Brilliant article on Epstein by Helen Rumbelow in the Times TW Distressing content

[Shockhorror22]

I studied the latest Epstein files. As a woman, this is what I felt

www.thetimes.com/article/3c43b881-0f36-43bf-a32b-66fcba2b44ac?shareToken=b062e64ca800a9fb4a31da2ea933ee14

I hope he's just been contrary for the sake of it. Because that article missed for me.

Apart from anything else, Andrew having forty women delivered to him in ten days is enough, as far as I'm concerned, to condemn him out of hand.

It wouldn't be the slightest bit surprising to me if another man didn't see the misogyny inherent in prostitution generally, and forty women in ten days, specifically.

I still think O'Neill is a brilliant writer, though. And when he gets the bit between his teeth and goes all creatively rude about trans ideology I laugh my arse off.

I think someone can be completely sincere in their defence of women/girls/children's rights in one area and also blinkered. There are people who are very cynical about "defending women and girls" who have no real intention to make it safer. But equally there are many (maybe most) people who can be very angry about injustice in one area and unable to see it in the other. Quite possibly ONeill falls into this group.

The problem is ideally we would just have justice delivered in a timely fashion. Unfortunately when it isn't sometimes the only thing to get it moving is Newspapers conducting investigative journalism, tabloids reporting on the lack of progress, public anger. That can turn into mob justice and that's bad. But people engaging with the news and feeling outrage at justice denied isn't. And when it comes to very powerful people, often that outrage is the only reason they eventually see the inside of a court room. So trying to say it shouldn't be expressed is wrong.
There is a tipping point where it becomes counterproductive. But people wanting someone to face a fair trial as most people do for Mandleson and AMBW is a healthy thing. And the opposite to vigilantism.

Sorry, it was forty women in four days, not ten days.

Whichever way you cut that up it's bloody damning, and O'Neill didn't even mention it.

And it's my belief it's because he doesn't really notice it. Certainly not enough to make it in the slightest bit relevant to his article.

Bloody hell, I missed that (the forty women thing) - was that in the Epstein files?

Disappointing of O'Neill yes.

It wasn't the Epstein files. It was his biographer.

I meant the Kampusch case, which the clever cookies named after the victim, not the perpetrators, as they should have.

I agree. He’s not focussing on the women at all.

It is disgusting that scientists and academics are such pigs. And disgusting that such pigs are protected by their institutions including Harvard ie Martin Nowak and his ‘near miss’ (wtaf). Only as recent as 26th Feb that he’s been placed on ‘administrative leave’ despite the university conducting an earlier investigation into his relationship with Epstein. Just what was he doing in his evolutionary dynamics lab that would interest Epstein?

And that grim email from Robert Trivers who coincidentally also studied evolutionary biology at Harvard. These men lost or never had a sense of humanity but where the hell are the university heads in all of this? Others would’ve known. A heady mixture of anything goes ‘progressiveness’ where nothing can be called out and deep misogyny seeing women and girls as nothing more than body parts to be used.

And the absolute cognitive dissonance of having daughters but seeing nothing wrong in abusing young women the same age as their daughters.

A prominent New York City restaurateur, Stephen Hanson, a friend of Epstein, emails him to call an unnamed “girl” a “rotten bitch”. Hanson’s association with this person he calls a “psycho out of her mind bitch” is threatening his relationship with his — irony alert — daughters.