3 ms·

I'm hindsight, it's obvious that an interview like that should have been aired. But it makes total sense not to air something so inflammatory back then with cor

by jjeaff 7y ago

I'm hindsight, it's obvious that an interview like that should have been aired. But it makes total sense not to air something so inflammatory back then with corroborating evidence. It would have sounded pretty outlandish. A girl says she was made a sex slave by a guy named Epstein that didn't really have a public profile and she was forced to sleep with the prince of Wales. As a journalist, you need impeccible sources and evidence to back your story up before you publish something like that.

m0zg 7y ago
>> you need impeccible sources No problem: just hire Fusion GPS to write a "dossier". A source so "impeccible" that you can write about it for years in spite of there being not a shred of truth in it.
darrenf 7y ago
> prince of Wales Andrew is the Duke of York, not Prince of Wales - that's Charles.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  I'll take the downvotes, but if he's American like I am, we fought pretty hard to not ever have to care about royal distinctions ;) (Although... I didn't know that, I wasn't really sure what Andrew's relation in position was to Charles)
- jjeaff 7y ago
  I stand corrected. Don't even know the difference. I think every time I hear 'prince' for English royalty, I just automatically think "Prince of Wales.
malvosenior 7y ago
Epstein absolutely had a massive public profile when this story would have aired. When he was first arrested there were many stories about him. There were multiple witnesses and mountains of credible evidence. It was a cover up plain and simple.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Sadly it is not that outlandish. The Duke of York (not Prince of Wales) was famous int eh 1980s for his louche lifestyle and there has been a veritable string of scandals revealing numerous highly respected public figures in the UK to have sordid lives of criminal abuse away from the public gaze over the last 20 years. Of course it would be a tricky story for any journalist, editor, or publisher to handle, not least due to Britain's plaintiff-friendly libel laws. But outlandish? Not at all. 'Outlandish' are things like Prince Andrew's claim that a war injury caused him to completely stop sweating for several years and that this provides a watertight* alibi against his accuser's allegations. * I couldn't help myself
- jjeaff 7y ago
  That's not as outlandish as it could be, correct? That is unusual, but would you say outlandish? Perhaps irregular, but not 'outlandish'... I also couldn't help myself. If you haven't been following the impeachment hearings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sezBhcnSxI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sezBhcnSxI0

by jjeaff 7y ago

m0zg 7y ago

>> you need impeccible sources No problem: just hire Fusion GPS to write a "dossier". A source so "impeccible" that you can write about it for years in spite of there being not a shred of truth in it.

darrenf 7y ago

> prince of Wales Andrew is the Duke of York, not Prince of Wales - that's Charles.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
I'll take the downvotes, but if he's American like I am, we fought pretty hard to not ever have to care about royal distinctions ;) (Although... I didn't know that, I wasn't really sure what Andrew's relation in position was to Charles)
jjeaff 7y ago
I stand corrected. Don't even know the difference. I think every time I hear 'prince' for English royalty, I just automatically think "Prince of Wales.

malvosenior 7y ago

Epstein absolutely had a massive public profile when this story would have aired. When he was first arrested there were many stories about him. There were multiple witnesses and mountains of credible evidence. It was a cover up plain and simple.

anigbrowl 7y ago

Sadly it is not that outlandish. The Duke of York (not Prince of Wales) was famous int eh 1980s for his louche lifestyle and there has been a veritable string of scandals revealing numerous highly respected public figures in the UK to have sordid lives of criminal abuse away from the public gaze over the last 20 years. Of course it would be a tricky story for any journalist, editor, or publisher to handle, not least due to Britain's plaintiff-friendly libel laws. But outlandish? Not at all. 'Outlandish' are things like Prince Andrew's claim that a war injury caused him to completely stop sweating for several years and that this provides a watertight* alibi against his accuser's allegations. * I couldn't help myself

jjeaff 7y ago
That's not as outlandish as it could be, correct? That is unusual, but would you say outlandish? Perhaps irregular, but not 'outlandish'... I also couldn't help myself. If you haven't been following the impeachment hearings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sezBhcnSxI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sezBhcnSxI0