We’re often told the PM is a ‘decent’ man. But in appointing Peter Mandelson he chose political convenience over doing right by trafficked women and girls
It’s very important that we talk about Epstein’s handful of willing – if underage – tarts and not about the thousands here at home. No, really.
Bitch doesn’t even mention the comparison. Fuck off, eh?
“We’re often told the PM is a ‘decent’ man. “
Yes, mostly by ‘Guardian’ columnists, and we know better than to listen to a word they say, Nesrine.
This ‘Starmer is a decent man’ refrain is feeble propaganda. He’s a chateau-bottled shit.
Year? That’s a bit unambitious. He’s aiming for decade if not century.
Not only were Epstein’s young tarts willing they reportedly were very well paid and undoubtedly free to choose another line of work. The fact that some allegedly performed several times shows that they were not the “victims”.
I still think it’s worth distinguishing between those over the age of consent – and thereby, in law, able to make informed decisions – and those not. There’s one bird out there suing the estate of Virginia Giuffre because she got her into all this. But all this was hoping to sell Eppie some of her “art” and instead being offered a concubine’s apartment in NYC at the age of 21. That’s not a victim.
Some were opportunists, like the ‘artist’ Tim mentions and some were just hookers. However, some were victims: underage and clearly groomed by Epstein and Maxwell. And for that reason, it was a nasty business. However, it was orders of magnitude behind the horrors of the Muslim rape gangs.
Clearly groomed? Is there evidence for that? It’s hard to see why they’d need to. There’s going to be unlimited supply of girls of all ages looking to rent out the goods. The problem’s avoiding them, not finding them. That’s reality.
My view also. A man with the slightest whiff of fame or importance about him doesn’t have to groom, totally unlike the brown and white nobodies in the grooming gangs.
Epstein didn’t need to groom, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t. Perhaps he preferred groomed girls to the easy meat, seeing them as a challenge and being sexually excited by the seduction of girls he perceived as naive and vulnerable…
No, absolute tosh.
Epstein picked up girls from broken homes. Often already renting out their bodies from a young age, because it was their best option under the circumstances. I’m not saying that makes it OK for him to fuck 14 year olds. But they’d already been groomed.
I can’t believe anyone can’t see the risks and costs of that vs the alternative. Here’s a girl who is already doing filth for money with no-one to protect her, or, you try and get some innocent girl from a nice home whose dad is going to shoot you.
Back when I was a teenager, everyone knew that you hung out around the shops in council estates to meet girls because they were easy. Nice girls took a lot more effort.
@Western Bloke, I suspect you have lived a sheltered life and will be surprised at how many “innocent girls from nice homes” risk their dads shooting somebody. Vicars’ daughters anybody?
My life must have been so sheltered that it was hermetically sealed, since I didn’t know any of this when I was a spotty oik.
Quite. Most people talk like that don’t know what they’re own daughters are doing. I knew their daughters so…
They’re doing it because they want to shag a bloke. Not for a little cash.
I knew a vicar’s daughter when I was at school, and after school she descended rapidly into… I’ll call it mischief. Part of it was rebelling against being a vicar’s daughter. The son was fine, ended up marrying a vicar(ess).
The Starmer fan club is a fairly small organisation to begin with. The subset of them who think he’s decent will probably fit in a single padded cell.
And…
And here is the whole putrid horror of it, spread out over millions of documents and “pussies” and “bitches” and young victims. Here is the public, suddenly too close and informed for comfort. And here is accountability, too late for too many, but better than never.
It takes a barely imaginable type of evil for a woman to write that about Epstein’s girls while the estimable Rupert Lowe’s enquiry into the depravity in England goes unmentioned by the media at large (GB News excepted) and the guardian/bbc in particular. How about some accountability for them Nesrine???
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2026/02/09/prince-william-catherine-epstein-concern/
Have these two ever issued a statement of concern about the English girls abused by the Pakistani men?
Fair point, but for them The Andrew Formerly Known As Prince is in the family, and they’re joining the pile-on to paint themselves as moral. I wouldn’t normally expect the Firm to comment on the rape gang stuff. I can’t imagine QEII doing this. Only the vaguest allusion at Christmas, maybe.
More important than the loathsome Andrew (the undeniable patsy in this whole affair as Epstein doubtless intended) is the fact that Charles’s mummy rather compromised the firm by forking out £12m under the mistaken impression that the 17 year old masseuse and her family would keep their side of the bargain.
Epstein is a family matter for them – the muslim grooming/rape gangs are not. Expressing concern for Epstein’s victims is damage limitation, given scumbag Uncle Andrew’s involvement. Expressing concern for the victims of muslim grooming/rape gangs is controversial territory and so off-limit for Royals – though ISTR that the Queen Consort has expressed sympathy for all victims of sexual violence.
They’ve picked a side, as they always do. They’ve done it with Epstein, and they’ve done it with the Pak rape gangs.
It’s something that family is very good at, self-preservation.
Just what is in it for the rest of us that the Windsors are good at self-preservation, I could not say.
With Epstein, they have opted for damage limitation, as they are entitled to do. That is not picking a side. What other side is there for them to be on? Surely not the Epstein/Andrew side? And a republican president would have to say exactly the same thing in similar circumstances…
The muslim rape gangs are a controversial matter – to many people. Heads of State – whether republican or royal – and their families should not be involved in politics or opine on controversial matters. Systems – like the elective monarchies of the US and particularly France – where this is possible are flawed.
How is it controversial?
Not controversial for me or you; but definitely controversial for c.4 million muslims and c.9 million left-liberals – all of whom see focusing on the rape gangs as racist, unfair, dog-whistling, whataboutery etc etc…
Including the 3.9 million Muslims who regard the rape gangs as abhorrent and feel they are being victimised by those non-Muslims who talk about Muslims as if they were all sympathetic to the rape-gangs.
Have you got data on those 3.9 million who are definitely right behind you, definitely really, really disgusted by what the Paks have done?
So disgusted in fact that they cannot wait to tell us about how victimised they feel about these monstered girls.
Or is it just that you happen to know a Muslim who is disgusted by it?
So do I, as it happens.
But 3.9 million? Nah.
ALL the Muslims I know are disgusted by it – the projection from that would bve 4 million, but I pit in a margin to say 3.9 million
Taqiyya. Or, to put it another way, Mandy Rice-Davies’ rule applies.
The problem with the ‘All the Muslims I know are appalled at the rape gangs’ statement is that no one you talk to in person is exactly going to admit they aren’t that bothered by it, are they? How many Muslims are going to tell you the truth on the subject? How many would be prepared to tell you to your face that ‘Hey those white slags got what they deserved, no skin off my nose’? I’d hazard a guess at none. So the fact they all tell you they find it all abhorrent means the square root of FA. Thats what they are supposed to say, so they do. They might all be telling the truth, and they might all be lying, there’s no way of knowing. Your statement has no value whatsoever.
You are bullshitting at Grauniad level. Putting zero valuation on any data that does not fit your prejudice. “How many Muslims are going to tell you the truth.. ” – just perhaps all the ones who are not afraid I’ll punch their nose AND the large majority who are apalled and disgusted by rape gangs. You seem to think both are zero just because you are as bigoted as the Grauniad.
Taqiyya…
Like I say, they picked a side.
Imagine choosing the side which finds this stuff ‘controversial’.
Such people are what we might call ‘enemies’.
But they aren’t picking a side. You are defining the sides, not them. Not saying anything about x is not equivalent to “choosing the side which finds this stuff ‘controversial’”.
If asking people not to rape British children is too controversial for the royal family, what do we need the royal family for?
If the royal family don’t do politics, why did Prince Charles go to Davos to announce the Great Reset?
Who needs a crowned coward, and for what are they needed?
And a republican president would have to say exactly the same thing in similar circumstances…
Just like the Tories found out, you can threaten people that the alternative is worse as an excuse for being useless and deceitful. Just not forever.
Who said the rape of British children is too controversial for the Royals? Not me. Rather I said child rape was controversial for large numbers of people in the UK, adding that it’s not the role of an apolitical head of state or his family to make pronouncements on controversial matters. They either keep quiet or say what the PM asks them to say.
And *yawn* there’s no Great Reset…
it’s not the role of an apolitical head of state or his family to make pronouncements on controversial matters.
And *yawn* there’s no Great Reset…
Pick one. If it’s not the “role” of an “apolitical” head of state to pronounce on controversial matters, why are they still flapping their big, stupid royal mouths about the controversial subject of “climate change”? Why did Charles put his name to the Great Reset anyway? Why aren’t you curious about that?
Let’s be honest, as always. The royal family doesn’t give the slightest iota of a fuck about working class white British children being pimped, beaten and raped. They just don’t care at all.
So why should we care about them?
I think the RF does give a fuck about working class white British children being pimped, beaten and raped. By muslim primitives. But it gives more of a fuck about “social cohesion”, given that it’s led by a “defender of faiths”. And it primarily gives a fuck about maintaining its position, hence (publicly) hanging notPrince out to dry for not actually having been a nonce, just a shagger and ponce.
Mandelson should never have been appointed to public office, because of his long record of corruption in public office. That some of his corruption involved a famous nonce is neither here nor there.
I liked Tommy Cooper because ho wore a funny hat to show that you shouldn’t take anything he said or did seriously. I can’t be arsed to find out what MALick does, apart from write stuff like that. The BBC and the Guardian, where you get paid for just being as racist as you like.
PM appoints Mandy as US ambassador (not really a job that involves more than schmoozing). Who has a what, casual friendship with a financier. Who fucked/passed around a few teenagers.
I have my own tenuous version of this. I know a bloke, Keith, who hired Fred West to do his loft. Is it poor judgement that I’m friends with Keith? I used to get my computer upgraded by a bloke who got his hard drives taken away. A couple of steps away on the family tree is a benefit fraudster. And I’m a very clean living person. I avoid personal associations with such people, but connections of connections, what are you going to do? I bet even saintly people like Terry Waite have the same thing.
Does anyone else think this is like some gossipy girly thing? Like Chardonnay gets known for being a slag for getting spitroasted by a couple of blokes, so none of the other girls will talk to her, because even being known for being a friend of Chardonnay makes you a social outcast? It’s not really the Serious Business of Government, is it?
Also, I really object to this “trafficked” thing. Like this was the Chinese White Slave Trade. I don’t really want to defend what was done, but let’s be factual. These were girls from broken homes, possibly living on the street and Epstein was slightly less shitty.
“Change was also obvious in Courtney Wild’s life — straight A’s through middle school, first chair trumpet, cheerleading captain. But in the summer before high school, as her parents struggled with addiction and eventually became homeless, Wild’s life was tough. She met Epstein at the age of 14.
It was also going from one of the poorest neighborhoods in West Palm Beach, driving over the Palm Beach bridge, and it was just like a different world, and it was unbelievable.
Wild would sneak over to Epstein’s estate, filled with confusion and guilt and shame, she said. Once inside the estate, in the massage room, in his bedroom, Wild said Epstein was grooming and controlling.”
Yeah, that’s not Epstein. That’s your shitty parents. You looked at option A and option B and B seemed better. Which is why you kept going back.
In the case of both grooming gangs and Epstein victims, the plain simple truth is that parents and government failed these children. Social work and child services are just bureaucracies. If the sort of people in these organisations actually cared, they’d have organised a posse and split skulls.
“Yeah, that’s not Epstein. That’s your shitty parents. You looked at option A and option B and B seemed better”
Trouble is, that’s probably true. But when society decides that it’s more important for parents to ‘live their best life’ or whatever the crappy phrase is, this is the sort of ghastly thing that we end up with. Epstein’s the toe rag who took advantage of the resultant mess.
The first report I saw of notPrince Andrew’s role in all this contained a simple lie. A London newspaper said he’d been shagging an underage girl in London and then, in the same article, said she’d been seventeen.
Unseemly but not illegal. I would not be in the least surprised if he did break laws during his career of behaving like a shameless Hollywood star but I am struck that there don’t seem to be strong cases being made for any particular episodes of it.
As for Epstein: I suspect that many of his girls were aged 18 or 19, just as many were presumably younger; say 15 – 17. Nobody seems terribly clear on this: why? Who is still hiding what? Why do I see no investigative journalism on the topic? (Come to that, why did no outraged fathers or brothers beat the shit out of him?)
And why did the prosecutor in his Florida trial say they’d gone easy on him because they’d been warned he was “Intelligence”? Which branches – CIA and Mossad? Who knows? I do know that when Yanks start blaming Russia their case is likely to be bollocks. Russiagate!
Why do I see no investigative journalism on the topic?
Because that would shift the spotlight to the real targets of Epstein’s organisation and their preference for girls of an age that even Andrew might have thought twice about before stepping back.
in the same article, said she’d been seventeen.
Not a crime in this country. The USA is different state to state.
And why was the investigative book re-opened on him in 2018-19?
He’d done a deal, he was theoretically covered by the rule against double jeopardy. But, you know, American prosecutors.
For some reason, a decade or so after his conviction, they went after him again. What prompted that?
“Why do I see no investigative journalism on the topic?”
Why would someone? This is like all those “studies” about women being “raped and sexually abused” and when you dig down, it includes catcalling or blokes harassing them.
There’s an audience for salacious royal gossip, and for stories of men abusing girls. Flogs the adverts between the story as our host might say. Making it sound as bad as possible is what they want. Other than you, me, a few weird nerds, who cares about accuracy and detail?
Andy’s lost his title, but so fucking what? He’s 5th in line to the the top job, which is now little more than cosplay. He’s 65. My guess his brother got him in a room and said “sorry, you’ve got to lose your title, but don’t worry, we’ll keep a roof over your head, just don’t make a fuss old chap”.
In the grand scheme of things, why would anyone care at all? It’s not going to affect the price of fish, the defence of the realm. She’d been poked plenty before, and wasn’t exactly being locked up in his house. As BIS says, lots of girls will do this. If she wanted to go, I’m sure Epstein would have just let her and cruised the streets finding another one. He was paying about $200 ($400 today) for a massage and what sounds like a handjob. I reckon on most estates you’d get that for a bottle of prosecco and a couple of lines of gak.
Meanwhile:
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=c0532c
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/d8aff2b4-686b-4cd5-b966-aae475f30f52
It’s probably costing up to £10,000 per hour for this, an aircraft whose sole purpose is to enable British boats to find these people, pick them up, bring them here, and give them our money. And it’s not the only one.
Farkinell.
On one of the early Covid lockdown nights there was a period when this mission was the only thing with a transponder flying over the British Isles. That was 2020. That’s been £10,000 an hour for a lot of hours.
My screen shot was taken to show the amazing scenario of no aircraft flying at all over UK land, so although it does show the mission aircraft it doesn’t show the mission flightpath (which looked similar to the one in your link). Incidentally, any large planes were cargo flights, as were all the kites seen waiting at Heathrow and Manchester. Grim times, which we’re still in really.
I’ve stumbled across this. Anyone here know anything about it? An amateur trying his hand at investigative journalism or a demented leftie? Other options are available.
https://labourheartlands.com/from-rockefeller-to-starmer-mapping-the-trilateral-network-in-the-epstein-files/
I reckon it’s almost certainly true. Remember Adam Smith? “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” As with WEF and the UN SDGs the documentation is all out there. They freely admit it.
What it doesn’t explain is why Epstein set about gathering the kompromat. He was already in, and making a shitload of money, without having to blackmail anyone.
This posits an interesting question. Is it the Trilateral Commission, rather than NATO or anyone else, which since it was formed has prevented nuclear war? Its businessman members all have far too much to lose. This also posits its weakness: it can’t retain reliable control in a world in which ayatollahs don’t give a fuck about all that and actively look forward to martyrdom.
I am pretty sure that *all* businessmen don’t want a nuclear war (Elon doesn’t want to live on Mars, that’s just a first step towards his sixteenth-time great-granhdchildren having a chance to move to a nice planet near Alpha Centauri before Sol goes Nova). However it is NATO that has prevented nuclear war by persuading those within the Kremlin who advise Stalin/Malenkov/Krushchev/Breezhnev/Andropov/Putin that there will be no winners.
And the ayatollahs, John?
.
https://youtu.be/SS-ZM4cdPd8?si=sOwL2ut8epd-sQjY
What the hell is (could have been) going on???