Active Now

Danilo_G
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » I guess a Royal is a pedophile. Allegedly the Royal Family squashed a story about Epstein. Too close to home eh wot?
RosieG

I guess a Royal is a pedophile. Allegedly the Royal Family squashed a story about Epstein. Too close to home eh wot?

Bad man. Filthy man. Disgusting man. We already know about it. That horse left the barn months ago. You can bring it back and lock the door. This just adds to the mess. Better they shouldda stayed out of it. He is a grown man and should take whatever his actions have stirred up. You can only stop truth a little while. It has a way of seeping out.

Proves there are bums everywhere and people willing to protect them. Too bad. How sad.

Posted - November 7, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 3719
    "Guessing" and "allegedly" are not facts. The problem is that anyone friendly with a sex-offender risks being suspected of the same.

    Also it would be very hard or even impossible for the British Royal Family to suppress a scandal, because it does not have that sort of power and attempting to assume it would create far more trouble than the original matter.

    Its members are not above the law either - Princess Anne collected one or two speeding fines in her younger days, and the Duke of Edinburgh escaped being charged after his recent motoring accident probably because he immediately surrendered his driving-licence. (He would otherwise most likely have been fined and had his licence endorsed, but not actually banned.)

    However, those are relatively low-key offences. It is dangerous for anyone in the public eye, no matter how innocent personally, to become too friendly with people who have had previous convictions for particularly unpleasant, deeply anti-social, serious crimes.

    _+++

    BTW, I wonder if anyone else has noticed that the etymology means the American spelling of the root ('ped' rather than 'paed') changes the definition from child- to foot- fetishist! (It was a science teacher showing me a similar effect on a geological term, who made me notice that.)
      November 8, 2019 2:41 PM MST
    1

  • 113301
    Here's how I look at it Durdle. Anytime anyone tries to QUASH or SQUASH something methinks he/she is guilty of it. Otherwise why bring attention to it? Why dignify it by reacting to it? Why put forth any effort which only calls attention to it? I think where there's smoke there's fire. If true that a Royal visited an island owned by Epstein where all kind of sex with little girls was aviailable do you really think the Royal did not avail himself of those delightful treats? Why would any decent person hang out with such a vile man as Epstein? Guilt by association is fine with me. You are known by the friends you have and birds of a feather flock together. Would you look the other way and innocently hang out with a monstrous pedofile? So yes he is guilty as far as I'm concerned as are all the other "friends" of Jeff who KNEW what a piece of trash he was and still enjoyed his "hospitality". Same with Harvey Weinstein the notorious ugly fat old man pig who forced sex on women in the entertainment industry. He used to be a joke and people laughed. They "looked" the other way. They are all trash I think. Yes I am a tough judger.  A good moral person does not "look the other way". They may not have been able to stop him but they sure as he** shouldn't have hung out with him. SIGH. I wonder how many pigmen like Epstein and Weinstein there are out there raping little girls or beautiful young women because they think they will get away with it. What makes people "look the other way"? I'm gonna ask. Thank you for your reply Durdle. Words are very peculiar. Agreed! :)
      November 9, 2019 1:05 AM MST
    0