Smiggs
Member
I think repelling in from a helicopter would take care of the whole siege issue
Last edited:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
New Epstein Emails: Elon Musk Repeatedly Asked To Visit Epstein Island
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
ProtoByte
Weeb Underling
It's basically pointless to actually talk about facts here, but this arrest was made over suspicion of supposedly passing over some "confidential" document or documents of unknown relevance. Far cry from the Hansen anti-"elite" crusade LARP some of you want to assume is totally going to happen.
Even assuming he gets convicted of this, it's going to come off as a joke compared to what's brought it to the fore in the first place.
The British Royal family never should've capitulated to this bullshit.
I'm pretty sure the UK police is only authorized to conduct airborne assaults to apprehend folks who post mean tweetsI think repelling in from a helicopter would take care of the while siege issue
Interesting, that's why there's a big distinction between arrest and charging someone in the UK. It's only the latter that results in something but obviously the former is intended to lead to the latter. Anything found in investigations won't become public before it hits court and an arrest still needs evidence of some kind.
Andrew was arrested due to evidence of misconduct from the Epstein files - it's related to confidential material being shared to Epstein. It's not related to the rest of the stuff, but could become more if they find it.
Bojji
Gold Member
At lest SOMETHING is happening. Andrew is 100% guilty of sleeping with underage females.
So far British Royal Family was immune to any legal actions even when Jimmy Savile case was huge
Windom Earle
Member
That is baseless speculation. She is an evil person (the files say as much) and we should find out what she knows. Bring back waterboarding.
confused_pumpkin1506
Neo Member
no ones actually been arrested for tweets you balloonI'm pretty sure the UK police is only authorized to conduct airborne assaults to apprehend folks who post mean tweets
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
ProtoByte
Weeb Underling
According to what? There's a new dubious allegation from a woman in her 20s at the time and even if you (stupidly) believe with absolute certainty that he had some kind of sexual contact with Virginia Giuffre, she'd have been above the UK's and much of the US's age of consent.
Andrew arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office
The former prince remains in custody while searches take place in Norfolk and Berkshire.
www.bbc.com
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Windom Earle
Member
Wait what? What semantics are we arguing here and why?
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
ProtoByte
Weeb Underling
There are special words for brazen liars like yourself.
For the record, on request by this very special person, I posted the following - to which he reacted to with a LOL within the minute of its posting:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There are special words for brazen liars like yourself.
For the record, on request by this very special person, I posted the following - to which he reacted to with a LOL within the minute of its posting:
And for the record, Proto's iron clad proof about Virginia being a liar was speculatory statements like this:
This is following his claim that Virginia was a "self admitted liar".
It deserves nothing but the lol of highest orders.
Beginning to suspect we might have found Pam Bondi's GAF account here.
Last edited:
Windom Earle
Member
If Virginia was wrong about everything, why did they kill her?
Bojji
Gold Member
According to what? There's a new dubious allegation from a woman in her 20s at the time and even if you (stupidly) believe with absolute certainty that he had some kind of sexual contact with Virginia Giuffre, she'd have been above the UK's and much of the US's age of consent.
Andrew arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office
The former prince remains in custody while searches take place in Norfolk and Berkshire.
Reading your post in this thread is seems according to you NO ONE (maybe besides Epstein and Maxwell) did anything wrong, all those people present on Epstein Island with trafficked children around:
And all victims are liars.
Meanwhile in the Epstein files:
Age Verification | United States Department of Justice
Age Verification | United States Department of Justice
Not WEIRD at all, everything seems normal.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Reading your post in this thread is seems according to you NO ONE (maybe besides Epstein and Maxwell) did anything wrong, all those people present on Epstein Island with trafficked children around:
And all victims are liars.
Meanwhile in the Epstein files:
Age Verification | United States Department of Justice
www.justice.gov
Age Verification | United States Department of Justice
Not WEIRD at all, everything seems normal.
But have you seen the DOW, Bojji?
Have you seen the Nasdaq?
are you suggesting that large numbers of folks in the UK are NOT being arrested for social media posts, including X?
Are Over a Thousand People Arrested Each Month in the UK for Social Media Posts?
On June 3, Georgian Dream MP Nino Tsilosani wrote that in the United Kingdom, more than a thousand people are
mythdetector.com
Bojji
Gold Member
Windom Earle
Member
Defending Epstein is such a weird hill to die on.Reading your post in this thread is seems according to you NO ONE (maybe besides Epstein and Maxwell) did anything wrong, all those people present on Epstein Island with trafficked children around:
And all victims are liars.
Meanwhile in the Epstein files:
Age Verification | United States Department of Justice
Age Verification | United States Department of Justice
Not WEIRD at all, everything seems normal.
ProtoByte
Weeb Underling
It's not semantics. Boji over there said that Andrew "100%" has committed pedo sex offences. Giuffre was above the UKs legal age of consent at the time of her claims, and Giuffre is not credible. She was paid 160k for that photo by the Daily Mail in 2011, which explicated the following:
3 years and a prospective book deal later, she accuses Prince Andrew of exactly this in civil court filings. Sworn affidavits by which she would later recant huge swaths of her claims. The British royal family capitulated because her lawyers strategically timed the suit on the eve of the very old Queen's record platinum jubilee - a decade after even uttering Andre's name at all. Admitting no wrongdoing in the settlement, but settling nonetheless.
Giuffre is not credible. That is not my opinion, that is the conclusion the SDNY that launched relitigation into Epstein and then Maxwell came to.
So you're just gong to keep lying as if people won't just click to see what I posted in full. Sad part is, you're probably right.
No, that was an ancillary wrinkle. A funny side note. The evidence that Giuffre is a self admitted liar are the following, and I guess we'll have to waste server space reposting the same fucking links:
- Recanting her claims against Alan Dershowitz in a suit she initiated after 8 years of identifying him in sworn affidavits as having abused her at least 6-7 (no, seriously) separate occasions: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/08/us/alan-dershowitz-virginia-giuffre-allegations-dropped
- Admitting that her landmark biographical manuscript in which she accused a whole host of "elite" names of trafficking her and which she shopped around as nonfictional to publishers was a "fictionalized account": https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63792947/epstein-docs/953
- In which she recants a slew of previously sworn statements: https://votewatchcom.wordpress.com/...s-she-lied-under-oath-about-being-trafficked/
you've already made it clear you won't engage with the facts, but I'm not "defending Epstein". I'm addressing the reality around this mythological nonsense.
Don't put Pam Bondi's idiocy on me. She put herself in a bind because she's either too immoral or too low information to admit to the fact that the admin she works for is full of or partial to a bunch of cranks who've spent the last election cycle falsely feeding hallucinated paranoia that the world is run by industrial pedo trafficking and that Epstein was the key to all of it - for the sake of political gain and conspiratorial idiocy.
Last edited:
Well, he's dead. There is no defending him now.
I'm kinda surprised that few, if anyone, is talking about where all his money went. Seems like this whole thing could have been shifted to "here is a giant pool of money harvested from Epsteins estate and if you can show that you were a victim, here is a pay-out". Then a bunch of women could apply and get paid. It's really the only hard justice these woman are gonna get, I think. Chasing these accusations of cannibalism and whatnot seem unlikely to go anywhere and just waste efforts on reparations. To be frank, I think 95% of the attention on this stuff is from folks that wanna see Trump go down and they have ZERO interest in unravelling anything other than him.
CEOs, billionaire industrialists, the techno-elite, chronic politicians, high level government officials, royalty, they will just shift their wild parties to another venue and keep on trucking. None of this is gonna phase them in the slightest. Seems unlikely that americans will do anything to address the root issue (installing term limits, for example, or radically shrinking government bureaucracies, smashing up these oligarchic companies) so it's just a blame game of musical chairs in the hopes that Trump will get caught without a seat before he dies of natural causes in a few years, and even then it may continue to try to eradicate his name from history.
Had Hillary won in 2016 and Trump just shrugged and went back to making bad TV, I don't think ANYONE would even know Epsteins name now. At best he would have been some random rich guy busted for diddling the local high school girls, at worst he would still be at it.
Cynical, I know, but I think it's the truth.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
He seemingly can't help but carry water for elites.
Bojji
Gold Member
I said he had sex with underage women/girls, not exaclty that he is a pedo. Pedophiles are harming preadolescent children (so ~13 or lower).
Right now term pedo is used incorrectly in many cases (I probably did that as well in the past). Age of consent on Virgin Islands is 18 years old from I can tell, and Virginia was 17. So at least on epstein island it was illegal:
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It's fascinating and I would love to get the real answers about this one day, hopefully.
Windom Earle
Member
It really should not be a left/right issue, I think everyone should be equally interested in attacking the structures behind Epstein. We have Ghislaine and we know that Wexner was Epstein's "boss". It's really not that difficult. As long as Wexner is free and Maxwell is in a spa like prison, nothing is going to happen.
Personally I think Trump is implicated, otherwise I can't explain his behavior. But we don't know. What we do know is that Clintons/Obama are subhumans that belong in jail: The third file drop confirmed pizzagate.
Edit: Btw, no, he is probably not dead.
Last edited:
If this is true and is ever (conclusively) revealed....woooooow where do you even go with the blame?
This is gonna be something that historians 300+ years from now debate endlessly, like Jack the Ripper or the existence of Robin Hood
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Pedophilia is a scientific term, the way laymen use it is different. That's just language for you. Same with how people use the term "OCD" when they don't actually have obsessive compulsive disorder.I said he had sex with underage women/girls, not exaclty that he is a pedo. Pedophiles are harming preadolescent children (so ~13 or lower).
Right now term pedo is used incorrectly in many cases (I probably did that as well in the past). Age of consent on Virgin Islands is 18 years old from I can tell, and Virginia was 17. So at least on epstein island it was illegal:
Eventually I imagine dictionaries will start including that definition (going after people under the age of 18, as that is how it's used), because again, that's how language works.
The age window of what is considered unacceptable has shifted in modern times to go years past puberty. It is what it is, it's both futile and kind of makes you look like a weirdo to endlessly "Well actually" this topic. That's not true of all cultures, but it is true in America, and that's where you'll see someone being called a "pedo" for fucking 17 year olds as an old man.
Last edited:
Bojji
Gold Member
But that difference makes all the difference for Prince Andrew case. We know Epstein had contacts with very young children, for Andrew it was closer to 18.
Sexual contacts with 17 year olds are not on the same scale as sexual contacts with 10 year old children, and law differentiates that as well.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Sure, the legal trouble you will get into is different.
Even societally you are seen differently, which is fine.
You will still get called a pedo by a lot of people because they see it as similar enough, "Taking advantage of a young person, someone we would often call a 'girl' or a 'boy'"
Another way of looking at it is "having sex with someone you can't legally photograph nude" lol
Last edited:
Bojji
Gold Member
Yes, and maybe it's good.
But at the same time it puts people like Dr. Disrespect and Peter Sully in the same category, undermining how HORRIBLE Peter Sully actions were. Same is happening now with Nazi word.
chromhound
Member
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Yeah I generally get a little bit annoyed when language gets muddied. See: everyone calling a PC a console lol
But I think most people just don't care that much, the people they are calling "pedos" they think should be outcast/shamed/etc. Maybe not quite as much as someone who fucks pre-pubescent people, I think everyone in that scenario believes the people should get life in prison. In that sense it would be useful to have more differentiation but really how often are people even discussing this level of detail? They just want to shame and move on.
My example of calling a PC a console annoys me because it muddies actual conversations I want to have for my hobby. I don't post on "Sex criminal" forums I just casually rant about people I see as dangerous.
Last edited:
Mortisfacio
Member
When are we firing up the wood chippers and hanging these pedophiles and sympathizers? I need to use some of my PTO up from work.
Even if these weren't the elites being protected, I think from a legal standpoint most would get off because there's no concrete proof. Take Trump for example. A competent legal defense team would claim that the evidence against him is allegations, not proof. They'd cite things like the claim, at Trump's golf course in 1995, that she was threatened to be "buried behind the back 9". The problem with this allegation is in 1995 this golf course didn't exist. The land wasn't even purchased by Trump until 2002. Discrediting the claim. Citing examples like this, followed by timelines of allegations surfacing around elections, brings all claims into question of doubt.
This is a similar case for many of these people. I would love to see something happen, but many of those named in these files are allegations at best and lack evidence to make a charge stick. I'm on the "Nothing ever happens" train until proven otherwise.
I actually think we will see stronger laws of "onset of puberty equals age of consent" because thats what islam preaches:
The validity of marriage to a minor girl is proven by the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):
"And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]"
[al-Talaaq 65:4]
Iddah is the time of mourning before a woman can marry again, so pre-menstrual girls are included because their is no real bottom floor to when a girl can be married and thus potentially have sex (age nine is the minimum age some use)
and I think as Islam encroaches on the Christian/secular west, we will see more and more legal tolerance for islamic practices rather than "Westernization" pushing islam to restrict itself to accommodate our morals. This tug of war over essential cultural practices will be eternal until one side is effectively wiped out or isolated.
edit: and, to be fair, age of consent isn't even 18 in all western areas, or wasn't until veeeeeeeeeeeery recently. I'm not sure it is as entrenched an idea as some folks like to think (within a marriage of course).
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Not in America lolI actually think we will see stronger laws of "onset of puberty equals age of consent" because thats what islam preaches:
The validity of marriage to a minor girl is proven by the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):
"And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]"
[al-Talaaq 65:4]
Iddah is the time of mourning before a woman can marry again, so pre-menstrual girls are included because their is no real bottom floor to when a girl can be married and thus potentially have sex (age nine is the minimum age some use)
and I think as Islam encroaches on the Christian/secular west, we will see more and more legal tolerance for islamic practices rather than "Westernization" pushing islam to restrict itself to accommodate our morals. This tug of war over essential cultural practices will be eternal until one side is effectively wiped out or isolated.
edit: and, to be fair, age of consent isn't even 18 in all western areas, or wasn't until veeeeeeeeeeeery recently. I'm not sure it is as entrenched an idea as some folks like to think (within a marriage of course).
We have our own people who think it's OK to marry a 14 year old though. But laws have consistently went in the other direction towards having a higher age of consent. The "you can marry someone even younger" laws are being removed from the books as well.
for now.
But if we keep importing folks who believe differently, or head back to a theological slant that wants that early marriage shit, it's a coming. We'll see in europe though, they are the battle ground here.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Has anything like that even really happened in Europe?
Most I've seen are sort of ornamental "courts" setup to handle family disputes and they can't ignore the actual laws and aren't recognized by the government, it's just Muslims doing Muslim things the same as Catholics have their own "marriage laws" in the US that don't stop anyone from getting actually divorced.
Last edited:
We are seeing the british health system RATIONALIZNIG COUSIN INCEST, so yes, I'd say the first crumblings of common sense culture is occurring.
And granted, a quick perusal of royal UK/european weddings belies the hypocrisy of banning 1st cousin hook-ups as well as exposes the obvious reasons to avoid it. Targaryens we are not
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I mean.. that's not illegal in the UK because of their own long history lol I get that it can be seen as encroaching on norms for the health services to coddle Muslim immigrants but it's legal.We are seeing the british health system RATIONALIZNIG COUSIN INCEST, so yes, I'd say the first crumblings of common sense culture is occurring.
And granted, a quick perusal of royal UK/european weddings belies the hypocrisy of banning 1st cousin hook-ups as well as exposes the obvious reasons to avoid it. Targaryens we are not
Same with some of the US, but most of our States are on the right side of that one lol
Smiggs
Member
Child marriage is legal in a lot of the US, and if you're curious to what religion those people that support it ascribe to, I'll give you one hint: they're not Muslim. Does anyone not remember Roy Moore?
chromhound
Member
Sure, though distaste with muslim practices (which generally permit marriages WAAAAAAAAAY younger than most Christian-based cultures tolerate is a big driver to close the 16-17 yo marriage gap to 18.
Survivor advocate, Naila Amin, brings end to child marriage in New York
A survivor of forced child marriage, Naila Amin, worked tirelessly and succeeded in raising the minimum age of marriage in New York.
www.freedomunited.org
In an agrarian society early marriage makes alot more sense as kids are a commodity, but urban life...not so much. Within a marriage, presumably with engaged and approving parents and clergy, some of the "ick" factor goes away but of course there are numerous exceptions and it's almost ways the girl that has the least say in it.
But biology be biology. Teen sex isn't going anywhere and with modern contraception (or the less ideal option of abortion) the real negative consequences are largely mitigated. Females recognize the power they wield and males labor under the hormonal drug testosterone. It's always gonna be a contentious issue because the more freedoms given to females, the more access they have to males for this barter system.
Toons
Member
Harry and Meghan gotta be having a good week reading all this
ShadyAcshuns
Gold Member
Thank God for Julian Assange.Without his work, most of this stuff would still be unknown and unchallenged.
Celcius
°Temp. member
The email is from Susan Hamblin and the name in the body of the email redacted is Olga.
Last edited:
Smiggs
Member
Did an Olga die shortly after this email that had some tie to one of them? I would think this would be an easy one to track.
This is the same Hamblin as the "little girl was a naughty" email, right?
That's the problem with these emails. There is no real actionable info. And if they haul Hamblin in to explain herself, all she has to say is:
"Jeffery had a couple puppies and the smallest one peed on my shoe, so I said she was a little naughty" and "A guy I liked started dating another woman so I was joking to Jeff that he should kill him."
Obviously with a bunch of emails or other evidence maybe those stories wouldn't hold up but as it is, there is really nothing there.
ProtoByte
Weeb Underling
I can't quote this message without pointing to the irony in this section. Now you want to "split hairs" about definitions. But okay, fine.
You understand that the infamous photo and alleged acts were in London?Age of consent on Virgin Islands is 18 years old from I can tell, and Virginia was 17. So at least on epstein island it was illegal:
Last edited: