The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1141  
Old 01-25-2015, 07:01 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Mr Epstein is also a great philantropist and has given enormous sums for science, research and education. The Epstein Foundation is based in New York City ánd in St Thomas (the US Virgin Islands). Many Nobel Laureates, and many of the world's most eminent scientists have visited Mr Epstein. As he is also a big name in the fight against AIDS, in finding medication to cure hiv, to study molecular biology and the evolution of human cancer cells and viruses, etc. These "good causes" are also the reason why Mr Epstein is in the focus of high-profiled people, like former presidents and royals. Many of the UK's renowned scientific research institutes are working with and/or thanks to Epstein's involvement. The Duke of York, a trade ambassador for the UK, of course promotes this sort of developments on the highest level of innovation, research and development.
Thank you, Duc_et_Pair. Good context. The philanthropists are the real power-brokers, the ones channeling their wealth to worthy causes (those charities started up by young princes ). Also explains Ghislaine Maxwell. I know her from her work with the oceans.

Seems like Epstein was providing 'benefits' for those who wanted such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hernameispekka View Post
True, but I don't think the explanation about his financing was to excuse his actions. Just shed some light on other reasons famous people was hanging out with him.
Exactly so. That's what I was getting. It's a story that I noticed initially but only in passing. Like most, I just passed over it and left it behind. Now that it's starting to gain legs, I am starting to see the issues afoot. Pretty seamy, and my guess is that there are few in certain rarefied circles who are not being touched by it, if only by association with Epstein. A bit like Bernie Madhoff who everyone knew.
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1142  
Old 01-25-2015, 07:24 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Mr Epstein is also a great philantropist and has given enormous sums for science, research and education. The Epstein Foundation is based in New York City ánd in St Thomas (the US Virgin Islands). Many Nobel Laureates, and many of the world's most eminent scientists have visited Mr Epstein. As he is also a big name in the fight against AIDS, in finding medication to cure hiv, to study molecular biology and the evolution of human cancer cells and viruses, etc. These "good causes" are also the reason why Mr Epstein is in the focus of high-profiled people, like former presidents and royals. Many of the UK's renowned scientific research institutes are working with and/or thanks to Epstein's involvement. The Duke of York, a trade ambassador for the UK, of course promotes this sort of developments on the highest level of innovation, research and development.

Which, of course, explains why he has had such open access and acquaintence with the great and the good and why many, many, people who knew him had to believe even his prison sentence to be some sort of miscarriage of justice, that there had to be some mitigating reasons why this happened. It also explains why many of those, just like Andrew, kept contact after his release.

With people who rave on about how Andrew "should have known what sort of person Mr Epstein was" before the event, the fact that he was invited to HM Birthday celebration is hardly surprising as that "official" celebration is peopled by VIP's whose entree to such an occasion is Ministers of the Crown, etc. Are we going to blame HM because "she should have known"?
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1143  
Old 01-25-2015, 07:47 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Too many important people implicated?

Isn't it interesting that Bill Clinton is stated by one of the women as being on the plane with Epstein and the girls, but "he wasn't having sex with anyone." Possibly so, as he is an older man now and has had health problems, but why do all that stuff with someone like him present if not for implication reasons? His wife (by association) could have her political ambitions thwarted.

As Thom Hartmann floats: could it be that Epstein had all these high profile men have sex with women they weren't aware were under age and then sprang the reality on them solely to get leverage for his own purposes? Hartmann seems loath to articulate the view but it's clear that Papantonio agrees. This seems to be a speculation that may have some legs. In which case the scandal may go deep and far. Why have the Republicans been so quiet about Bill Clinton's presence? Might some of them be involved in this? The potential of this could be large.

An older friend of mine commented that this reminds him of the Watergate scandal back in the 1970's under Nixon. He said that Watergate began as what appeared to be a minor bungled burglary, and ended with bringing down a president. The very silence of the US media suggests something big is at stake. Just a hunch.
Like what. Even if Bill was on that plane Hillary wasn't. And I doubt , as they have said, he was having sex with anyone. Alan Dershowitz doesn't care and who would want him. And Andrew is really a nothing with a job because of his mother. A lot of hooha for nothing, except for Epstein.
Reply With Quote
  #1144  
Old 01-25-2015, 09:04 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Which, of course, explains why he has had such open access and acquaintence with the great and the good and why many, many, people who knew him had to believe even his prison sentence to be some sort of miscarriage of justice, that there had to be some mitigating reasons why this happened. It also explains why many of those, just like Andrew, kept contact after his release.
Andrew has only himself to blame for what that has happened. He should have ended the friendship when Epstein was arrested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
The fact that he was invited to HM Birthday celebration is hardly surprising as that "official" celebration is peopled by VIP's whose entree to such an occasion is Ministers of the Crown, etc. Are we going to blame HM because "she should have known"?
I agree. Those who blame The Queen for this should be ashamed of themselves. She knew nothing about Epstein.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1145  
Old 01-26-2015, 12:02 AM
sthreats's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest, United States
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Which, of course, explains why he has had such open access and acquaintence with the great and the good and why many, many, people who knew him had to believe even his prison sentence to be some sort of miscarriage of justice, that there had to be some mitigating reasons why this happened. It also explains why many of those, just like Andrew, kept contact after his release.

With people who rave on about how Andrew "should have known what sort of person Mr Epstein was" before the event, the fact that he was invited to HM Birthday celebration is hardly surprising as that "official" celebration is peopled by VIP's whose entree to such an occasion is Ministers of the Crown, etc. Are we going to blame HM because "she should have known"?
The queen wouldn't have known but Andrew knew what kind of down low activities Epstein was involved in. Why bring this person to your Mama's house.
'Don't **** where you eat'
Reply With Quote
  #1146  
Old 01-26-2015, 12:45 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,463
The queen mightn't have known but those in charge of security sure as hell should have. And her son did know


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1147  
Old 01-26-2015, 03:41 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Lol.. The only things we need to know about Epstein are documented by the courts. He's a sex offender, sex trafficker and paedophile.
That was of course not why Nobel Laureates, (former) presidents and royals hang out with him. Compare it with Bill Gates, another philanthropist. What if in three months suddenly ladies pop up and there claim that Mr Gates has sexually harrassed them? Does that retro-actively mean the royals "hang out with wrong friends"?
Reply With Quote
  #1148  
Old 01-26-2015, 06:50 AM
sthreats's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest, United States
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
That was of course not why Nobel Laureates, (former) presidents and royals hang out with him. Compare it with Bill Gates, another philanthropist. What if in three months suddenly ladies pop up and there claim that Mr Gates has sexually harrassed them? Does that retro-actively mean the royals "hang out with wrong friends"?

What ladies. There were 40 underage people mostly girls. And Epstein has settled civil lawsuits with 17 so far including one who that involved a 12 year old girl.
This is not a case of retroactively saying you have the wrong friends. This is a case of a grown man not walking away from a suspicious situation. Of not using common sense. And of continuing to socialize with a convicted sex offender.
It not 'royals' it is Prince Andrew.
Reply With Quote
  #1149  
Old 01-26-2015, 07:06 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthreats View Post
What ladies. There were 40 underage people mostly girls. And Epstein has settled civil lawsuits with 17 so far including one who that involved a 12 year old girl.
This is not a case of retroactively saying you have the wrong friends. This is a case of a grown man not walking away from a suspicious situation. Of not using common sense. And of continuing to socialize with a convicted sex offender.
It not 'royals' it is Prince Andrew.
Well... the 200 million US Dollars for philantrophic works are well-accepted, convicted or not convicted...

Reply With Quote
  #1150  
Old 01-26-2015, 07:13 AM
sthreats's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest, United States
Posts: 434
The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Well... the 200 million US Dollars for philantrophic works are well-accepted, convicted or not convicted...


Charities have dropped a donor before. I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet in this case. Spellman college removed Bill Cosby's name from a scholarship and I believe a building. He's also had to step down from Temple university's Board of Trustees
The fact that Epstein's charities are still accepting money from him doesn't really sway me either way
Reply With Quote
  #1151  
Old 01-26-2015, 07:38 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,457
I don't think anyone was blaming the queen for Epstein being at the 2001 event, but the point is that perception goes a long way to outshine fact. There are people like us on this board who look at all the details and investigate, but we are far outnumbered by the people who hear a snippet of something on the street and believe it. It's just the perception that kills you a lot of the time.

Also, hindsight is 20/20, but sometimes that allows you to see things much more clearly.

To wit, as has been pointed out in numerous cases, if people "didn't know" what was going on with Epstein years and years ago, they absolutely should have and may have. So, when the guy gets released, and people still hang out with him, those individuals deserve whatever they get. They've played with fire at close range.

About the charity contributions, there will always be organizations that accept the money, but there are plenty of organizations that accept money from shadowy places but absolutely refuse to acknowledge or celebrate the fact publicly. They hide behind the veil of paperwork to secret the facts.
Reply With Quote
  #1152  
Old 01-26-2015, 09:20 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthreats View Post
What ladies. There were 40 underage people mostly girls. And Epstein has settled civil lawsuits with 17 so far including one who that involved a 12 year old girl.

This is not a case of retroactively saying you have the wrong friends. This is a case of a grown man not walking away from a suspicious situation. Of not using common sense. And of continuing to socialize with a convicted sex offender.
It not 'royals' it is Prince Andrew.
At the very least putting himself into the position of being photographed with the man. In Andrew's position that should always be on his mind, though in some respects, Epstein was still business. Anyway, I'll never know the full story and invariably the full story is always different from appearances, so I'm not going to fault Andrew.

BTW I am someone who believes I don't drop my friends (or family) because they do something, or choose to live in some way, to cause public comment. That's being a fair-weather friend, as the saying goes. I think no less of Andrew. I still like him, as far as one can 'like' a public figure one isn't really acquainted with. Prefer that to sending 'dislike' vibes to someone I can never really know at this distance.

However, in some of the more damming pieces about this situation, there is the clear opinion stated that how could these famous people not have known something fishy was up, even if they were not 'partaking'. They are saying that the situation lent itself to suspecting something untoward might be happening. Until a trial gets underway, and the evidence starts being laid out, that is all speculation imo. Massive estates have any number of ways and means of keeping locations on the estate private from other locations. It's not like the house was a 2-room bungalow, or the estate a 1-acre lot. It's very possible one could visit Epstein and be clueless, I would guess. Plus there is the fact that the wealthy and famous always have hangers-on. 'Groupies' are notorious. It's the way of it - and it's not always that easy to tell the legal age of someone, why else do 30-year olds find they have to show their ID for liquor and cigarettes and nightclubs. It's simply too easy to condemn. I suspend judgement until the facts are in.

What's the quote from The Philadelphia Story - "The time to make up your mind about people - is never."
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1153  
Old 01-26-2015, 10:26 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,982
The many millions of course are also not coming from Mr Epstein taking his wallet out of a pocket of his Levi's 501. It comes from funds and trusts. The Epstein Foundation is known for giving one of the largest amounts of private funding to individual scientists around the world. A man as the Dutch scientist Professor Dr. Gerard 't Hooft was not only seen with the Swedish royal family (as he won the Nobel Prize), he was also seen with the Dutch royal family (as he won the Praemium Spinoza and was created a Knight-Commander in the Order of the Netherlands Lion) but he also was a guest of Mr Epstein on the Virgin Islands. Does this mean this eminent scientist is now also cast with doubt? It is all hindsight and interpretation.
Reply With Quote
  #1154  
Old 01-26-2015, 12:26 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 1,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The many millions of course are also not coming from Mr Epstein taking his wallet out of a pocket of his Levi's 501. It comes from funds and trusts. The Epstein Foundation is known for giving one of the largest amounts of private funding to individual scientists around the world. A man as the Dutch scientist Professor Dr. Gerard 't Hooft was not only seen with the Swedish royal family (as he won the Nobel Prize), he was also seen with the Dutch royal family (as he won the Praemium Spinoza and was created a Knight-Commander in the Order of the Netherlands Lion) but he also was a guest of Mr Epstein on the Virgin Islands. Does this mean this eminent scientist is now also cast with doubt? It is all hindsight and interpretation.
Very interesting point and also the point about the size of Epstein's estate and what could go on there undetected.
Reply With Quote
  #1155  
Old 01-26-2015, 12:39 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by casualfan View Post
I don't think anyone was blaming the queen for Epstein being at the 2001 event, but the point is that perception goes a long way to outshine fact. There are people like us on this board who look at all the details and investigate, but we are far outnumbered by the people who hear a snippet of something on the street and believe it. It's just the perception that kills you a lot of the time.

Also, hindsight is 20/20, but sometimes that allows you to see things much more clearly.

To wit, as has been pointed out in numerous cases, if people "didn't know" what was going on with Epstein years and years ago, they absolutely should have and may have. So, when the guy gets released, and people still hang out with him, those individuals deserve whatever they get. They've played with fire at close range.

About the charity contributions, there will always be organizations that accept the money, but there are plenty of organizations that accept money from shadowy places but absolutely refuse to acknowledge or celebrate the fact publicly. They hide behind the veil of paperwork to secret the facts.
Yes, exactly what I was trying to say - the Queen is not to blame, but due to Andrew's stupidity her name gets thrown into the waters because he refused to give up his connections with Epstein, and let's face it, might be guilty of what he is accused of.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #1156  
Old 01-26-2015, 01:00 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,982
Well... "loyalty" still has a meaning to a lot of persons.
Reply With Quote
  #1157  
Old 01-26-2015, 01:44 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,442
Oh please, don't bring Bernie Madhoff name into this situation. Madhoff's name still brings horror to many friends and family even though he was well know for all his charity giving [well documented]. Epstein and Madhoff two entirely different types of low-class. More like Mofia loyalty springs to mind and CYOA first.
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #1158  
Old 01-26-2015, 06:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post

BTW I am someone who believes I don't drop my friends (or family) because they do something, or choose to live in some way, to cause public comment. That's being a fair-weather friend, as the saying goes. I think no less of Andrew.

This highlights the quandary (though, to me, it's not really a quandary): we're not talking about A hanging out with someone with whispers, patterns, or hints of bad behavior. We're talking about him hanging with someone who was proven to have committed horrible and disgusting acts.

Geez! We're not talking about judging here - the issue is common sense. And it doesn't really appear that Andrew (and many others) had any.
Reply With Quote
  #1159  
Old 01-26-2015, 07:18 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,541
Jeffrey Epstein is accused of having sex with children as young as 12.. that's a child. Not only does it defy common sense to refuse to distance yourself from him when you are in a sensitive position, I think it says something about your moral character, especially if a person like Andrew was still benefiting financially from this friendship.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #1160  
Old 01-26-2015, 08:25 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
OK, so Epstein did a lot of good stuff for good causes, and that probably explains why so many prominent and world figures associated with him on one level, and if their time spent in his company was in circumstances which would have given them no clue about his predeliction for having sex with adolescent girls and trafficking them for sex, they cannot be criticised for associating with him. But being a supporter of good causes does not in any way excuse the other stuff and I do not believe that it should have entitled him to a significantly reduced sentence. It certainly does not justify abandoning the serious Federal charges which provided for a minimum of 10 years and sentencing him only to the day-release joke of a sentence that he in fact appears to have served for the State charges.

I understand the concept of loyalty to friends, and I can understand not wanting to abandon a friend and to an extent it is admirable that his friends did not do that. BUT, when you have a friend and you find out that friend has, unbeknownst to you, been engaging in some pretty shady activities, what do you do? Well, you certainly reassess your relationship and attitude to him, and withdraw from him to an extent commensurate with the nature of these newly revealed activities. It would even still be appropriate to provide him with a reference, provided - assuming the procedure is the same over there as it is here - that the reference states that he has informed you of the nature of the charges against him (and that's another thing that release of the papers would reveal).

Now in this case the plea bargain agreement recited, amongst a lot of other stuff, that the US Attorney's office and the FBI had conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that he may have committed from around 2001 to around September 2007, and then listed them. One of them carried a sentence of up to 5 years imprisonment, the second up to 30 years, the third 10 years to life (i.e. a minimum 10 years to life), the fourth not more than 30 years, and the fifth 10 years to life. So we had two possible charges providing for a minimum of 10 years imprisonment. Under the Crime Victims' legislation, the Jane Does should have been informed of all this before the agreement was made. They weren't. But I'm afraid I'm wandering off on a tangent here.

He in fact pleaded guilty to two Florida charges: the charge of solicitation of prostitution and also the charge of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution. That second one required him to register as a sex offender.

The agreement provided for him to be sentenced to 30 months in county jail. Apparently he served much less.

Andrew, and anyone else who provided references would surely have had to be made aware of the details of the charges pending against him. There would be no point in them making representations after the plea bargain deal was made because it was a done deal provided it was accepted by the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit as required by the agreement. If they made submissions without being aware of the nature of the possible charges, there would be no point in making them.

Anyone - anyone who had an ounce of commonsense - who knew about the pending charges, and, later, the actual charges, or even the actual charges and the fact he was registered on the sex offender list, would have distanced themself from him to some extent at least, regardless of how close they were before and regardless of all the good works he had carried out before his criminal activities were found out.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
albania best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess victoria current events denmark fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe letizia monarchy news november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince charles prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince nicholas prince oscar princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie succession sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats victoria


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:36 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises