Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/nothing-much-to-lose-now-royal-biographer-says-sarah-ferguson-is-writing-a-book-amid-epstein-storm/news-story/36a922b2369df13ded9afcfcc7d69550

'Nothing much to lose now’: Royal biographer says Sarah Ferguson is writing a book amid Epstein storm
Sarah Ferguson is reportedly preparing to publish a candid new memoir, as a royal biographer claims the Duchess of York believes she has little left to protect - and much to gain.

She has her two daughters and grandchildren to protect.

And she can use her $10 mn book advance to say lovely things about her daughters and leave them an inheritance. But the rest of the royal family should be very afraid because she only gets her $10mn if she spills the dirt

It's tawdry and her daughters are princesses that don't need their mother adding to their humiliation.

Snort. You think they’re not being utterly humiliated now? At least they’ll have some more money, which apparently is a problem for this branch of the royals.

They don't need their mother's money.

They need someone’s money. It’s not like their husbands are that rich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Epstein files have become bigger than life, people are turning the files into something they want it to be rather than what they are.

We do know Epstein was "recruiting" young women and putting them in positions of availability. But it doesn't mean many of the men's named in the files did anything illegal on their end. It is not illegal to sleep with a woman you met at a party. Most of these women were of legal age. That is why prosecution is so complicated in this area.

Andrew was arrested because he apparently shared government information. That can be prosecuted. Howard Lutnick lying about his association with Epstein is not prosecutable as he didn't lie under oath.

There are also many names in the Epstein files of people who clearly knew him but there is no evidence they actually did anything wrong and their greatest crime is having been friendly with him. That's Lutnick, so far. Or the Clintons. You don't arrest people simply for being known to having been at an Epstein party. Much of the reaction right now reeks more of a sanctimonious vigilante mob and Salem Witch trial mentality. Which is a shame as there were really unethical things Epstein and Maxwell did.

Female humans who are not of legal age are called children, and there were a lot of them who were raped.

Trafficking is criminal no matter the age of the victims.

JFC. We all know this. The PP was correct that there is no concrete evidence to arrest these people for sex crimes as it is. Being mentioned in the Epstein files is not proof of criminal activity. You can't just arrest someone because you "feel" they're guilty. You have to have actual evidence of something.
DP

I would take it a step farther - which is to say, this was a clearly powerful and connected guy who got around and had a lot of friends. So what if someone was friends with him? Maybe you don't have the best judge of character but it doesn't mean you yourself are a rapist, it doesn't even imply it

Sure they weren’t all rapists, the rest were insider trading and scheming and stealing and defrauding and lots of things I cannot even fathom. You are the company you keep. Lie down with dogs, you’re gonna get fleas. FAFO!

But were they? Are you really the worst parts of all your friends and the people whom you know through work and other connections? Ever stood next to someone at a cocktail party you don't really know but see now and again because they are in your general circle, and slung your arm around them? Or pretended you were better friends with someone because it's just the social thing to do (e.g., sure let's go to dinner together)

Someone who had been convicted of and served time for sex trafficking of children? NOPE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Epstein files have become bigger than life, people are turning the files into something they want it to be rather than what they are.

We do know Epstein was "recruiting" young women and putting them in positions of availability. But it doesn't mean many of the men's named in the files did anything illegal on their end. It is not illegal to sleep with a woman you met at a party. Most of these women were of legal age. That is why prosecution is so complicated in this area.

Andrew was arrested because he apparently shared government information. That can be prosecuted. Howard Lutnick lying about his association with Epstein is not prosecutable as he didn't lie under oath.

There are also many names in the Epstein files of people who clearly knew him but there is no evidence they actually did anything wrong and their greatest crime is having been friendly with him. That's Lutnick, so far. Or the Clintons. You don't arrest people simply for being known to having been at an Epstein party. Much of the reaction right now reeks more of a sanctimonious vigilante mob and Salem Witch trial mentality. Which is a shame as there were really unethical things Epstein and Maxwell did.

Female humans who are not of legal age are called children, and there were a lot of them who were raped.

Trafficking is criminal no matter the age of the victims.

JFC. We all know this. The PP was correct that there is no concrete evidence to arrest these people for sex crimes as it is. Being mentioned in the Epstein files is not proof of criminal activity. You can't just arrest someone because you "feel" they're guilty. You have to have actual evidence of something.
DP

I would take it a step farther - which is to say, this was a clearly powerful and connected guy who got around and had a lot of friends. So what if someone was friends with him? Maybe you don't have the best judge of character but it doesn't mean you yourself are a rapist, it doesn't even imply it

Sure they weren’t all rapists, the rest were insider trading and scheming and stealing and defrauding and lots of things I cannot even fathom. You are the company you keep. Lie down with dogs, you’re gonna get fleas. FAFO!

But were they? Are you really the worst parts of all your friends and the people whom you know through work and other connections? Ever stood next to someone at a cocktail party you don't really know but see now and again because they are in your general circle, and slung your arm around them? Or pretended you were better friends with someone because it's just the social thing to do (e.g., sure let's go to dinner together)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Epstein files have become bigger than life, people are turning the files into something they want it to be rather than what they are.

We do know Epstein was "recruiting" young women and putting them in positions of availability. But it doesn't mean many of the men's named in the files did anything illegal on their end. It is not illegal to sleep with a woman you met at a party. Most of these women were of legal age. That is why prosecution is so complicated in this area.

Andrew was arrested because he apparently shared government information. That can be prosecuted. Howard Lutnick lying about his association with Epstein is not prosecutable as he didn't lie under oath.

There are also many names in the Epstein files of people who clearly knew him but there is no evidence they actually did anything wrong and their greatest crime is having been friendly with him. That's Lutnick, so far. Or the Clintons. You don't arrest people simply for being known to having been at an Epstein party. Much of the reaction right now reeks more of a sanctimonious vigilante mob and Salem Witch trial mentality. Which is a shame as there were really unethical things Epstein and Maxwell did.

Female humans who are not of legal age are called children, and there were a lot of them who were raped.

Trafficking is criminal no matter the age of the victims.

JFC. We all know this. The PP was correct that there is no concrete evidence to arrest these people for sex crimes as it is. Being mentioned in the Epstein files is not proof of criminal activity. You can't just arrest someone because you "feel" they're guilty. You have to have actual evidence of something.
DP

I would take it a step farther - which is to say, this was a clearly powerful and connected guy who got around and had a lot of friends. So what if someone was friends with him? Maybe you don't have the best judge of character but it doesn't mean you yourself are a rapist, it doesn't even imply it

+1
The WSJ makes a point of stating in every article about Epstein that being mentioned in the Epstein files is not a sign of wrongdoing and I think some of these posters should keep that in mind. They want to claim every person who ever had lunch with him is a pedophile and that kind of gross generalization is sickening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Epstein files have become bigger than life, people are turning the files into something they want it to be rather than what they are.

We do know Epstein was "recruiting" young women and putting them in positions of availability. But it doesn't mean many of the men's named in the files did anything illegal on their end. It is not illegal to sleep with a woman you met at a party. Most of these women were of legal age. That is why prosecution is so complicated in this area.

Andrew was arrested because he apparently shared government information. That can be prosecuted. Howard Lutnick lying about his association with Epstein is not prosecutable as he didn't lie under oath.

There are also many names in the Epstein files of people who clearly knew him but there is no evidence they actually did anything wrong and their greatest crime is having been friendly with him. That's Lutnick, so far. Or the Clintons. You don't arrest people simply for being known to having been at an Epstein party. Much of the reaction right now reeks more of a sanctimonious vigilante mob and Salem Witch trial mentality. Which is a shame as there were really unethical things Epstein and Maxwell did.

I totally agree.
I was sexually abused by someone no one would have guessed is a child abuser. And I don't blame them because he doesn't seem like it typically.
Even as a victim, the idea of anyone who has associated with him being guilty, too, is absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/nothing-much-to-lose-now-royal-biographer-says-sarah-ferguson-is-writing-a-book-amid-epstein-storm/news-story/36a922b2369df13ded9afcfcc7d69550

'Nothing much to lose now’: Royal biographer says Sarah Ferguson is writing a book amid Epstein storm
Sarah Ferguson is reportedly preparing to publish a candid new memoir, as a royal biographer claims the Duchess of York believes she has little left to protect - and much to gain.

She has her two daughters and grandchildren to protect.

And she can use her $10 mn book advance to say lovely things about her daughters and leave them an inheritance. But the rest of the royal family should be very afraid because she only gets her $10mn if she spills the dirt

It's tawdry and her daughters are princesses that don't need their mother adding to their humiliation.

Snort. You think they’re not being utterly humiliated now? At least they’ll have some more money, which apparently is a problem for this branch of the royals.

They don't need their mother's money.

They need someone’s money. It’s not like their husbands are that rich.

I presume that the disinheriting of Andrew will pass the money he would have gotten onto Eugenie and Beatrice and their kids. Especially if they remain working royals. They are both reasonably close with William and his family, I don't think he or Charles would cut them out, unless something comes out to implicate them. I think most people view them sympathetically for having had Andrew as a father and suffering this humiliation. Also I think William and Harry have always felt some kinship with them because their parents all divorced within a few years of each other and they all had to grow up in that weird tabloid environment that detailed their parents' splits and tawdry behavior.

Fergie's money issues have always been about her and her alone. Ever since she divorced Andrew, she's been hustling to try and maintain enough income to stay within that social circle. In a way, the fact that her daughters remain a part of the BRF had made Fergie's lack of inheritance a bigger problem for her -- I think often she's trying to save face because the girls are still "on the inside" and until recently Andrew was too, which left her the odd woman out, especially when it came to family functions and events (she's scrambled for invites to things, begged to borrow designer clothes so she can look correct when she's there, etc.). This is why she continued to live on the same estate as Andrew for years (also they remained friends, which obviously calls her judgment into question, but you might wonder if she would have struck out on her ow a lot sooner if she'd had her own inheritance/title/etc.).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/nothing-much-to-lose-now-royal-biographer-says-sarah-ferguson-is-writing-a-book-amid-epstein-storm/news-story/36a922b2369df13ded9afcfcc7d69550

'Nothing much to lose now’: Royal biographer says Sarah Ferguson is writing a book amid Epstein storm
Sarah Ferguson is reportedly preparing to publish a candid new memoir, as a royal biographer claims the Duchess of York believes she has little left to protect - and much to gain.

She has her two daughters and grandchildren to protect.

And she can use her $10 mn book advance to say lovely things about her daughters and leave them an inheritance. But the rest of the royal family should be very afraid because she only gets her $10mn if she spills the dirt

It's tawdry and her daughters are princesses that don't need their mother adding to their humiliation.

Snort. You think they’re not being utterly humiliated now? At least they’ll have some more money, which apparently is a problem for this branch of the royals.

They don't need their mother's money.

They need someone’s money. It’s not like their husbands are that rich.

I presume that the disinheriting of Andrew will pass the money he would have gotten onto Eugenie and Beatrice and their kids. Especially if they remain working royals. They are both reasonably close with William and his family, I don't think he or Charles would cut them out, unless something comes out to implicate them. I think most people view them sympathetically for having had Andrew as a father and suffering this humiliation. Also I think William and Harry have always felt some kinship with them because their parents all divorced within a few years of each other and they all had to grow up in that weird tabloid environment that detailed their parents' splits and tawdry behavior.

Fergie's money issues have always been about her and her alone. Ever since she divorced Andrew, she's been hustling to try and maintain enough income to stay within that social circle. In a way, the fact that her daughters remain a part of the BRF had made Fergie's lack of inheritance a bigger problem for her -- I think often she's trying to save face because the girls are still "on the inside" and until recently Andrew was too, which left her the odd woman out, especially when it came to family functions and events (she's scrambled for invites to things, begged to borrow designer clothes so she can look correct when she's there, etc.). This is why she continued to live on the same estate as Andrew for years (also they remained friends, which obviously calls her judgment into question, but you might wonder if she would have struck out on her ow a lot sooner if she'd had her own inheritance/title/etc.).

Anonymous wrote:Latest is they may take him off the succession line , I thought he already lost it with the Prince title?