uk: 
 berlin. 
 To:Subject: 
 Encoding: 
 x=1762966574; b= 
 MMKiOQCK+5ldGk 
 XXQuE/HXdzQNV4FC4PPfyomVkTT/ 
 Received: 
 From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 05/11/2025 01:21 pm, Martin Harran wrote: 
 > On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 09:16:30 +0000, The Todal  
 > wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 05/11/2025 07:15, Martin Harran wrote: 
 >>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2025 11:49:10 +0000, The Todal  
 >>> wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> On 03/11/2025 06:18, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>> 
 >>> [...] 
 >>> 
 >>>> He is experiencing very public disgrace and being virtually ostracised 
 >>>> by his family. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Obviously he will feel shame. Wouldn't you? He knows, and any friends of 
 >>>> his will know, that there is absolutely nothing he can now say to make 
 >>>> his situation any better. He may have said it in private to his family, 
 >>>> but imagine if you can what the reaction would be if he issued a 
 >>>> statement saying: "I did have sexual relations with That Woman. I was 
 >>>> sure at the time that she was willing and keen to have sex, and I was 
 >>>> sure that she was not underage in the laws of the particular US State 
 >>>> where this happened". 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I think it would invite even more ridicule. 
 >>> 
 >>> People are generally more forgiving than you seem to think. If Andrew 
 >>> had admitted to being a total prick (no pun intended) and expressed 
 >>> regret for what he did, I think there would have been a lot less 
 >>> mob-rule. The real start of his downfall wasn't Virginia Giuffre's 
 >>> accusations, it was his disastrous Newsnight interview. 
 >> 
 >> There was a Panorama programme last night, worth watching on catch-up. 
 > 
 > Well beyond my level of interest in this sordid affair. 
 > 
 >> It contained an interview with Virginia Giuffre from 2019 which was 
 >> widely shown at that time. 
 >> 
 >> She claims that Andrew abused her - implying that he was in some way 
 >> brutal or sexually deviant, 
 > 
 > I wasn't aware of her ever saying that he was in some way brutal or 
 > sexually deviant, but then again, my level of interest in this is 
 > nowhere near that shown by yourself. 
 > 
 >> and of course her interviewer didn't think 
 >> it polite to question her. 
 >> 
 >> In her now-released autobiography her story is rather different. 
 > 
 > I wouldn't be at all surprised at inconsistency in details of 
 > recollections of someone who clearly went through a very traumatic 
 > time in her life. That doesn't mean that the underlying story is 
 > incorrect. 
 > 
 >> Plain, 
 >> quick, vanilla sex three times, some foot-sucking by him (maybe Andrew 
 >> learned that from Fergie), hardly worth mentioning in the context of the 
 >> violent abuse from her own father, a family friend, Epstein and other 
 >> rich millionnaires. 
 > 
 > I guess that a key difference between us is the acceptability of a 
 > middle-aged man having sex with a teenage girl supplied by a rich 
 > friend, purely for sexual gratification. 
  
 What *should*, or could, have been the motive for "having sex with a 
 teenage girl" other than sexual gratification? 
  
 Spite against her boyfriend or parents?> 
 >> She is/was dishonest, 
 > 
 > That seems a rather harsh judgement on someone who went through what 
 > she went through. 
  
 It's either right or wrong. 
  
 Which is it?> 
 >> and has been hugely over-compensated by a 
 >> badly-advised Royal Family who presumably hoped to shut her up with 
 >> plenty of cash. That, if you like, was immoral behaviour by the Queen. 
 >> 
 >>>> Or perhaps "I admit that after Epstein was convicted I did reach out to 
 >>>> him in friendship. That's what is commonly done in the circles that I 
 >>>> mixed with. I didn't encourage any law breaking on his part at any time 
 >>>> and I now see that reaching out to him was the wrong thing to do. I 
 >>>> never had the sort of public relations team that Presidents and Prime 
 >>>> Minister and Kings have access to". 
 > 
 >>> Ditto 
 > 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)