Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Accused Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell moved to New York jail

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It's irrelevant in law in the sense that the law creates the fiction that a 16 or 17 year old can not consent in law.

 

However, in fact, in reality, of course those girls consented to have sex for money.  So men are criminalised even though the girl consented and even though the man paid 200 dollars. 

 

Due to the fact that the law creates this legal construct, this fiction, which claims a 17 year old girl can not consent, whether they in fact consented is not considered in law. This is purely because of a policy that politicians who make the law do not want 17 year olds having sex with men over 24. For various reasons.

 

Even if it is irrelevant in law it is very relevant in evaluating what actually happened in reality. Those girls consented to sex for money. They then persuaded 70 of their friends to come to Epstein to have sex for money. They received other benefits like free holidays, school fees paid, pilot licences were obtained, the list of benefits was endless. 

 

Furthermore the tales of "sex slavery" are totally made up tales, all of the girls could leave at a time of their choosing, and they all did so. None were kept prisoners chained up in a dungeon. In fact all of their living conditions improved thanks to their association with Epstein. Ludicrously so in the case of many now, like Virginia Roberts who is a multi-millionairess decked out in gold chains who never has to work again , because she sued Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein, Epstein's estate as well so she will make even more money. 

 

All of the "survivors" are suing the Epstein estate or claiming from a fund set up specifically for them by the Epstein estate. Tens of millions of dollars have been paid out already and many more millions will be paid out. The flood of litigation initiated by the "survivors" is a tsunami, because the monetary gain is life changing.

 

So whilst in law consent is immaterial, in evaluating in reality what happened, if these women deserve millions for having sex for money while 16 or 17 the question of whether they consented to sex for money is relevant.

I'm talking about the 14 and 15 year olds, though I can see your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I'm talking about the 14 and 15 year olds, though I can see your point.

I see your point as well. Of course we have to protect our children from the sexual advances of men, who will use deception and monetary incentives to obtain sex with the extremely young.

 

So clearly we have to draw a line in the sand at some point, some age, beyond which girls are untouchable. 

 

 The problem arises where to draw that line. Who can point the moment a child becomes a woman. This issue has provided endless problems for lawmakers. We can see that the age of consent today globally varies from 12 to 21. 

 

In reality of course every girl is different. I've met girls who at 16 were more street smart than some 40 year old women and fully developed, but then there are girls who at that age are like 12 year olds.

 

But of course we need to draw the line and err on the side of the vulnerable. It is right to do so. 

 

However we need to recognise that people like Epstein are not paedophiles, they do not have a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent girls. They are the victim of a legal fiction which we have to put in place to protect some immature girls and of course of their own overwhelming sexual urges. 

 

It is unavoidable people like him have to be punished. However, life imprisonment for sex with a girl that consented to sex for money is an exaggeration. To pump the girls full of millions of USD in compensation is an exaggeration. Tales of slavery are an exaggeration. Tales of videos of famous people are an exaggeration, none were ever found. 

 

The media has fantastically exaggerated this case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure what media you are getting this from, but it hardly matters.

 

Maxwell is an adult and answerable for her own crimes, and these relate to something far more obscene than ‘liking teenage girls’.

 

I hope she does name names and produce evidence (if the FEDs don’t already have enough), throw the book at all involved regardless of who they are.

 

 

Again, as always, you seem to insist certain charges, made against certain types of people, should be accepted as the truth; without proof, evidence, trial and verdict.

 

It seems you support trial by media fueled by political correctness and verdict by the court of public opinion - an opinion easily swayed by the mass media.

 

Perhaps you'd like to go back to the Witch trial mentality where as long as an accuser was perceived to be "on the right side" evidence wasn't really necessary? Or maybe press them to confess. If they're pressed to death we know they're innocent!

 

Unfortunately, this is also hampered by an FBI shown in recent years to be corrupt, biased, politically motivated and not particularly efficient; and a US justice system broken way beyond repair.

 

Look forward to a clown show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Logosone said:

I see your point as well. Of course we have to protect our children from the sexual advances of men, who will use deception and monetary incentives to obtain sex with the extremely young.

 

So clearly we have to draw a line in the sand at some point, some age, beyond which girls are untouchable. 

 

 The problem arises where to draw that line. Who can point the moment a child becomes a woman. This issue has provided endless problems for lawmakers. We can see that the age of consent today globally varies from 12 to 21. 

 

In reality of course every girl is different. I've met girls who at 16 were more street smart than some 40 year old women and fully developed, but then there are girls who at that age are like 12 year olds.

 

But of course we need to draw the line and err on the side of the vulnerable. It is right to do so. 

 

However we need to recognise that people like Epstein are not paedophiles, they do not have a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent girls. They are the victim of a legal fiction which we have to put in place to protect some immature girls and of course of their own overwhelming sexual urges. 

 

It is unavoidable people like him have to be punished. However, life imprisonment for sex with a girl that consented to sex for money is an exaggeration. To pump the girls full of millions of USD in compensation is an exaggeration. Tales of slavery are an exaggeration. Tales of videos of famous people are an exaggeration, none were ever found. 

 

The media has fantastically exaggerated this case.

It doesnt matter how mature any girl is under the age of consent. That age is for the adult to know that no matter her mental age, she is not to be touched.

 

That you are now portraying epstein as the hunted and the underaged girls as the hunters is unconscionable.

 

For that, you are no longer worth reading. Bye

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is credible speculation that Epstein and father and daughter Maxwell were MASSOD. If that is true she doesn't make it to trial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paid sexual relations must be contracted between ADULTS, CONSENTANTS.


If one of these two terms is missing, there is a crime and justice has the duty to prosecute, punish and order compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, pegman said:

There is credible speculation that Epstein and father and daughter Maxwell were MASSOD. If that is true she doesn't make it to trial. 

You mean Mossad, I assume; anyone who, in their ignorance, googles Massod is going to be extremely confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/8/2020 at 9:23 AM, Logosone said:

However, in fact, in reality, of course those girls consented to have sex for money.  So men are criminalised even though the girl consented and even though the man paid 200 dollars. 

Not according to anything I've ever heard or read about this. Every one of the girls that I've ever seen interviewed (including in their original police interviews back in the 1990's & 2000's) says they were initially promised they would only have to massage some old guy. After they were sexually assaulted, Epstein then paid them money.

 

You're also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the girls were minors and therefore not even able to give informed consent.

 

Epstein, by his agreement to pay compensation under 18 USC § 2255 (which covers victims of child sexual abuse) as part of the 2008 non-prosecution agreement, acknowledged having sexually abused nearly 3 dozen minors (i.e. children). 

 

 

Screenshot_20200709-183047.png

Edited by GroveHillWanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...