uk: 
 berlin. 
 x=1762931270; b= 
 lIjS7nKKEDz6tRGrsuJGD4py2fR 
 8cAAbiMrN7l3xLBUF87RKSGeFfEN 
 Received: 
 From: martinharran@gmail.com 
  
 On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 19:12:07 +0000, The Todal  
 wrote: 
  
 >On 04/11/2025 16:08, Martin Harran wrote: 
 >> On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 13:41:32 +0000, JNugent  wrote: 
 >> 
 >>> On 04/11/2025 10:40 am, Martin Harran wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> The Todal  
 >>>> wrote: 
 >>>> 
 >>>> [...] 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> what was Andrew's especially heinous action? Seemingly, continuing his 
 >>>>> friendship with a convicted sex predator. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> *continuing* seems the most significant part of this. 
 >>> 
 >>> I don't see why any of us should cast off friends who fall foul either 
 >>> of the law or of public opinion. 
 >>> 
 >> 
 >> As a Christian, I certainly believe in forgiving those who do wrong 
 >> provided that they face up to their wrongs and commit themselves to 
 >> stopping the behaviour. Feel free to point out where Epstein showed 
 >> any of that. 
 >> 
 >>> At such times, they may need friends more than ever. 
 >> 
 > 
 >I suppose a valid comparison would be Lord Longford and his support for 
 >Myra Hindley, which made him very unpopular. He believed she was capable 
 >of repentance and redemption, prayed with her, regularly campaigned for 
 >her to be released - and Andrew never went that far in his "support" of 
 >Epstein. I should think Hindley committed herself to stopping her 
 >behaviour, ie to stop kidnapping children from the streets to be abused 
 >by her or her partner. Was there ever anything that she could have said 
 >to get public support for her release from prison? 
  
  
 Whether or not you agree with Longford, it was always abundantly clear 
 that his relationship with Hindley was based on Christian compassion 
 and a desire to rehabilitate Hindley - there was never any question of 
 personal gain benefit for him. Have you any evidence that the same 
 applies to Andrew? 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)