Sarah Ferguson - just as bad as Andrew?

[TheHaplessWit]

So whilst Epstein was serving house arrest following his conviction for sex trafficking young girls, Fergie sent him messages - from the BBC:

Some emails in the latest release appear to be between Epstein and Sarah Ferguson, Andrew's ex-wife.
One email dated 4 April 2009, was signed "Love, Sarah, The red Head.!!"
It says that she was going to be in Palm Beach and wanted to have tea. The email goes on to discuss ideas for Ferguson's company, Mother's Army. The former Duchess of York refers to Epstein as "My dear spectacular and special friend Jeffrey".
She calls him a "legend" and says "I am so proud of you".
The financier was still under house arrest for his 2008 conviction when the email exchange was sent.

Ignoring the money she took and questionable business arrangements, ignoring Andrews behaviour even (that's in another thread). How can any woman, who knows this man is trafficking young girls, act like this?

Please tell me she no longers receives any sort of public funding/housing from the tax payer?

Speak for yourself. I was working on cases of grooming and trafficking in the early 2000s. It’s not a recent phenomenon and has been well understood and legislated for for over a decade.

They may not have known as much as you think - and were probably told that Epstein was convicted unfairly, Sarah and Andrew will have minimised his crimes at the very least. They may even have brought up/groomed their daughters to think that Epstein’s behaviour was acceptable. 19 and 20 is still very young.

I find the townhouse thing really puzzling.

Various reports had it as a nest egg for 'the girls' (did they need one when they had their own lux properties and still hold unfettered if undeserved access to royal digs?) and held their names were on the deeds to prevent her selling it over their heads.

She knew RL was supposedly on the slide (no evidence it's a done deal yet). Why dispose of a secure (London!) roof over her head let alone at a loss a mere two or three years after she'd secured it?

God.

Why can't the whole fricken lot just come clean?!

I imagine it's some sort of money laundering.

19 and 20 is still very young.

35 and 37 are not though. But they're still not speaking out to condemn Epstein at the very least, if not their parents.

Very possibly.

But it raises further messy questions about what she's spunked the residue on now she's touted as some sort of wandering vagrant.

Yes, I agree with you. I do not blame them for being led by their mother when they were young, but they should definitely be condemning Epstein’s actions by now.

Not in my circle. Not in the news. I think you really need to examine the company you keep if you honestly felt that, at the time, he was seen as not that bad and all a bit of a cry over nothing, didn’t really understand what he had done or what the problem was because you’re just wrong. I was a teen at the time and I still remember the news articles and the discussion we had in school over them, and the chats around the dinner table with family.

I recognise this as well.

Also the way rape victims were treated by the police and in court.

There was a case where after a family wedding a man broke in to the house and killed both parents, he then spent the night raping the teenage daughter and forcing her to walk around the house and the marquee totally naked including having to step over her dead parents.

In court the defence really went after her, claiming she was enjoying the experience. There was no giving evidence from behind a screen at this time, it was in open court with the accused and a packed public gallery.

I think you’re conflating 2 different things.

Did you think the Arthur Hutchinson - the criminal you referred to - was misunderstood? Say he was your greatest friend? Hang out with him at parties where there was more rape and murder? Tell him to keep his chin up when people criticised him for his murder and rape? Take money from him? Introduce him to your friends and children?

I’m being crass here to make a point. The Home Secretary issued Hutchinson with a whole life tariff (ie. It was seen as an exceptional case so he’ll die in prison and can never be let out) and 3 high court judges said it was the most heinous case they had ever encountered. His crimes were not normal or accepted.

No one denies that there was sexism in 1983 when that case was heard. There was sexism in the 2000s and 2010s when Epstein was a pedophile and people trafficker, there is sexism now and despite greater recognition of violence against women and girls rape convictions are below 5%.

I disagree very strongly that right thinking people kept company with pedophiles and people traffickers at any point in my living memory. It is extremely desperate to defend the royal family for maintaining a close relationship with a convicted pedophile because it was part of the zeitgeist.

Yes mybe, they are into everything aren't they.

I never heard of that case of Arthur Hutchinson @Lemonaided
Utterly horrific.
And he keeps appealing his whole life sentence as he believes it breaches his human rights.
What about the human rights of his 3 murder victims and his rape victim, those who loved them and the human rights of his previous victims ?

Sorry for derailing the thread.

Private Eye cover from 2011

https://nitter.net/ariehkovler/status/2018623549506736245#m

And yet there are still PP on here defending the inexcusable actions of AMW and Ferguson when it was bloody obvious what they were up to 15 years ago.

Bloody hell. Isn't it quite disgusting to think this was all known about decades ago, and covered up.

The Palace are so reactive. They only act when the public start bleating a bit, or there's cartoons and front covers like this. Otherwise they just carry on sticking their heads in the sand hoping it will blow over. So entitled to think you don't have to address issues.

Ian Hislop said this yesterday
“It’s nice to see that Private Eye was getting close enough to the truth fifteen years ago to make some really appalling people – and their fine upstanding legal representatives – nervous. In our experience, it usually does take quite a while for prosecutors, justice departments and governments to sit up and take notice of what Private Eye has been saying all along.”

@deeahgwitch

It’s a terrible crime and he is a terrible person but I’m more shocked that someone would drag in a case of this seriousness to suggested Andrew and Sarah aren’t moral outliers if I’m honest. They are disgusting.

😲

Wow! They were way ahead.

So are the bbc - John Lydon (Sex Pistols), stated he was banned from the BBC for trying to expose Savile as a child molester years before the scandal broke. Saville, Epstein, Weinstein - all rich powerful men who abused women and children knowing there was little chance (at the time) of been challenged.

She is always thinking, ‘MONEY’.

I remember when the organisation Stop The Traffik was set up - 2005. I went to one of their very early conferences because it was obvious by then that modern slavery and human trafficking was a huge problem in our communities, notoriously affecting girls and young women who men (unlawfully) ‘paid for’.

And there are the boys and young men, too. It was all frequently in the news. Lives ruined, justice denied.

I know someone who has done work for her and her conversation whilst they were doing this work was all about money . Beatrice and Eugenie and Sarah all talking about more ways to claw in the cash, in front of employees.

She said she wanted to marry Epstein even after it was public that he was a pedophile. She's as bad as Andrew. Gross...

I am not defending any royal.

People did hang out with abusers though, look at Folf Harris, Saville, Gary Glitter.

The Sun was happy to have a 16 year old on p3. Now those photos would get you a conviction.

she really is a grasping, despicable human being. The Yorks have been nothing more than a pair of grifters. The daughters are no better.