fluke of cosmic incompetence from the guards or the dude was murked so he wouldn't talk about his wealthy customers.
Or option 3: he raped children and deserved to be killed, and someone did it.
He attempted to kill himself just a week ago. I see no need to jump into conspiracy theories without solid reason to. Guy is hardly the first rich asshat to off himself rather than face the fall.
Being murdered before you can inform on people is hardly wild as far as conspiracies go. Not a single mole man involved (for better and for worse). Additionally, the whole point of being put on suicide watch is that uh it isn't possible to commit suicide. This is either a case of an absolute fluke of cosmic incompetence from the guards or the dude was murked so he wouldn't talk about his wealthy customers.
Or option 3: he raped children and deserved to be killed, and someone did it.
Which is either incompetence on behalf of the guards or deeply suspicious. Why would he share cells with someone likely to kill him? Why would that person have the means to do so? Why wouldn't the guards keep a tight watch?
And anyway, we have trials for a reason. Go think about that .
He attempted to kill himself just a week ago. I see no need to jump into conspiracy theories without solid reason to. Guy is hardly the first rich asshat to off himself rather than face the fall.
Being murdered before you can inform on people is hardly wild as far as conspiracies go. Not a single mole man involved (for better and for worse). Additionally, the whole point of being put on suicide watch is that uh it isn't possible to commit suicide. This is either a case of an absolute fluke of cosmic incompetence from the guards or the dude was murked so he wouldn't talk about his wealthy customers.
Maybe. Maybe not. The thing about a rich guy with lawyers is that a rich guy with lawyers can argue he was attacked, and that he didn't attempt suicide. Which is exactly what he did. No one believes him as far as I know, but obviously lies can swing in courts of law when you're rich and have lawyers to point out technicalities. Prisons do not have a universal ability to put a prisoner on psych watch. I mean, incompetent security guards isn't a stretch. They're prison security. They're all either washed out police cadets, retired cops, or fired cops. Incompetence is by and large how they ended up in that job (to a degree).
Never attribute to malice what can be easily attributed to stupidity. Maybe someone killed Epstein. That wouldn't surprise me, but there's no point wildly assuming it.
Rosebuddy wrote: Which is either incompetence on behalf of the guards or deeply suspicious. Why would he share cells with someone likely to kill him? Why would that person have the means to do so? Why wouldn't the guards keep a tight watch?
And anyway, we have trials for a reason. Go think about that .
Suspicious? Maybe. Conclusive? Hardly. Again, we're talking about a vile piece of that many people would gladly kill and make the world a better place. You don't have to resort to conspiracies by the rich and powerful when you have such an obvious motive for the guards to look the other way and let him get what he deserves. I mean, if I was guarding him on suicide watch there's no way in hell I'd intervene to stop him from doing what he should have done decades ago. And if some of the other inmates want to help him do it, well, good for them.
And sure, we have trials for a reason. The state can not legally kill someone without a trial, no matter how much they deserve it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to shed a single tear over his death, or live in a fantasy world where the only reason anyone could possibly want to kill a child rapist who arranged victims for other child rapists is political convenience.
I think the “we have trials for a reason” point is made with the tacit assumption that the state, or powerful people involved with the state, are in some way the actual culprits here.
But I agree with you that it’s more plausible that no one bent over backwards to “save” him when the time came. The issue is, facing trial would have probably been a worse fate, which seems to be what the man himself thought — hence the suicide. But maybe his guards didn’t think of that?
Manchu wrote: I think the “we have trials for a reason” point is made with the tacit assumption that the state, or powerful people involved with the state, are in some way the actual culprits here.
Sure, and obviously as a matter of policy we need trials. But even if Trump himself, acting as the most powerful representative of the state, had walked up and shot Epstein in front of a crowd of witnesses I wouldn't shed a single tear over that piece of rapist. Horribly wrong process, 100% right outcome.
I mean, it would be easy just to say “No it is always better to do things the lawful way” but it can be more complicated than that, especially when people don’t have total confidence in lawful channels.
But the narrative in this case had pretty much been, Epstein escaped justice in FL but he won’t this time around.
You could say, justice caught up with him in a certain sense. But in a larger sense, you could also say he escaped it.
Members of the inbred royal family being involved in paedophile sex rings run by dark money is about as surprising as water being wet.
So why do so many British seem to love and speak only fondly of the Royal Family, is it just when their in American and don't want to air dirty laundry?
Tradition, kings are as Epitome to the political identity to them as emperors are anathema to us swiss.
For the vast majority, this is nonsense.
Public opinion for the queen is largely positive, because most folks think a constitutional head of state is better than a political one and she's kept completely out of politics her entire life, but public opinion of the rest of the family predominantly ranges from indifference to scathing outside of the real hard core loyalists who are a dwindling number. The royal list was massively slashed and estates began to pay taxes in recent memory specifically as a result of plummeting public opinion.
Even where support for the royal family, more realistically simply for the monarch, is strong, it's generally connected to other nostalgic enthusiasm for tradition or to duty. I've never heard anyone justify hereditary power as the 'epitome' of anything. Of anything good, anyway. I guess there might be aomeone out there who simply thinks monarchs are brilliant as an idea, but I've never encountered one.
What you described is exactly what i meant, it is part of the political identity and Epitome in the way of it supposedly beeing better then a voted in politician.
Goodwill for the Royals is mainly generated by the Queen because she has been a steady presence for so long. Hopefully when she dies, more people will wake up to the idea that Royalty is fethed
and should be abandoned.
Yea their are also Russians who think that "Stalin was a strong leader" who "led the country to victories against the Nazis". WWII is over.
Manchu wrote: I think the “we have trials for a reason” point is made with the tacit assumption that the state, or powerful people involved with the state, are in some way the actual culprits here.
Sure, and obviously as a matter of policy we need trials. But even if Trump himself, acting as the most powerful representative of the state, had walked up and shot Epstein in front of a crowd of witnesses I wouldn't shed a single tear over that piece of rapist. Horribly wrong process, 100% right outcome.
Which risks rather throwing a spanner into the process of fully investigating his crimes and all the people who joined him. You don't seem to understand that people aren't sad for Epstein himself. Nobody cares that you "wouldn't shed a single tear" because that's irrelevant in every way.
Rosebuddy wrote: Which risks rather throwing a spanner into the process of fully investigating his crimes and all the people who joined him. You don't seem to understand that people aren't sad for Epstein himself. Nobody cares that you "wouldn't shed a single tear" because that's irrelevant in every way.
You're missing the point. Obviously the loss of potentially incriminating information is a bad thing, but it's not about whether or not it's a good thing that he's dead. The point is that it's wrong to jump to the conclusion that his death must be the result of some kind of conspiracy to protect the people who were involved with him. There's plenty of motive to want him dead, whether by killing him directly or just looking the other way while he does it himself, just because he's a piece of child rapist. A guard handing him a rope and turning off the camera doesn't need a bribe from the Clintons in his pocket, only a belief that the world would be a better place without Epstein alive in it.
You're missing the point. Obviously the loss of potentially incriminating information is a bad thing, but it's not about whether or not it's a good thing that he's dead. The point is that it's wrong to jump to the conclusion that his death must be the result of some kind of conspiracy to protect the people who were involved with him. There's plenty of motive to want him dead, whether by killing him directly or just looking the other way while he does it himself, just because he's a piece of child rapist. A guard handing him a rope and turning off the camera doesn't need a bribe from the Clintons in his pocket, only a belief that the world would be a better place without Epstein alive in it.
I hate to point this out, but that guard would have to be a moron considering how high profile this case is. It's almost guaranteed that said guard is on suspension right now pending an inquiry. So, I highly doubt it.
BaronIveagh wrote: I hate to point this out, but that guard would have to be a moron considering how high profile this case is. It's almost guaranteed that said guard is on suspension right now pending an inquiry. So, I highly doubt it.
Or just convinced that having to find a new job is a fair price to pay for ridding the world of a truly awful person. It's not like prison guard is a highly prestigious and well paid profession where you'd have to be insane to give up a job, even if they were fired for failure to stop him from killing himself it wouldn't be too hard to find another job. And that's without assuming that someone gives them a job as a thank you for sending Epstein to hell.
He attempted to kill himself just a week ago. I see no need to jump into conspiracy theories without solid reason to. Guy is hardly the first rich asshat to off himself rather than face the fall.
Being murdered before you can inform on people is hardly wild as far as conspiracies go. Not a single mole man involved (for better and for worse). Additionally, the whole point of being put on suicide watch is that uh it isn't possible to commit suicide. This is either a case of an absolute fluke of cosmic incompetence from the guards or the dude was murked so he wouldn't talk about his wealthy customers.
Or option 3: he raped children and deserved to be killed, and someone did it.
Which is either incompetence on behalf of the guards or deeply suspicious. Why would he share cells with someone likely to kill him? Why would that person have the means to do so? Why wouldn't the guards keep a tight watch?
And anyway, we have trials for a reason. Go think about that .
Yep, we definitely have trials for a reason. And the last time he was on trial for raping kids and providing access to other people to rape kids, he walked off with a slap on the wrist and went right back to it.
Good thing we have trials, eh?
With any luck, investigations into the pile of related information will continue and bring down a lot of people.
But his death could easily be
- he was murdered by people with an interest in seeing him murdered, hopeful that things would stay buried
- he was murdered by people who didn't want to see him walk out with another slap on the wrist and go back to business as usual (said business being child rape)
- he offed himself to get out of dealing with the trial and years of vilification that await him or vaguely possibly out of guilt (though that seems unlikely after decades of it).
At this point, I don't really care which resulted in his death, as long as the system chases down his connections.
You're missing the point. Obviously the loss of potentially incriminating information is a bad thing, but it's not about whether or not it's a good thing that he's dead. The point is that it's wrong to jump to the conclusion that his death must be the result of some kind of conspiracy to protect the people who were involved with him. There's plenty of motive to want him dead, whether by killing him directly or just looking the other way while he does it himself, just because he's a piece of child rapist. A guard handing him a rope and turning off the camera doesn't need a bribe from the Clintons in his pocket, only a belief that the world would be a better place without Epstein alive in it.
I hate to point this out, but that guard would have to be a moron considering how high profile this case is. It's almost guaranteed that said guard is on suspension right now pending an inquiry. So, I highly doubt it.
Current reporting is that Epstein was left alone after his cellmate was moved (which wasn't procedure), was not checked on every 30 minutes as procedure said he should be, and had been removed from psyche-watch prematurely which didn't get an explanation in the report I read today. One I read last week said his lawyers got him out.
Someone is definitely on suspension, and might well lose their job. Whether this was stupidity or someone trying to give Epstein the chance to off himself remains unreported and probably won't be for awhile.
I'm a huge fan of the implicit argument that now we'll never know what really happened, 'cause apparently we need the word of a paedophile/rapist to substantiate the words of the - very much alive - complainants.
Or just convinced that having to find a new job is a fair price to pay for ridding the world of a truly awful person. It's not like prison guard is a highly prestigious and well paid profession where you'd have to be insane to give up a job, even if they were fired for failure to stop him from killing himself it wouldn't be too hard to find another job. And that's without assuming that someone gives them a job as a thank you for sending Epstein to hell.
While I'll grant that last part is quite possible, the only other jobs that would take this guy is Burger Flipping and Wal Mart. Also, no, he's an idiot to sacrifice a Federal job, you know, the ones that still have health care and pensions. Even if your position there is gak, you can move laterally to another department and then up. Once you're out for something like this? GL/HF.
1) The word of Epstein alone, in the absence of any other evidence, is of very little value. The Pizzagate idiots seem to think that all Epstein had to do was say "the Clintons did it it" and instantly god-emperor Trump would finally throw them in prison. In reality the testimony of a single witness against a defendant saying "no, I didn't do it" is an extremely weak case even in ideal circumstances, and anyone accused by Epstein would easily demolish his credibility with the argument that he has a lot of incentive to lie and accuse as many powerful targets as possible in an attempt to escape his own prison sentence. That falls well short of "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the evidence that could support an accusation (videos, testimony from other witnesses, etc) is not lost just because Epstein is dead.
2) Having Epstein killed to silence him just creates another witness (or witnesses) to the crimes of the wealthy and powerful. And anyone involved has an easy plea bargain in exchange for evidence against the wealthy and powerful if the investigation ever comes down on them. So what are they going to do, have the guard who looked the other way commit suicide by shooting himself three times in the head? And then have the shooter killed? And so on forever, constantly killing more people to prevent them from testifying? The plan ends up looking like a house of cards where any failure is catastrophic and there are so many potential points of failure that it becomes almost inevitable.
Conclusion: killing Epstein to silence him is a significant risk for questionable gain. It's possible, but we need a lot more evidence before it becomes more likely than someone killing him (or looking the other way) because he's a child rapist who deserved to die.
Or just convinced that having to find a new job is a fair price to pay for ridding the world of a truly awful person. It's not like prison guard is a highly prestigious and well paid profession where you'd have to be insane to give up a job, even if they were fired for failure to stop him from killing himself it wouldn't be too hard to find another job. And that's without assuming that someone gives them a job as a thank you for sending Epstein to hell.
While I'll grant that last part is quite possible, the only other jobs that would take this guy is Burger Flipping and Wal Mart. Also, no, he's an idiot to sacrifice a Federal job, you know, the ones that still have health care and pensions. Even if your position there is gak, you can move laterally to another department and then up. Once you're out for something like this? GL/HF.
the guard would have to be pretty blinded by hate to not want this man to spill his guts in court about his accomplices. Let him kill himself after the trial.
BaronIveagh wrote: While I'll grant that last part is quite possible, the only other jobs that would take this guy is Burger Flipping and Wal Mart. Also, no, he's an idiot to sacrifice a Federal job, you know, the ones that still have health care and pensions. Even if your position there is gak, you can move laterally to another department and then up. Once you're out for something like this? GL/HF.
There are a lot of jobs that would take someone with limited qualifications that are better than minimum-wage retail or fast food. And, again, that's assuming that being fired is considered a bad thing and nobody says "oh, you're the guy who ensured Epstein didn't weasel out of paying the price for his crimes, sure I'll give you a chance".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
balmong7 wrote: the guard would have to be pretty blinded by hate to not want this man to spill his guts in court about his accomplices. Let him kill himself after the trial.
Or they just saw an opportunity, an opportunity which might not happen again in the future, and looked the other way without bothering to think about the perfect strategy for maximizing information gain.
Rosebuddy wrote: Which risks rather throwing a spanner into the process of fully investigating his crimes and all the people who joined him. You don't seem to understand that people aren't sad for Epstein himself. Nobody cares that you "wouldn't shed a single tear" because that's irrelevant in every way.
You're missing the point. Obviously the loss of potentially incriminating information is a bad thing, but it's not about whether or not it's a good thing that he's dead. The point is that it's wrong to jump to the conclusion that his death must be the result of some kind of conspiracy to protect the people who were involved with him. There's plenty of motive to want him dead, whether by killing him directly or just looking the other way while he does it himself, just because he's a piece of child rapist. A guard handing him a rope and turning off the camera doesn't need a bribe from the Clintons in his pocket, only a belief that the world would be a better place without Epstein alive in it.
It's not at all unreasonable to suspect that a wealthy person panicked and ordered his assassination, considering how much protocol was apparently broken for such a high-profile case. Especially not if it was just some mid-level dork who couldn't be entirely sure that they wouldn't be made to take the fall. Your vehement opposition to this idea coupled with the bloodlust oozing from your posts is just weird.
You're missing the point. Obviously the loss of potentially incriminating information is a bad thing, but it's not about whether or not it's a good thing that he's dead. The point is that it's wrong to jump to the conclusion that his death must be the result of some kind of conspiracy to protect the people who were involved with him. There's plenty of motive to want him dead, whether by killing him directly or just looking the other way while he does it himself, just because he's a piece of child rapist. A guard handing him a rope and turning off the camera doesn't need a bribe from the Clintons in his pocket, only a belief that the world would be a better place without Epstein alive in it.
I hate to point this out, but that guard would have to be a moron considering how high profile this case is. It's almost guaranteed that said guard is on suspension right now pending an inquiry. So, I highly doubt it.
Current reporting is that Epstein was left alone after his cellmate was moved (which wasn't procedure), was not checked on every 30 minutes as procedure said he should be, and had been removed from psyche-watch prematurely which didn't get an explanation in the report I read today. One I read last week said his lawyers got him out.
Someone is definitely on suspension, and might well lose their job. Whether this was stupidity or someone trying to give Epstein the chance to off himself remains unreported and probably won't be for awhile.
With my experiance with prison guards, I severely doupt they cared what he did. They never do.
What is likely is that if a guard was at fault, it was laziness, not malice.
Rosebuddy wrote: It's not at all unreasonable to suspect that a wealthy person panicked and ordered his assassination, considering how much protocol was apparently broken for such a high-profile case. Especially not if it was just some mid-level dork who couldn't be entirely sure that they wouldn't be made to take the fall. Your vehement opposition to this idea coupled with the bloodlust oozing from your posts is just weird.
See above re: the reasonableness of killing Epstein to silence him. It would mean taking a significant risk in exchange for the minimal gain of silencing someone who is already utterly lacking in credibility as a witness in court and extremely unlikely to get anyone convicted. On the other hand, it is well known fact that people in prisons don't like child rapists and unfortunate "accidents" often happen to them. It's not impossible for it to be a deliberate silencing, but currently that theory has no credible evidence to support it. You might as well argue that the round earth conspiracy had Epstein killed because he had convincing evidence that the earth is in fact flat and the truth had to be suppressed.
As for bloodlust, perhaps the better question is why you're so upset by the idea of a child rapist being killed. Do you think that Epstein is a sympathetic victim here? Do you disagree that he deserves to die for his crimes?
As for bloodlust, perhaps the better question is why you're so upset by the idea of a child rapist being killed. Do you think that Epstein is a sympathetic victim here? Do you disagree that he deserves to die for his crimes?
I certainly disagree, and fully agree that the enthusiasm for murder that you're displaying is bizarre.
There are a lot of jobs that would take someone with limited qualifications that are better than minimum-wage retail or fast food. And, again, that's assuming that being fired is considered a bad thing and nobody says "oh, you're the guy who ensured Epstein didn't weasel out of paying the price for his crimes, sure I'll give you a chance".
No, they really would not. Because getting fired by the Fed means you're blackballed pretty much everywhere. Think 'dishonorable discharge'. You have to understand how most places would view getting fired by the Fed, where supposedly it's impossible to get fired.
I mean, it would be easy just to say “No it is always better to do things the lawful way” but it can be more complicated than that, especially when people don’t have total confidence in lawful channels.
But the narrative in this case had pretty much been, Epstein escaped justice in FL but he won’t this time around.
You could say, justice caught up with him in a certain sense. But in a larger sense, you could also say he escaped it.
It’s an open question, IMO.
It really can't be more complicated that that, or else there's little point in having lawful channels at all.
The system fails. Often. Justice is frequently not served. It's still superior to the alternative. I mean, do people really believe that the powerful were held to account before they had scumbag lawyers and corrupt judges to keep them free? We established rules and a system to enforce them because the Peregrine Method inevitably leads to an unending cycle of revenge violence and wilful negligence, and the people who suffer as a result almost never deserve it.
If Epstein was killed, his killer/s must be apprehended, charged, and convicted, because nobody has the right to take life except as a final resort in defence of themselves or others unable to defend themselves(and before someone tries to gotcha me with war and state executions - I don't support either of those either). If Epstein was able to kill himself because of neglect or incompetence, those responsible must be investigated, charged, and convicted, because the next time someone dies in their custody it might not(and almost certainly won't) be a child-rapist.
And even for those rejoicing that the evilbadman is dead, how about sparing a thought for his victims? A lot of people who went through horrible traumas as children at the hand of this filth or his chums put themselves at great physical and emotional risk in the hope that he would face some kind of justice, and perhaps ensure others would as well, and his "suicide" has robbed them of the former certainly, and made the latter far less likely.
I am curious how many here called (a) believe Epstein should have been killed by a vigilante (b) do you think the crimes for which he was charged merit the death penalty?
Previously, I thought we were discussing (a) but looking back over the comments above it seems closer to (b).
Yodhrin wrote: It really can't be more complicated that that
Sure it can.
I don’t think that as a matter of policy. I’m no advocate of vigilante justice. What I was referring to are situations where the system has broken down completely in the face of violence and corruption. A community has a right to defend itself no less so than an individual person. This is as far as I can tell a blessedly rare circumstance in this day and age. But then again the example I gave was from 1981, not the Old West.
From first hand experience in these institutions I’m gonna throw these thoughts out there:
- Federal law enforcement retirement is a pretty big motivator and people don’t throw their job away on a whim.
- Despite what people think, Epstein wasn’t the worst person in the federal prison system right now. feth, he wouldn’t even be the worst pedophile in the system right now. And in what seems like it must be a pretty shocking surprise to some, we actually don’t go around vigilante killing people we don’t like in our prisons. Heck, I’ve had 90,000 federal inmates rotating through my facility last year alone. Somehow nobody in my facility has managed to go vigilante in any of them, and we’ve get EVERYONE in the federal system here.
- Correctional Officers are also a gossiping bunch, and if this was a vigilante killing someone would have already bragged at the bar about it. If it was a contract hit there would have been so many people involved that it also wouldn’t be a secret anymore 8 hours after it happened.
- The most likely scenario, backed up my own experience, is that it is 98.796% most likely a case of “we can’t keep this place staffed, so work overtime until you fall over” that ended up being the main case that contributed to his suicide.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From first hand experience in these institutions I’m gonna throw these thoughts out there:
- Federal law enforcement retirement is a pretty big motivator and people don’t throw their job away on a whim.
- Despite what people think, Epstein wasn’t the worst person in the federal prison system right now. feth, he wouldn’t even be the worst pedophile in the system right now. And in what seems like it must be a pretty shocking surprise to some, we actually don’t go around vigilante killing people we don’t like in our prisons. Heck, I’ve had 90,000 federal inmates rotating through my facility last year alone. Somehow nobody in my facility has managed to go vigilante in any of them, and we’ve get EVERYONE in the federal system here.
- Correctional Officers are also a gossiping bunch, and if this was a vigilante killing someone would have already bragged at the bar about it. If it was a contract hit there would have been so many people involved that it also wouldn’t be a secret anymore 8 hours after it happened.
- The most likely scenario, backed up my own experience, is that it is 98.796% most likely a case of “we can’t keep this place staffed, so work overtime until you fall over” that ended up being the main case that contributed to his suicide.
d-usa wrote: - The most likely scenario, backed up my own experience, is that it is 98.796% most likely a case of “we can’t keep this place staffed, so work overtime until you fall over” that ended up being the main case that contributed to his suicide.
To be clear, I agree with this 100%. The most likely explanation is simply incompetence in maintaining total control over a prisoner who would exploit any lapse in control to kill himself. I'm just saying that if, for some reason, you insist that it can't possibly be a mistake then "someone looked the other way while he killed himself because child-raping s" is much more believable than "the Clintons arranged his death before he could testify against them".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I am curious how many here called (a) believe Epstein should have been killed by a vigilante (b) do you think the crimes for which he was charged merit the death penalty?
Previously, I thought we were discussing (a) but looking back over the comments above it seems closer to (b).
a) No. Perhaps if he had escaped punishment again and the system had demonstrated that it is unable to produce a just outcome when someone sufficiently rich and powerful is involved, but that's not where we were yet. And on a practical thought, the information he could have provided was still useful and it's unfortunate that it is gone. But I'm not going to shed any tears over someone making the world a better place by removing him from it, even if that action is not something that should be endorsed as general policy. And, more relevantly, I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend that the only possible motive anyone could have for killing him (or looking the other way while he killed himself) is bribes from the Clintons.
b) Yes and no. His crimes were awful and I don't believe there's any realistic hope of rehabilitation. This wasn't an impulsive crime of passion or exceptional circumstances that are unlikely to happen again, it was calculated and organized rape of children and abusing his wealth and power to do it. On the other hand, there's the problem that imposing the death penalty for crimes other than murder just encourages rapists/robbers/etc to kill their victims and remove the potential witness since they're already facing the death penalty if they get caught and it can't get any worse.
Yodhrin wrote: It really can't be more complicated that that
Sure it can.
I don’t think that as a matter of policy. I’m no advocate of vigilante justice. What I was referring to are situations where the system has broken down completely in the face of violence and corruption. A community has a right to defend itself no less so than an individual person. This is as far as I can tell a blessedly rare circumstance in this day and age. But then again the example I gave was from 1981, not the Old West.
Well not to sound callous, but that has to be seen as "cost of doing business". Systems made by imperfect humans can never be perfect, that doesn't mean they aren't orders of magnitude superior to the alternatives - what happens when a community "defends itself" and a relative of the scumbag they kill off takes umbrage and plots revenge? Which may well prompt that community to "defend itself" again. Etc, etc, etc.
Not to mention that if you permit that kind of thinking to become tolerated, what happens when a community decides it has a right to "defend itself" from the presence of gay people, or black people, or atheists, or people who vote for a particular political party? You can make a perfectly well reasoned and rational argument about how none of those is the same, that none of those constitutes a "real' threat, but in the minds of some people they are a threat, and once you've established the principle that a community can "defend itself" outside of the law if they feel the law isn't protecting them fully, you don't have any control over how any given group chooses to interpret that principle's applicability to their own situation.
You personally might feel ambivalence towards or even outright support a given instance of vigilantism, but that doesn't mean it can ever be allowed to be "complicated" from the perspective of the justice system - murder has to be murder. Negligence has to be negligence. "But I think he was a badman" cannot be any kind of defence against those charges or you open the whole system up to personal interpretations of badness and what justifies killing.
Has anybody here attempted to stop a person from committing suicide? If not, good fething luck. When people get motivated about this particular thing, it is hard to stop. VERY hard. Think like "Oh my god did anybody check to see if she had toe rings on?!" sprinting back to the room to make sure. You have to think of every possibility before they do and even then you have to sit somebody with them 100% of the time if you are serious about it at all.
Having been on suicide watch several different times I can tell you that they are generally some of the most uncooperative people you will ever meet in your life and depending on the person they will get very physical with you about it. You have to take almost EVERYTHING away from them. Shoes, anything they could swallow and choke on, anything with an edge to it, or any way for them to get significant elevation. Those are just the things off the top of my head, I am sure I am missing a ton of stuff that would have to be removed.
Unless Epstein had two people in the cell with him at all times I am going to have a hard time believing any conspiracy theory. Especially when it deals with the underfunded and mismanaged Prison system we have in this country.
Would it shock me if it turned out this was a hit? Not at all. Do I think it is possible? I think it is highly unlikely.
I’d really recommend you take a look at the link I posted earlier.
The criminal justice system is nothing more than the institutionalized form of a community’s self defense. When that system sufficiently breaks down, the community still has the right to defend itself — this is the exact same right upon which the institutions themselves were set up; not a contrary principle. In such a circumstance, it’s not a matter of someone having to answer; certainly not “the law,” which absent the reality given to it by the consent of the governed is, after all, just an abstraction. In these cases, everyone involved must only answer to every other person involved. There cannot be a “criminal conspiracy” involving virtually every member of a given society; that would just be called government.
This is pretty much what happened in Skidmore, MO, back in 1981. Trena was the only person in town who objected.
“What about if a mob attacks X or Y” type arguments are actually about a different matter. Racist lynchings, for example, did not target lawless individuals who made the peaceable co-existence of lawful society impossible.
- The most likely scenario, backed up my own experience, is that it is 98.796% most likely a case of “we can’t keep this place staffed, so work overtime until you fall over” that ended up being the main case that contributed to his suicide.
And incidently the guards watching him had been on serious overtime work before the event...
Conspiracy theories just overcomplicates things just for sake of overcomplicating things.
Manchu wrote: I am curious how many here called (a) believe Epstein should have been killed by a vigilante (b) do you think the crimes for which he was charged merit the death penalty?
- The most likely scenario, backed up my own experience, is that it is 98.796% most likely a case of “we can’t keep this place staffed, so work overtime until you fall over” that ended up being the main case that contributed to his suicide.
And incidently the guards watching him had been on serious overtime work before the event...
Conspiracy theories just overcomplicates things just for sake of overcomplicating things.
So. Given most U.S. prisons are run for profit, it was corporate America that killed him. However, unlike the theories, it wasn't through malicious conspiracy. Just through greedy incompetence.
I'm sure the blame of which will be put on the shoulders of overstretched workers and maybe their managers. Responsibility will not be put to those pushing so hard for profits that managers are forced to overwork their staff or staff and management lose their jobs. It's blackmail; increase profitability by 10% or lose your livelihood.
Hierarchical systematic problems unveiling further hierarchical systemic problems. With such debasement and greed, feeding off the people, it is easy to see how the vampire myth of those in power came to be.
To the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, no such watershed has yet occurred in the US. So when someone seemingly incredibly very guilty suddenly manages to 'conveniently' top themselves, one can understand why eyebrows are raised, and accusations made.
Who did he die to protect? Quite possibly, just himself. Didn't fancy a long stretch in Prison. Could be he was assassinated. Could just be a stairwell bashing for his alleged crimes being covered up by the Authorities.
nareik wrote: So. Given most U.S. prisons are run for profit, it was corporate America that killed him. However, unlike the theories, it wasn't through malicious conspiracy. Just through greedy incompetence.
Form what I have seen I don't know that the MCC is a private for profit prison.
Also, some of this thread kinda read that due process is out of favor.
I cannot speak for Switzerland, but in none of the U.S., U.K. or Canada is the criminal justice system administered by anyone but the state. The state also sets the rules and sets the sanction for breaking those rules.
For profit 'corrections' corporations exist, but aren't part of the criminal justice system. Courts, judges, public defenders etc. etc are.
While people are angered by pedophilia I don't think I ever saw anyone call Epstein the worst prisoner in the prison system. The issue seems to be more that he was probably the most connected at the upper levels in prison. That level of networking has made this entire event (even more) political in nature, which is also why I'm surprised this thread isn't locked tbh. Even POTUS was recently tweeting conspiracy theories about it.
Excommunicatus wrote: I cannot speak for Switzerland, but in none of the U.S., U.K. or Canada is the criminal justice system administered by anyone but the state. The state also sets the rules and sets the sanction for breaking those rules.
For profit 'corrections' corporations exist, but aren't part of the criminal justice system. Courts, judges, public defenders etc. etc are.
For proffit correction corporations are by that margine, atleast to me, part of the "Repressive" judical system.
I don't split off the speaker of law from executioner of law.
But that is semantics and hinges upon definition and principles that the state in question follows imo.
Excommunicatus wrote: I cannot speak for Switzerland, but in none of the U.S., U.K. or Canada is the criminal justice system administered by anyone but the state. The state also sets the rules and sets the sanction for breaking those rules.
For profit 'corrections' corporations exist, but aren't part of the criminal justice system. Courts, judges, public defenders etc. etc are.
For proffit correction corporations are by that margine, atleast to me, part of the "Repressive" judical system.
I don't split off the speaker of law from executioner of law.
But that is semantics and hinges upon definition and principles that the state in question follows imo.
Properly, the penal system is an entirely different repressive ideological state apparatus.
Why does it matter? Just let people talk about the things they wish to discuss. If it isn't something that one finds interesting, one can always go to one of the other threads strung across this whole website?
Anyways,
I hate to see humans celebrating the death of another human, no matter how vile they might have been. It always sickens me. This man was deeply troubled, committed terrible atrocities and was generally an awful person. Sometimes it is hard to process just how sick someone can be.
Excommunicatus wrote: I cannot speak for Switzerland, but in none of the U.S., U.K. or Canada is the criminal justice system administered by anyone but the state. The state also sets the rules and sets the sanction for breaking those rules.
For profit 'corrections' corporations exist, but aren't part of the criminal justice system. Courts, judges, public defenders etc. etc are.
For proffit correction corporations are by that margine, atleast to me, part of the "Repressive" judical system.
I don't split off the speaker of law from executioner of law.
But that is semantics and hinges upon definition and principles that the state in question follows imo.
Properly, the penal system is an entirely different repressive ideological state apparatus.
The penal system is a subset of the criminal justice system. Criminal justice covers everything from investigation through to parole and offender management.
Togusa wrote: Just let people talk about the things they wish to discuss. If it isn't something that one finds interesting, one can always go to one of the other threads strung across this whole website?
Because Off Topic has rules and one of them is that political posts are not allowed; this isn't esoteric.
Togusa wrote: Just let people talk about the things they wish to discuss. If it isn't something that one finds interesting, one can always go to one of the other threads strung across this whole website?
Because Off Topic has rules and one of them is that political posts are not allowed; this isn't esoteric.
- Despite what people think, Epstein wasn’t the worst person in the federal prison system right now. feth, he wouldn’t even be the worst pedophile in the system right now. And in what seems like it must be a pretty shocking surprise to some, we actually don’t go around vigilante killing people we don’t like in our prisons. Heck, I’ve had 90,000 federal inmates rotating through my facility last year alone. Somehow nobody in my facility has managed to go vigilante in any of them, and we’ve get EVERYONE in the federal system here.
Epstein isn't the worst of the worst here... but, he's certainly probably the most explosive case in politics and culture in quite a long time.
The fact that the government didn't treat it as such is troubling as the victims would want the full justice meted out, as well as civil recompense.
Managing the penal system is still a state responsibility, but in practice large parts of it (at least in the U.S. and U.K.) are subcontracted out to private firms.
Excommunicatus wrote: Managing the penal system is still a state responsibility, but in practice large parts of it (at least in the U.S. and U.K.) are subcontracted out to private firms.
That is (albeit often lackluster) Still state supervised, so still a matter of the state.
Then again the US has other more massive problems with incarceration.
Excommunicatus wrote: Managing the penal system is still a state responsibility, but in practice large parts of it (at least in the U.S. and U.K.) are subcontracted out to private firms.
That is (albeit often lackluster) Still state supervised, so still a matter of the state.
Then again the US has other more massive problems with incarceration.
If a tyrant used mercenaries to subdue his people, it would still be they tyrant subduing them.
Isn't that similar to a state paying a corporation to implement their rules?
Excommunicatus wrote: Managing the penal system is still a state responsibility, but in practice large parts of it (at least in the U.S. and U.K.) are subcontracted out to private firms.
That is (albeit often lackluster) Still state supervised, so still a matter of the state.
Then again the US has other more massive problems with incarceration.
If a tyrant used mercenaries to subdue his people, it would still be they tyrant subduing them.
Isn't that similar to a state paying a corporation to implement their rules?
Depends, if, for whatever reasons, the mercs decide not to they do free themselves of guilt aswell.
Power structures tend to make people guilty by partaking in it.
And whilest the majority of guilt does seem to lie in the topbrass, it does not absolve of sin in the partakers or carriers of the system.
Manchu wrote: I am curious how many here called (a) believe Epstein should have been killed by a vigilante (b) do you think the crimes for which he was charged merit the death penalty?
Previously, I thought we were discussing (a) but looking back over the comments above it seems closer to (b).
Given his actions ruined hundreds, if not thousands, of lives I think the death penalty to be appropriate.
LordofHats wrote: Cynical statement about how the state shouldn't put so many people in prison if it doesn't want to pay out of its own pocket to incarcerate them.
You're not wrong. Although it doesn't apply to MCC, private prisons simply shouldn't be a thing.
Manchu wrote: I am curious how many here called (a) believe Epstein should have been killed by a vigilante (b) do you think the crimes for which he was charged merit the death penalty?
Previously, I thought we were discussing (a) but looking back over the comments above it seems closer to (b).
Given his actions ruined hundreds, if not thousands, of lives I think the death penalty to be appropriate.
But not vigilante justice.
I doubt Really that death even is justified for what he has supposedly done and Run.
Depends on your Outlook of afterlife though.
LordofHats wrote: Cynical statement about how the state shouldn't put so many people in prison if it doesn't want to pay out of its own pocket to incarcerate them.
You're not wrong. Although it doesn't apply to MCC, private prisons simply shouldn't be a thing.
State run ones also can have issues.
But generally i agree with you, altough i feel like stricter standards and actual oversight might make private runs decent enough.
Doubt it though.
I do not think Epstein was murdered, however I do believe he was encouraged to seek a way out. He should have been on 24/7 suicide watch at this early stage and wasn't. Billionaire facing 45 years and no bail, that is a hard fall.
LordofHats wrote: Cynical statement about how the state shouldn't put so many people in prison if it doesn't want to pay out of its own pocket to incarcerate them.
Who do you think is paying businesses to run prisons, though?
Orlanth wrote: I do not think Epstein was murdered, however I do believe he was encouraged to seek a way out. He should have been on 24/7 suicide watch at this early stage and wasn't. Billionaire facing 45 years and no bail, that is a hard fall.
I don't think he needed any encouragement, and I bet he had his lawyers arguing that it was cruel and unusual punishment to have him under any extraordinary surveillance and deny him his privacy..
The fact of the matter is, he was a rich man who used his wealth and connections to get away with his crimes, doing what he wanted to who he wanted with no fear of consequence (like his previous conviction and jail sentence that wasn't) for the entirety of his life. Now that his crimes finally caught up with him, denied bail, even if ultimately he got off, it'd be years before he wasn't behind bars anymore, and the odds were he was going to spend the rest of his life in jail (probably in isolation the entire time, because what prison population could you put him in, where being an ultra-rich, white, kiddy-diddler wouldn't put a 'shank me here!' on his face?). The goods times were over forever and he would never be king of bigshit mountain again.
Killing himself was the last selfish indulgence he could have, so of course he took it.
Bookwrack wrote: Killing himself was the last selfish indulgence he could have, so of course he took it.
How will his deaths affect the trial around his crimes and his "clients". Will it make it easier to access his data and get them, or will it make everything more difficult? Because if by staying alive he could have taken down a few of the people (who financed and protected him, and were probably supposed to do it here too) then that would be an additional thing he could do: Selfish retaliation, now that he has nothing to lose. And he could still commit suicide later.
Look i'd like to ask some of the Brits here a question and i'm trying to be respectful about it. I'm not saying people in England don't care about this stuff it just seems the reaction is muffled compared to how Americans react. It reminds me of seeing coverage of the grooming gangs. If it got out that police officers were covering up a child sex ring every one involved, their lives would be over, they would most likely end up dying by their own hand after getting tired of the unmentionable things that the other inmates are doing to them. I'm not saying that doesn't happen here, you can definitely buy your way out of a lot but eventually you get caught and dealt with. I actually don't think they murdered Epstein I think they let the inmates murder him. If anything America has the opposite problem, its so full of suspicion and conspiracy theories that people end up doing things like shooting up pizza parlors because they think satanic sacrifices are being conducted there by Hillary Clinton as opposed to doing rational things like compiling evidence.
I'm not saying where perfect because obviously we have some terrible problems. What bothers me is I doubt that the queen or the prince are going to be booed, heckled or lose a damn bit of prestige. It seems like theirs not the same outrage I see in America. I hope i'm wrong.
TheOpposition wrote: It reminds me of seeing coverage of the grooming gangs. If it got out that police officers were covering up a child sex ring every one involved
I suspect the that you are not getting the whole story, which is why you don’t understand the reaction. I assume you are referring to the cases in Rotherham and Oxfordshire? There was no cover up, there was a failure to investigate properly. This was because the police and other authorities assumed that each complaint was motivated by race and that the source was unreliable as it came from young girls in care. This is a massive failure of many services for various reasons, but it is no different to the failures that meant that various people in the US have got away with things. There was no cover up. But I’m not seeing calls for anything to be done about all of the people who had NDAs in the Epstein case. People must have had some idea but chose to take money rather than do anything.
TheOpposition wrote: Look i'd like to ask some of the Brits here a question and i'm trying to be respectful about it. I'm not saying people in England don't care about this stuff it just seems the reaction is muffled compared to how Americans react.
Conflating Britain and England is not a great start
As for
TheOpposition wrote: What bothers me is I doubt that the queen or the prince are going to be booed, heckled or lose a damn bit of prestige.
Here's a bunch of news outlets across the political spectrum, including some that really love the royals, making a deal out of Prince Andrew's connections to Epstein. The Queen isn't going to be heckled, but Andrew isn't getting forgotten about. He's not going to be booed, though, because he'll be kept out of booing distance of the general public.
Andrew is barely in the public eye anyway. Royals are only as important as their place in the line of succession. As a young man Andrew was fairly important, but as Charles' family has grown (and grown) he's increasingly irrelevant. Yes, salacious stories about him make news (and his was the first modern high-profile royal divorce which was big news) but people won't 'boo or heckle' him because most people barely know who is is these days.
In 40 years' time, people who are currently unborn won't give two hoots about Harry, the greying ginger brother to the king, because all the royal attention will be on George's young family.
Edit - We're going to have a William on the throne in 2066 aren't we? He'll be 74. I aim to propose that he has to walk around the Norman invasion routes, and we all get to shout 'Le Batard' at him. I mean, I'll be 75 myself but possibly still up for it.
Riquende wrote: Andrew is barely in the public eye anyway. Royals are only as important as their place in the line of succession. As a young man Andrew was fairly important, but as Charles' family has grown (and grown) he's increasingly irrelevant. Yes, salacious stories about him make news (and his was the first modern high-profile royal divorce which was big news) but people won't 'boo or heckle' him because most people barely know who is is these days.
In 40 years' time, people who are currently unborn won't give two hoots about Harry, the greying ginger brother to the king, because all the royal attention will be on George's young family.
Edit - We're going to have a William on the throne in 2066 aren't we? He'll be 74. I aim to propose that he has to walk around the Norman invasion routes, and we all get to shout 'Le Batard' at him. I mean, I'll be 75 myself but possibly still up for it.
Our current Royal Family has German origins, not French/Norman.
I suspect the that you are not getting the whole story, which is why you don’t understand the reaction. I assume you are referring to the cases in Rotherham and Oxfordshire? There was no cover up, there was a failure to investigate properly.
This was because the police and other authorities assumed that each complaint was motivated by race
This is what I really don't understand. Are you saying that they thought young girls were pretending to be raped to make Pakistani men look bad?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a bunch of news outlets across the political spectrum, including some that really love the royals, making a deal out of Prince Andrew's connections to Epstein.
Its being portrayed as celebrity gossip while in America we are calling it out as as prince Andrew touching an underage girl and hanging out with a child molester.
The Queen isn't going to be heckled
She could have her son account for what he has done, she could say something, she does nothing, she is a part of it.
Must suck beeing a royal, all that ramp light until your brother get's the throne and then beeing sidelined.
Must make them wish for the edge of a guillotine and danger.
funny man, yea its good having jokes to get us through the dystopian world we live in.
Nothing like a mystery to make me want to hop in the Mystery Mobile and eat some Scooby-Snax...
Post death of Epstein I got curious and was reading up on what eventually happened to the "DC Madam" of about 11 years ago.
She was accused of running a upscale prostitution ring in Washington DC.
She also was found hanged and it was considered suicide.
There are significant differences from Epstein:
She did leave notes and did not die in custody.
It is also worth pointing out that she was not accused of anything involving pedophilia (that I know of... I'm not an expert on her case).
The relevant similarity is: there was much speculation that she might have been able to incriminate politically / financially powerful people.
This got me wondering:
Does anybody have any links to statistical discussion of what fraction of "unfamous" people facing charges of pedophilia kill themselves?
Related:
Any stats on what fraction of famous people facing financial ruin kill themselves?
Excommunicatus wrote: Brits typically don't feel the need to denounce things that are so obviously reprehensible that they don't require denouncing.
It is taken as read that child-rapists are condemned.
That... was not my experience in Britain. It was generally 'if we don't talk about it, it doesn't actually happen.' Especially child or spousal abuse.
Indeed. When you don't condemn it, it isn't talked about. When it isn't talked about, it is allowed to happen.
I hate to agree, but I have to agree. There are gak-loads of scandals coming to light in years.
I hate to have to say it in the first place. In an ideal world, people would have some empathy and not be gakky to each other. Sadly, this is very far from an ideal world, and so we must speak out and condemn that which is wrong, lest it be allowed to happen in the silence of not talking about it.
So, I'm not in any way shape or form arguing for silence on contentious topics, nor am I claiming that's how it works in Britain.
I mean that we do not engage in performative outrage for social media likes and woke points to anywhere near the extent that those below the 49th North do.
I suspect the that you are not getting the whole story, which is why you don’t understand the reaction. I assume you are referring to the cases in Rotherham and Oxfordshire? There was no cover up, there was a failure to investigate properly.
Fascists aren't really a reliable source on Pakistani communities or Labour's policy.
This was because the police and other authorities assumed that each complaint was motivated by race
This is what I really don't understand. Are you saying that they thought young girls were pretending to be raped to make Pakistani men look bad?
No, but there seemed to be an assumption on the part of the police that young, poor, and mostly addicted girls were unreliable witnesses and were embellishing events or claiming consensual acts were coercive. It was bad cops doing a bad job - but there was no cover up, which is why it all came to light the minute it was investigated properly.
Here's a bunch of news outlets across the political spectrum, including some that really love the royals, making a deal out of Prince Andrew's connections to Epstein.
Its being portrayed as celebrity gossip while in America we are calling it out as as prince Andrew touching an underage girl and hanging out with a child molester.
The British press doesn't, as a whole, go in for performative outrage. Some papers do, the Express and the Daily Mail, particularly, but those are also the papers that are Royalist to the core (well, a little less supportive of Harry now he's married a mixed-race woman). Even those, when they really get on their outrage horse (like on the issue of the Rotherham scandal, for instance) aren't as vitriolic-for-money as the US news outlets. That's just how it is. After the Grenfell disaster, which saw pretty much universal amazement and fury, both the fire itself and the fallout were treated relatively calmly in print, but no one here would be in any doubt as to how angry people were.
The Queen isn't going to be heckled
She could have her son account for what he has done, she could say something, she does nothing, she is a part of it.
It's too political for her to say anything (also a convenient excuse for her, but it is). In any case, that doesn't really factor into how the UK as a whole reacts to public figures' involvement in crimes.
You're just quoting 'some guy's' website, dude. Some guy with a clear political agenda from the rest of his articles.
As said before, it wasn't a cover up, it was just shoddy policework that came to light pretty quickly once it was known about. In my experience the people who think it's a cover up are the ones that tie it in to Tommy Robinson being arrested for 'reporting on the trial', so if you're heading down that route next then let me head you off at the pass by saying that a) Tommy Robinson isn't a journalist, he an anti-Islam activist (and street thug) and b) he was arrested for endangering the legitimacy of the trial - ie if he'd carried on then the lawyers for the defendents could have got them off on a technicality. Given that we all want to see child-rapists brought to justice, preventing Robinson giving them a loophole out of it was a good thing.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Robinson knew exactly what he was doing and would have loved to see them get off so that he could whip up his base with cries of "look, laws don't even apply to Muslims whatever they've done". As it is he's got his supporters out claiming he's a political prisoner and should be freed etc.
Ouze wrote: Yes, I think Jimmy Savile established how much better the British are than us.
I'm not sure what this is meant to mean? Who's claiming British people are better than folks in the US? A couple people have said that British media is more calm than that of the US (but then so is everywhere I've experienced) but that's quite a different thing. In any case, what does an example of a bad person mean for the rest of a society? Should we all have just responded to TheOpposition's implication that British people just don't care about crimes against young people with 'Sandy Hook established how much better the US is than us'?
I suspect the that you are not getting the whole story, which is why you don’t understand the reaction. I assume you are referring to the cases in Rotherham and Oxfordshire? There was no cover up, there was a failure to investigate properly.
Might want to check your sources there. That's a right-wing website with a pretty obvious anti-Labour agenda, hence the high-quality piece of journalism you've linked to.
This was because the police and other authorities assumed that each complaint was motivated by race
This is what I really don't understand. Are you saying that they thought young girls were pretending to be raped to make Pakistani men look bad?
There were a lot of failings in these cases, which have already been discussed here. The main point is that there wasn't a cover-up or grand conspiracy, there was incompetence and prejudice which was rightly called out when it came to light. There was a good amount of coverage of the cases in question, with stories looking at both the gangs involved and the conduct of the police.
Here's a bunch of news outlets across the political spectrum, including some that really love the royals, making a deal out of Prince Andrew's connections to Epstein.
Its being portrayed as celebrity gossip while in America we are calling it out as as prince Andrew touching an underage girl and hanging out with a child molester.
This is at least partially down to the fact the British press tends to wait for the result of any trials before condemning people. That's due to the way reporting of court proceedings works in the UK, which tends to spill over to how we report on court cases in foreign countries. Prince Andrew hasn't exactly come out of this with his reputation intact. Up until this story broke I'd be surprised if anyone even mentioned Andrew in the press in any context other than a brief aside in the last 5 years. Now his reputation is pretty much in the gutter in the court of public opinion but I don't think you'll see any sort of vitriolic attacks against him until anything's been proven in court.
She could have her son account for what he has done, she could say something, she does nothing, she is a part of it.
We tend to expect adults to take responsibility for their own actions. Andrew has been accused, but not convicted of anything so far, and while the allegations aren't looking good, the idea that the Queen should get involved would seem odd to most Britons. Andrew is quite capable of making a statement himself. Should a conviction actually come about I would be surprised if there wasn't a statement of some kind from the royals.
She could have her son account for what he has done, she could say something, she does nothing, she is a part of it.
We tend to expect adults to take responsibility for their own actions. Andrew has been accused, but not convicted of anything so far, and while the allegations aren't looking good, the idea that the Queen should get involved would seem odd to most Britons. Andrew is quite capable of making a statement himself. Should a conviction actually come about I would be surprised if there wasn't a statement of some kind from the royals.
The Queen has no case to answer, and this shall not fairly be put on her door, not that it wont stop people trying.
First Her Majesty has nothing to do with any allegations and was not reportedly present and is not a witness.
Also this is a case in the US, even if there was a way to call the Queen to testify, and at most the US could only request a statement there is no legal means to do even that.
The US statutory rights forbids authorities from compelling a mother to turn testimony on her own son or cooperate in his apprehension. AFAIK this doesnt just apply to children it is for life.
I am certain that if noises in the direction were due to be uttered they would be hedged off this way.
Anyway Andrew only has a case to answer if a case is presented, one hasn't except in the media. AFAIK there was a settlement to the allegations at the time including Epstein and Andrew, so unless fresh evidence emerges that ends the matter. What this generally means is that Andrew will not be resurfacing anytime soon. Age of Consent in Florida is 18 which is unusually high, and Giuffre was well within consent range elsewhere. I would not call Andrew a 'paedo' in any case as she was 17. Incautious idiot though. If she was any younger though, or someone younger makes an accusation this will be VERY hard to live down, and rightly so.
I suspect the that you are not getting the whole story, which is why you don’t understand the reaction. I assume you are referring to the cases in Rotherham and Oxfordshire? There was no cover up, there was a failure to investigate properly.
Might want to check your sources there. That's a right-wing website with a pretty obvious anti-Labour agenda, hence the high-quality piece of journalism you've linked to.
The trouble we have is just because only the alt right media covers certain stories doesnt mean they are untrue.
There is a case to answer:
There was a lot of pandering going on, some of it breaks the surface indirectly and leaves a trail. It is harder to garner evidence as the primary sources, the press, still do not fairly report these issues, and under New Labour were actively gagged.
A good example was the Islamification of schools in the Birmingham area. I knew as a flat fact it was going on back in 2007-8 from reliable eye witness testimony of gross discrimination. However there wasn't a peep in the press. As soon as Cameron rose to power in 2010 there was a string of police breakthroughs and the story hit the press. This was entirely due to a change of government not any development of evidence. Now from this we can summise that there were some race relations issues that were being swept under the rug. This doesn't of itself prove that New Labour or successive governments put a lied on the rape gang incidents but it highlights that there was a similar mechanic going on.
Add to that the grass roots news from places like Rotherham itself. I cant say much about this because the evidence could be dismissed as hearsay, just as planned. However what can be fairly discussed is how the public enquiries into Rotherham stalled before reaching anyone high enough to be properly called to account. Police collusion should be followed by high level indictments, which has not been the case.
The third piece of evidence to look at is the handling of the case which got Tommy Robinson into so much trouble. Now because it was Tommy Robinson reporting it it has to be Neo-Nazi lies yes? Not quite, though you would be encouraged to think this.
Tommy Robinson wanted to cover the Huddersfield Grooming Gang trial in 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_grooming_gang
Now a press gagging order had be placed on the trial despite Robinson having nothing to add other than what could be reported as a journalist. Gagging restrictions are fair when a child is giving testimony, which Robinson respected, or if official secrets are involved. The judges claim that media involvement could prejudice a defence is not valid, or at least not any more valid as it would to any other case being presented in court. For that reason the gagging order was quashed by a counter suit raised by journalists, who feared a precedent, though a specific separate restriction was placed on Robinson. So in the end you could report the trial, but the press stayed away, except for Robinson who was under a bespoke gagging order, and turned up anyway.
In either case the press did as was asked and did not adequately report on the Huddersfield Grooming Gang trial, so its ramifications except with regards to Robinson went unreported.
Now i don't credit Robinson with much smarts here, it would have suited his cause better to stay away and explain why he is gagged and have a proxy film events for later release after the trial.
However he didn't do much wrong, yes there was a gagging order on the trial, but why would press coverage hamper justice anyway in the case of the Huddersfield grooming gang when it would not in the case of the Soham murders, or for that matter in the case of Robinson himself whose own trial gained more press attention than the grooming gang did for a far less serious offence. Public trial has risks but this is something civic society has always accepted, the only time it has meaning to say that press scrutiny would effect a trials fairness is if a celebrity is in the dock, and in such rare cases full press coverage is given anyway. As with Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris, Craig Charles and Ken Dodd, and the first three of those alleged offences were sexual in nature.
We get a glimpse of what was up in a very brief press briefing after the trial before the local authorities backed away with a clean pair of heels.
Remembering a brief comment by a police spokesperson outside the court, which sadly I cannot find on YouTube, where the police apologised for not understanding the seriousness of the allegations. How do police not understand the seriousness of child rape allegations of girls as young as 11? Personally I think that the gagging order was to prevent rise to these questions, and in turn the issues were not relevant to police because they were conditioned by political correctness and inclusiveness dogma not to appear to be targeting minorities with police investigations.
Now the alt-right are not helping, but sometimes they have been the only ones talking and that of itself is troubling. Tommy Robinson should go away but is far more sinned against than sinning, which is the wording Johnny Rotten used to describe the treatment he received from the BBC whwn he tried to expose Jimmy Saville two decades before his crimes were exposed. Now in Savilles case the reasons for sweeping child rape under the carpet were different, but still political.
that many people would gladly kill and make the world a better place. You don't have to resort to conspiracies by the rich and powerful when you have such an obvious motive for the guards to look the other way and let him get what he deserves. I mean, if I was guarding him on suicide watch there's no way in hell I'd intervene to stop him from doing what he should have done decades ago. And if some of the other inmates want to help him do it, well, good for them.
