[continued from previous message] 
  
 >>>>> Epstein, and she was therefore vulnerable and susceptible to 
 >>>>> manipulation. But very well rewarded financially by Epstein. Many women 
 >>>>> would regard her as a very underserving recipient of royal 
 compensation. 
 >>>>> She was, objectively, a prostitute. It is said that she recruited other 
 >>>>> girls into the fold. Can she be absolved of all responsibility? 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> But the main point of all this is, she was a victim of Epstein and 
 >>>>> Maxwell, not of Andrew Mountbottom-Windsor.  From his point of view, 
 she 
 >>>>> was a friendly, smiling young prostitute provided by his good rich 
 >>>>> friend, and Andrew didn't groom her or share her with his friends, he 
 >>>>> merely had a few quick fucks. So I cannot see that Andrew is to blame 
 >>>>> for what befell Epstein's victims. What else can we blame him for? The 
 >>>>> months or years of continuing contact with Epstein after Epstein was 
 >>>>> convicted. I don't see that as a big deal. He did not manipulate the 
 >>>>> justice system in the way that Trump does. Or campaign openly for his 
 >>>>> friend. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Well said. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Are we all obliged in some unspoken way to sever contact with friends 
 >>>> who have fallen foul of the law, a situation which must arise many times 
 >>>> per day across a population such as the UK or the USA? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> If we do sever contact and treat (former) friends with hateful disdain, 
 >>>> why are we doing it? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> As part of their punishment? To make ourselves feel somehow worthy? To 
 >>>> virtue-signal to others? 
 >>> 
 >>> Is your tolerance at all subjective like most people; would you 
 >>> maintain your friendship, for example, with a pedophile who was 
 >>> convicted of having sex with infant children?. 
 >>> 
 >> 
 >> How about a more commonplace example: friendship with a good friend or 
 >> family member who was in trouble with the police for downloading 
 >> indecent photographs of children? And who was in huge distress because 
 >> it meant the end of his marriage and his career and his contact with his 
 >> children, and a likely prison sentence? 
 >> 
 >> Would your friendship be wholly dependent on hearing a form of words 
 >>from him that satisfied you that he repented of his actions? 
 > 
 > First and foremost, I would want to be certain that he is no longer a 
 > threat to children. 
 > 
  
  
 Fair enough - but how would you know whether he ever was a threat to 
 children and, if he was, how he could no longer be a threat? 
  
 This isn't a hypothetical question - I have been in that exact position 
 in real life. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)