| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:03:38 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
27 files (19,977K bytes) |
| Messages: | 178,944 |
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as "defamatory"
when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as "defamatory"
when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
On 2025-09-23, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as "defamatory"
when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
If I remember correctly, your post consisted of claiming that a very
rich and famous person was a liar and possibly a child molester.
I can't imagine why that might be rejected as defamatory.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:50:10 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-23, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as "defamatory"
when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
If I remember correctly, your post consisted of claiming that a very
rich and famous person was a liar and possibly a child molester.
I can't imagine why that might be rejected as defamatory.
It asked why there was a risk that the Duchess of York could have been
sued for stating that she did not want to continue her association with
a convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:50:10 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-23, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as "defamatory"
when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
If I remember correctly, your post consisted of claiming that a very
rich and famous person was a liar and possibly a child molester.
I can't imagine why that might be rejected as defamatory.
It asked why there was a risk that the Duchess of York could have been
sued for stating that she did not want to continue her association with a convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
This was the reason advanced by the DoY to explain her warm emails of 2011
- that she had been advised not to risk his suing her for defamation.
Except he was convicted in 2007 which the article stated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddmr6v0jpzo
quote:
It comes after the Mail on Sunday and Sun newspapers published a *2011
email* from the duchess to Epstein, which appears to have been sent after
she had publicly claimed to have broken off contact with him.
.
.
.
A spokesperson for the duchess said her subsequent email to Epstein, describing him as a friend, was written to counter a *threat from him to
sue her for defamation* - and that she still really regretted any
association with him.
"This email was sent in the context of advice the duchess was given to try
to assuage Epstein and his threats," said a statement from her spokesman, when the email to Epstein had been published at the weekend.
The response to the emergence of the email - sent several years after Epstein's *jailing for sex offences in 2008* - was for a series of--
charities to cut their links with the duchess.
endquote:
On 23 Sep 2025 at 17:34:45 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:50:10 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-23, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as
"defamatory"
when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
If I remember correctly, your post consisted of claiming that a very
rich and famous person was a liar and possibly a child molester.
I can't imagine why that might be rejected as defamatory.
It asked why there was a risk that the Duchess of York could have been
sued for stating that she did not want to continue her association with
a convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
This was the reason advanced by the DoY to explain her warm emails of
2011 - that she had been advised not to risk his suing her for
defamation.
Except he was convicted in 2007 which the article stated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddmr6v0jpzo
quote:
It comes after the Mail on Sunday and Sun newspapers published a *2011
email* from the duchess to Epstein, which appears to have been sent
after she had publicly claimed to have broken off contact with him.
.
.
.
A spokesperson for the duchess said her subsequent email to Epstein,
describing him as a friend, was written to counter a *threat from him
to sue her for defamation* - and that she still really regretted any
association with him.
"This email was sent in the context of advice the duchess was given to
try to assuage Epstein and his threats," said a statement from her
spokesman, when the email to Epstein had been published at the weekend.
I am totally convinced by her reasoning! I think.
The response to the emergence of the email - sent several years after
Epstein's *jailing for sex offences in 2008* - was for a series of
charities to cut their links with the duchess.
endquote:
On 23 Sep 2025 at 17:34:45 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:50:10 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-23, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as "defamatory" >>>> when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
If I remember correctly, your post consisted of claiming that a very
rich and famous person was a liar and possibly a child molester.
I can't imagine why that might be rejected as defamatory.
It asked why there was a risk that the Duchess of York could have been
sued for stating that she did not want to continue her association with a
convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
This was the reason advanced by the DoY to explain her warm emails of 2011 >> - that she had been advised not to risk his suing her for defamation.
Except he was convicted in 2007 which the article stated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddmr6v0jpzo
quote:
It comes after the Mail on Sunday and Sun newspapers published a *2011
email* from the duchess to Epstein, which appears to have been sent after
she had publicly claimed to have broken off contact with him.
.
.
.
A spokesperson for the duchess said her subsequent email to Epstein,
describing him as a friend, was written to counter a *threat from him to
sue her for defamation* - and that she still really regretted any
association with him.
"This email was sent in the context of advice the duchess was given to try >> to assuage Epstein and his threats," said a statement from her spokesman,
when the email to Epstein had been published at the weekend.
I am totally convinced by her reasoning! I think.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 19:13:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Sep 2025 at 17:34:45 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:50:10 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-23, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as
"defamatory"
when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
If I remember correctly, your post consisted of claiming that a very
rich and famous person was a liar and possibly a child molester.
I can't imagine why that might be rejected as defamatory.
It asked why there was a risk that the Duchess of York could have been
sued for stating that she did not want to continue her association with
a convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
This was the reason advanced by the DoY to explain her warm emails of
2011 - that she had been advised not to risk his suing her for
defamation.
Except he was convicted in 2007 which the article stated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddmr6v0jpzo
quote:
It comes after the Mail on Sunday and Sun newspapers published a *2011
email* from the duchess to Epstein, which appears to have been sent
after she had publicly claimed to have broken off contact with him.
.
.
.
A spokesperson for the duchess said her subsequent email to Epstein,
describing him as a friend, was written to counter a *threat from him
to sue her for defamation* - and that she still really regretted any
association with him.
"This email was sent in the context of advice the duchess was given to
try to assuage Epstein and his threats," said a statement from her
spokesman, when the email to Epstein had been published at the weekend.
I am totally convinced by her reasoning! I think.
The response to the emergence of the email - sent several years after
Epstein's *jailing for sex offences in 2008* - was for a series of
charities to cut their links with the duchess.
endquote:
How so ? You believe he could have won a case ?
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 19:13:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Sep 2025 at 17:34:45 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:50:10 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-23, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as
"defamatory"
when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
If I remember correctly, your post consisted of claiming that a very
rich and famous person was a liar and possibly a child molester.
I can't imagine why that might be rejected as defamatory.
It asked why there was a risk that the Duchess of York could have been
sued for stating that she did not want to continue her association with
a convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
This was the reason advanced by the DoY to explain her warm emails of
2011 - that she had been advised not to risk his suing her for
defamation.
Except he was convicted in 2007 which the article stated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddmr6v0jpzo
quote:
It comes after the Mail on Sunday and Sun newspapers published a *2011
email* from the duchess to Epstein, which appears to have been sent
after she had publicly claimed to have broken off contact with him.
.
.
.
A spokesperson for the duchess said her subsequent email to Epstein,
describing him as a friend, was written to counter a *threat from him
to sue her for defamation* - and that she still really regretted any
association with him.
"This email was sent in the context of advice the duchess was given to
try to assuage Epstein and his threats," said a statement from her
spokesman, when the email to Epstein had been published at the weekend.
I am totally convinced by her reasoning! I think.
The response to the emergence of the email - sent several years after
Epstein's *jailing for sex offences in 2008* - was for a series of
charities to cut their links with the duchess.
endquote:
How so ? You believe he could have won a case ?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:5479663351.5b39e8d0@uninhabited.net...
On 23 Sep 2025 at 17:34:45 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:50:10 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-23, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as "defamatory" >>>>> when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
If I remember correctly, your post consisted of claiming that a very
rich and famous person was a liar and possibly a child molester.
I can't imagine why that might be rejected as defamatory.
It asked why there was a risk that the Duchess of York could have been
sued for stating that she did not want to continue her association with a >>> convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
This was the reason advanced by the DoY to explain her warm emails of 2011 >>> - that she had been advised not to risk his suing her for defamation.
Except he was convicted in 2007 which the article stated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddmr6v0jpzo
quote:
It comes after the Mail on Sunday and Sun newspapers published a *2011
email* from the duchess to Epstein, which appears to have been sent after >>> she had publicly claimed to have broken off contact with him.
.
.
.
A spokesperson for the duchess said her subsequent email to Epstein,
describing him as a friend, was written to counter a *threat from him to >>> sue her for defamation* - and that she still really regretted any
association with him.
"This email was sent in the context of advice the duchess was given to try >>> to assuage Epstein and his threats," said a statement from her spokesman, >>> when the email to Epstein had been published at the weekend.
I am totally convinced by her reasoning! I think.
She was probably into him to the extent of at least 50 large, at the time.
Obviously there would have been no question of people legs being broken
or anything; but in the circumstances given her Credit Rating, it was clearly
the sensible thing to do.
bb
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:5479663351.5b39e8d0@uninhabited.net...
On 23 Sep 2025 at 17:34:45 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:50:10 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-23, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as
"defamatory"
when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
If I remember correctly, your post consisted of claiming that a very
rich and famous person was a liar and possibly a child molester.
I can't imagine why that might be rejected as defamatory.
It asked why there was a risk that the Duchess of York could have been
sued for stating that she did not want to continue her association
with a convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
This was the reason advanced by the DoY to explain her warm emails of
2011 - that she had been advised not to risk his suing her for
defamation.
Except he was convicted in 2007 which the article stated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddmr6v0jpzo
quote:
It comes after the Mail on Sunday and Sun newspapers published a *2011
email* from the duchess to Epstein, which appears to have been sent
after she had publicly claimed to have broken off contact with him.
.
.
.
A spokesperson for the duchess said her subsequent email to Epstein,
describing him as a friend, was written to counter a *threat from him
to sue her for defamation* - and that she still really regretted any
association with him.
"This email was sent in the context of advice the duchess was given to
try to assuage Epstein and his threats," said a statement from her
spokesman, when the email to Epstein had been published at the
weekend.
I am totally convinced by her reasoning! I think.
She was probably into him to the extent of at least 50 large, at the
time.
Obviously there would have been no question of people legs being broken
or anything; but in the circumstances given her Credit Rating, it was clearly the sensible thing to do.
I just couldn't understand how such utter bollocks could be carried by a allegedly serious news source. However I really couldn't give a toss about "the royals" generally except to be perpetually irritated by their
continued existence.
None of which should have been grounds for rejection.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 21:04:25 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:5479663351.5b39e8d0@uninhabited.net...
On 23 Sep 2025 at 17:34:45 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:50:10 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-23, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as
"defamatory"
when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
If I remember correctly, your post consisted of claiming that a very >>>>> rich and famous person was a liar and possibly a child molester.
I can't imagine why that might be rejected as defamatory.
It asked why there was a risk that the Duchess of York could have been >>>> sued for stating that she did not want to continue her association
with a convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
This was the reason advanced by the DoY to explain her warm emails of
2011 - that she had been advised not to risk his suing her for
defamation.
Except he was convicted in 2007 which the article stated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddmr6v0jpzo
quote:
It comes after the Mail on Sunday and Sun newspapers published a *2011 >>>> email* from the duchess to Epstein, which appears to have been sent
after she had publicly claimed to have broken off contact with him.
.
.
.
A spokesperson for the duchess said her subsequent email to Epstein,
describing him as a friend, was written to counter a *threat from him
to sue her for defamation* - and that she still really regretted any
association with him.
"This email was sent in the context of advice the duchess was given to >>>> try to assuage Epstein and his threats," said a statement from her
spokesman, when the email to Epstein had been published at the
weekend.
I am totally convinced by her reasoning! I think.
She was probably into him to the extent of at least 50 large, at the
time.
Obviously there would have been no question of people legs being broken
or anything; but in the circumstances given her Credit Rating, it was
clearly the sensible thing to do.
Ah - so the BBC story *was* a crock then. That was all I was suggesting.
Had they highlighted that possibility, then it would have made sense.
I just couldn't understand how such utter bollocks could be carried by a allegedly serious news source. However I really couldn't give a toss about "the royals" generally except to be perpetually irritated by their
continued existence.
None of which should have been grounds for rejection.
Obviously there would have been no question of people legs being broken
or anything; but in the circumstances given her Credit Rating, it was
clearly the sensible thing to do.
Ah - so the BBC story *was* a crock then. That was all I was suggesting.
I despise the royals, despise Fergie and Andrew, but I despise them for being obnoxious
self entitled parasites, not for some rather tenuous link to Epstein's paedo activity.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:10b0n5v$3kbk3$1@dont-email.me...
I despise the royals, despise Fergie and Andrew, but I despise them for being obnoxious
self entitled parasites, not for some rather tenuous link to Epstein's paedo activity.
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 85, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
And who, despite these handicaps served as a helicopter pilot during the Falkland War and .subsequently as an nstructor and as the captain of a warship.
On 9/24/25 13:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b0n5v$3kbk3$1@dont-email.me...
I despise the royals, despise Fergie and Andrew, but I despise them for being
obnoxious
self entitled parasites, not for some rather tenuous link to Epstein's paedo
activity.
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 85, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
And who, despite these handicaps served as a helicopter pilot during the
Falkland War and .subsequently as an nstructor and as the captain of a
warship.
Why are they handicaps? They seem to make him suited for the role of machine operator
in risky circumstances. Although how much they let him actually do isn't so clear.
I note his great uncle Prince George, Duke of Kent
was also a pilot, and appears to have killed himself and his crew by crashing on
non-operational duties.
I don't think I would want to be on any craft controlled by a royal.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:10b0q6t$3ljbp$2@dont-email.me...
On 9/24/25 13:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b0n5v$3kbk3$1@dont-email.me...
I despise the royals, despise Fergie and Andrew, but I despise them for being
obnoxious
self entitled parasites, not for some rather tenuous link to Epstein's paedo
activity.
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 85, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
And who, despite these handicaps served as a helicopter pilot during the >>> Falkland War and .subsequently as an nstructor and as the captain of a
warship.
Why are they handicaps? They seem to make him suited for the role of machine operator
in risky circumstances. Although how much they let him actually do isn't so clear.
I note his great uncle Prince George, Duke of Kent
was also a pilot, and appears to have killed himself and his crew by crashing on
non-operational duties.
As with Mountbatten he was also a friend of Dorothy
I don't think I would want to be on any craft controlled by a royal.
It was the Queen herself, who was apparently insistent that he played an active role, against all advice. Maybe watching him grow up she sensed
there was trouble in store for him later in life; and so let him take his chances
as a hero; whether dead or alive.
Nice swerve though
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 105, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
I've added another 20 IQ points you'll notice.
I don't understand the question?
I don't despise Andrew purely because of his intrinsic nature. I despise
him because of what he is. He is what he is due to nature and nature.
On 9/24/25 13:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b0n5v$3kbk3$1@dont-email.me...
I despise the royals, despise Fergie and Andrew, but I despise them
for being obnoxious
self entitled parasites, not for some rather tenuous link to
Epstein's paedo activity.
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of
the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 85, and a raging libido, how exactly do
you see yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
And who, despite these handicaps served as a helicopter pilot during the
Falkland War and .subsequently as an nstructor and as the captain of a
warship.
Why are they handicaps? They seem to make him suited for the role of
machine operator in risky circumstances. Although how much they let him actually do isn't so clear.
I note his great uncle Prince George, Duke of Kent
was also a pilot, and appears to have killed himself and his crew by
crashing on non-operational duties.
I don't think I would want to be on any craft controlled by a royal.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:10b0q6t$3ljbp$2@dont-email.me...
On 9/24/25 13:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b0n5v$3kbk3$1@dont-email.me...
I despise the royals, despise Fergie and Andrew, but I despise them for being
obnoxious
self entitled parasites, not for some rather tenuous link to Epstein's paedo
activity.
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 85, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
And who, despite these handicaps served as a helicopter pilot during the >>> Falkland War and .subsequently as an nstructor and as the captain of a
warship.
Why are they handicaps? They seem to make him suited for the role of machine operator
in risky circumstances. Although how much they let him actually do isn't so clear.
I note his great uncle Prince George, Duke of Kent
was also a pilot, and appears to have killed himself and his crew by crashing on
non-operational duties.
As with Mountbatten he was also a friend of Dorothy
I don't think I would want to be on any craft controlled by a royal.
It was the Queen herself, who was apparently insistent that he played an active role, against all advice. Maybe watching him grow up she sensed
there was trouble in store for him later in life; and so let him take his chances
as a hero; whether dead or alive.
Nice swerve though
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 105, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
I've added another 20 IQ points you'll notice.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:10b0c2i$3cgj6$30@dont-email.me...
I just couldn't understand how such utter bollocks could be carried by
a allegedly serious news source. However I really couldn't give a toss
about "the royals" generally except to be perpetually irritated by
their continued existence.
None of which should have been grounds for rejection.
According to Mr Ribbens you added a comment.
Which is unavailable via the Recent Activity page as this would simply repeat the alleged libel.
So what was your comment ?
On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 11:07:28 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:10b0c2i$3cgj6$30@dont-email.me...
I just couldn't understand how such utter bollocks could be carried by
a allegedly serious news source. However I really couldn't give a toss
about "the royals" generally except to be perpetually irritated by
their continued existence.
None of which should have been grounds for rejection.
According to Mr Ribbens you added a comment.
Which is unavailable via the Recent Activity page as this would simply
repeat the alleged libel.
So what was your comment ?
TBH I can't recall exactly. However it would have been to call Epstein a
sex offender, and cast doubt on the reasons the DoY gave for sending him
such warm and loving emails.
Doubt that appears to have been justified.
On 9/24/25 14:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b0q6t$3ljbp$2@dont-email.me...
On 9/24/25 13:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b0n5v$3kbk3$1@dont-email.me...
I despise the royals, despise Fergie and Andrew, but I despise them for being
obnoxious
self entitled parasites, not for some rather tenuous link to Epstein's paedo
activity.
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 85, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see
yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
And who, despite these handicaps served as a helicopter pilot during the >>>> Falkland War and .subsequently as an nstructor and as the captain of a >>>> warship.
Why are they handicaps? They seem to make him suited for the role of machine operator
in risky circumstances. Although how much they let him actually do isn't so clear.
I note his great uncle Prince George, Duke of Kent
was also a pilot, and appears to have killed himself and his crew by crashing on
non-operational duties.
As with Mountbatten he was also a friend of Dorothy
I don't think I would want to be on any craft controlled by a royal.
It was the Queen herself, who was apparently insistent that he played an
active role, against all advice. Maybe watching him grow up she sensed
there was trouble in store for him later in life; and so let him take his chances
as a hero; whether dead or alive.
Nice swerve though
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 105, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
I've added another 20 IQ points you'll notice.
I don't understand the question?
I don't despise Andrew purely because of his intrinsic nature. I despise him because of
what he is. He is what he is due to nature and n[ur]ture.
What does it matter how contemptible I would be, if I had been nurtured to become
contemptible?
On 24 Sep 2025 at 18:15:00 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 11:07:28 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:10b0c2i$3cgj6$30@dont-email.me...
I just couldn't understand how such utter bollocks could be carried by >>>> a allegedly serious news source. However I really couldn't give a toss >>>> about "the royals" generally except to be perpetually irritated by
their continued existence.
None of which should have been grounds for rejection.
According to Mr Ribbens you added a comment.
Which is unavailable via the Recent Activity page as this would simply
repeat the alleged libel.
So what was your comment ?
TBH I can't recall exactly. However it would have been to call Epstein a
sex offender, and cast doubt on the reasons the DoY gave for sending him
such warm and loving emails.
Doubt that appears to have been justified.
I share your doubts. But the moderators might not want to risk devoting a seven figure some to justifying your doubts.
On 24/09/2025 02:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b0q6t$3ljbp$2@dont-email.me...
On 9/24/25 13:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b0n5v$3kbk3$1@dont-email.me...
I despise the royals, despise Fergie and Andrew, but I despise them for being
obnoxious
self entitled parasites, not for some rather tenuous link to Epstein's paedo
activity.
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 85, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see
yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
And who, despite these handicaps served as a helicopter pilot during the >>>> Falkland War and .subsequently as an nstructor and as the captain of a >>>> warship.
Why are they handicaps? They seem to make him suited for the role of machine operator
in risky circumstances. Although how much they let him actually do isn't so clear.
I note his great uncle Prince George, Duke of Kent
was also a pilot, and appears to have killed himself and his crew by crashing on
non-operational duties.
As with Mountbatten he was also a friend of Dorothy
I don't think I would want to be on any craft controlled by a royal.
It was the Queen herself, who was apparently insistent that he played an
active role, against all advice. Maybe watching him grow up she sensed
there was trouble in store for him later in life; and so let him take his chances
as a hero; whether dead or alive.
Nice swerve though
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 105, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
I've added another 20 IQ points you'll notice.
Probably more accurately, <snip>
On 24 Sep 2025 at 18:15:00 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
TBH I can't recall exactly. However it would have been to call Epstein a
sex offender, and cast doubt on the reasons the DoY gave for sending him
such warm and loving emails.
Doubt that appears to have been justified.
I share your doubts. But the moderators might not want to risk devoting a seven figure some to justifying your doubts.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjieq9Foh46U3@mid.individual.net...
On 24/09/2025 02:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b0q6t$3ljbp$2@dont-email.me...
On 9/24/25 13:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b0n5v$3kbk3$1@dont-email.me...
I despise the royals, despise Fergie and Andrew, but I despise them for being
obnoxious
self entitled parasites, not for some rather tenuous link to Epstein's paedo
activity.
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 85, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see
yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
And who, despite these handicaps served as a helicopter pilot during the >>>>> Falkland War and .subsequently as an nstructor and as the captain of a >>>>> warship.
Why are they handicaps? They seem to make him suited for the role of machine operator
in risky circumstances. Although how much they let him actually do isn't so clear.
I note his great uncle Prince George, Duke of Kent
was also a pilot, and appears to have killed himself and his crew by crashing on
non-operational duties.
As with Mountbatten he was also a friend of Dorothy
I don't think I would want to be on any craft controlled by a royal.
It was the Queen herself, who was apparently insistent that he played an >>> active role, against all advice. Maybe watching him grow up she sensed
there was trouble in store for him later in life; and so let him take his chances
as a hero; whether dead or alive.
Nice swerve though
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 105, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
I've added another 20 IQ points you'll notice.
Probably more accurately, <snip>
You appear to be having have a problem with your News Server.
As your response to my post in ULM pointing out that the Jury Oath incorporates both "the truth" and "the whole truth"
appears to have been lost by the system.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjieq9Foh46U3@mid.individual.net...
On 24/09/2025 02:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b0q6t$3ljbp$2@dont-email.me...
On 9/24/25 13:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b0n5v$3kbk3$1@dont-email.me...
I despise the royals, despise Fergie and Andrew, but I despise them for being
obnoxious
self entitled parasites, not for some rather tenuous link to Epstein's paedo
activity.
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 85, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see
yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
And who, despite these handicaps served as a helicopter pilot during the >>>>> Falkland War and .subsequently as an nstructor and as the captain of a >>>>> warship.
Why are they handicaps? They seem to make him suited for the role of machine
operator
in risky circumstances. Although how much they let him actually do isn't so clear.
I note his great uncle Prince George, Duke of Kent
was also a pilot, and appears to have killed himself and his crew by crashing on
non-operational duties.
As with Mountbatten he was also a friend of Dorothy
I don't think I would want to be on any craft controlled by a royal.
It was the Queen herself, who was apparently insistent that he played an >>> active role, against all advice. Maybe watching him grow up she sensed
there was trouble in store for him later in life; and so let him take his chances
as a hero; whether dead or alive.
Nice swerve though
As a matter of interest, had you yourself been born the second son of the reigning
monarch with an IQ of around 105, and a raging libido, how exactly do you see
yourself
as behaving as any differently from Randy Andy ?
I've added another 20 IQ points you'll notice.
Probably more accurately, <snip>
You appear to be having have a problem with your News Server.
As your response to my post in ULM pointing out that the Jury Oath incorporates both "the truth" and "the whole truth"
appears to have been lost by the system.
bb
The forces' higher echelons aren't as
silly or impractical as some seem to think.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:10autca$3cgj6$29@dont-email.me...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 19:13:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Sep 2025 at 17:34:45 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:50:10 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:I am totally convinced by her reasoning! I think.
On 2025-09-23, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as
"defamatory"
when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
If I remember correctly, your post consisted of claiming that a very >>>>> rich and famous person was a liar and possibly a child molester.
I can't imagine why that might be rejected as defamatory.
It asked why there was a risk that the Duchess of York could have been >>>> sued for stating that she did not want to continue her association with >>>> a convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
This was the reason advanced by the DoY to explain her warm emails of
2011 - that she had been advised not to risk his suing her for
defamation.
Except he was convicted in 2007 which the article stated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddmr6v0jpzo
quote:
It comes after the Mail on Sunday and Sun newspapers published a *2011 >>>> email* from the duchess to Epstein, which appears to have been sent
after she had publicly claimed to have broken off contact with him.
.
.
.
A spokesperson for the duchess said her subsequent email to Epstein,
describing him as a friend, was written to counter a *threat from him
to sue her for defamation* - and that she still really regretted any
association with him.
"This email was sent in the context of advice the duchess was given to >>>> try to assuage Epstein and his threats," said a statement from her
spokesman, when the email to Epstein had been published at the weekend. >>>
The response to the emergence of the email - sent several years after
Epstein's *jailing for sex offences in 2008* - was for a series of
charities to cut their links with the duchess.
endquote:
How so ? You believe he could have won a case ?
Presumably you haven't worked it out.
The only reason either Fergie or Andrew had anything to do with Epstein in the
first place, is money. They are both as thick as short planks, and have been skint
for decades. Epstein was loaded; and that is how Ghislaine Maxwell was able to schmooze Epstein into the Royal Circle.
It was only ever about the money. Randy Andy has never shown any interest whatsoever in teenagers. Epstein simply held out the prospect of further loans,
as a lender of last resort
However once Guiffre found that photo, she saw a payday in the offing.
While Randy Andy was simply dumb enough to think he could explain away
all her lies, by reference to visits to Pizza Hut and the claim that
he doesn't sweat; in a TV interview.
While Emily Maitless won "Interview of the Year and Scoop of the Year awards at the 2020 RTS Television Journalism Awards. For her ruthless cross examination, of possibly one of the most stupid and ill advised
people, ever to agree to being interviewed on TV.
However publicly admitting that both the Queen's favourite son and former second in line, and his former wife, are both as thick as short planks, and perpetually skint is just too much for both the Royals and the Media to admit to.
Sex sells front page stories; dumb doesn't.
On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 11:07:28 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:10b0c2i$3cgj6$30@dont-email.me...
I just couldn't understand how such utter bollocks could be carried by
a allegedly serious news source. However I really couldn't give a toss
about "the royals" generally except to be perpetually irritated by
their continued existence.
None of which should have been grounds for rejection.
According to Mr Ribbens you added a comment.
Which is unavailable via the Recent Activity page as this would simply
repeat the alleged libel.
So what was your comment ?
TBH I can't recall exactly. However it would have been to call Epstein a
sex offender, and cast doubt on the reasons the DoY gave for sending him
such warm and loving emails.
Doubt that appears to have been justified.
Sorry - on what planet can a convicted felon "sue for defamation" ?
Anyone care to join me in a chorus of "Chinny reckon" ?
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The forces' higher echelons aren't as
silly or impractical as some seem to think.
Having experienced, as a civilian, the forces' higher echelons, I don't
quite take the same view. Whenever this sort of topic comes up, I fully recommend Norman Dixon's book On The Psychology of Military Incompetence.
In the end I used it as a handbook to navigate interactions with such very thin-skinned people. It didn't always go well, as sometimes one had to
speak truth to power.
On 23/09/2025 22:16, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:10autca$3cgj6$29@dont-email.me...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 19:13:16 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Sep 2025 at 17:34:45 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:50:10 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:I am totally convinced by her reasoning! I think.
On 2025-09-23, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Curious as to why a post citing this story was rejected as
"defamatory"
when it consisted of quotes from the story, and a question.
If I remember correctly, your post consisted of claiming that a very >>>>>> rich and famous person was a liar and possibly a child molester.
I can't imagine why that might be rejected as defamatory.
It asked why there was a risk that the Duchess of York could have been >>>>> sued for stating that she did not want to continue her association with >>>>> a convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
This was the reason advanced by the DoY to explain her warm emails of >>>>> 2011 - that she had been advised not to risk his suing her for
defamation.
Except he was convicted in 2007 which the article stated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddmr6v0jpzo
quote:
It comes after the Mail on Sunday and Sun newspapers published a *2011 >>>>> email* from the duchess to Epstein, which appears to have been sent
after she had publicly claimed to have broken off contact with him.
.
.
.
A spokesperson for the duchess said her subsequent email to Epstein, >>>>> describing him as a friend, was written to counter a *threat from him >>>>> to sue her for defamation* - and that she still really regretted any >>>>> association with him.
"This email was sent in the context of advice the duchess was given to >>>>> try to assuage Epstein and his threats," said a statement from her
spokesman, when the email to Epstein had been published at the weekend. >>>>
The response to the emergence of the email - sent several years after >>>>> Epstein's *jailing for sex offences in 2008* - was for a series of
charities to cut their links with the duchess.
endquote:
How so ? You believe he could have won a case ?
Presumably you haven't worked it out.
The only reason either Fergie or Andrew had anything to do with Epstein in the
first place, is money. They are both as thick as short planks, and have been skint
for decades. Epstein was loaded; and that is how Ghislaine Maxwell was able >> to schmooze Epstein into the Royal Circle.
It was only ever about the money. Randy Andy has never shown any interest >> whatsoever in teenagers. Epstein simply held out the prospect of further loans,
as a lender of last resort
However once Guiffre found that photo, she saw a payday in the offing.
While Randy Andy was simply dumb enough to think he could explain away
all her lies, by reference to visits to Pizza Hut and the claim that
he doesn't sweat; in a TV interview.
While Emily Maitless won "Interview of the Year and Scoop of the Year awards >> at the 2020 RTS Television Journalism Awards. For her ruthless cross
examination, of possibly one of the most stupid and ill advised
people, ever to agree to being interviewed on TV.
I still think she asked amateurish questions and failed to ask the important questions.
Did he accept "relief massages" from young women in Epstein's house? Maybe Maitlis was
too bashful to ask. And the next question would have been, did you have any reason to
believe that they weren't of full age and consenting? I think he probably did believe
that. He probably thought they were young prostitutes being generously rewarded by
Epstein and Maxwell. But it would be embarrassing for a prince to admit in public that
he uses prostitutes. Though less embarrassing than being labelled a paedophile.
Fergie is certainly gormless and at one time offered access to her husband for money.
And when she spoke of remaining his bestest friend it sounded as if she hasn't really
matured since her childhood.
On 24/09/2025 18:15, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 11:07:28 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:10b0c2i$3cgj6$30@dont-email.me...
I just couldn't understand how such utter bollocks could be carried
by a allegedly serious news source. However I really couldn't give a
toss about "the royals" generally except to be perpetually irritated
by their continued existence.
None of which should have been grounds for rejection.
According to Mr Ribbens you added a comment.
Which is unavailable via the Recent Activity page as this would
simply repeat the alleged libel.
So what was your comment ?
TBH I can't recall exactly. However it would have been to call Epstein
a sex offender, and cast doubt on the reasons the DoY gave for sending
him such warm and loving emails.
Doubt that appears to have been justified.
Is this it?
Sorry - on what planet can a convicted felon "sue for defamation" ?
Anyone care to join me in a chorus of "Chinny reckon" ?
I suppose it might be defamatory to say or imply that the Duchess was
lying when she claimed that she was fearful of a defamation action from Epstein.
"No Plan survives first contact with the enemy.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 10:06:29 +0100, The Todal wrote:
Is this it?
Sorry - on what planet can a convicted felon "sue for defamation" ?
Anyone care to join me in a chorus of "Chinny reckon" ?
I suppose it might be defamatory to say or imply that the Duchess was
lying when she claimed that she was fearful of a defamation action from
Epstein.
I accept she may not have lied personally, but her aides did on her
behalf.
Still makes the story a crock.
On 2025-09-25, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 10:06:29 +0100, The Todal wrote:
Is this it?
Sorry - on what planet can a convicted felon "sue for defamation" ?
Anyone care to join me in a chorus of "Chinny reckon" ?
I suppose it might be defamatory to say or imply that the Duchess was
lying when she claimed that she was fearful of a defamation action
from Epstein.
I accept she may not have lied personally, but her aides did on her
behalf.
Still makes the story a crock.
Sure, it would certainly have been possible to discuss the story in the moderated group. People would just have needed to be a bit careful in
what they said.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjkbkrF3rhpU1@mid.individual.net...
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The forces' higher echelons aren't as
silly or impractical as some seem to think.
Having experienced, as a civilian, the forces' higher echelons, I don't
quite take the same view. Whenever this sort of topic comes up, I fully
recommend Norman Dixon's book On The Psychology of Military Incompetence.
In the end I used it as a handbook to navigate interactions with such very >> thin-skinned people. It didn't always go well, as sometimes one had to
speak truth to power.
Without wishing to appear rude, might I suggest you buy another book ?
Military incompetence almost follows automatically from the fact that army officers are only ever engaged in real battles on active service for perhaps less than 1% of their careers. So that time serving incompetents are only ever found out once its already too late and its too late to find suitable replacements.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjkbkrF3rhpU1@mid.individual.net...
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The forces' higher echelons aren't as
silly or impractical as some seem to think.
Having experienced, as a civilian, the forces' higher echelons, I don't
quite take the same view. Whenever this sort of topic comes up, I fully
recommend Norman Dixon's book On The Psychology of Military Incompetence. >>> In the end I used it as a handbook to navigate interactions with such very >>> thin-skinned people. It didn't always go well, as sometimes one had to
speak truth to power.
Without wishing to appear rude, might I suggest you buy another book ?
Why? IsnrCOt being on a Sandhurst cadetrCOs reading list good enough?
What book would you have Sandhurst replace it with?
Military incompetence almost follows automatically from the fact that army >> officers are only ever engaged in real battles on active service for perhaps >> less than 1% of their careers. So that time serving incompetents are only
ever found out once its already too late and its too late to find suitable >> replacements.
The nub of DixonrCOs book is an unsurprising picture of people selecting for officer service those who are like themselves.
<rest snipped for brevity>
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjkbkrF3rhpU1@mid.individual.net...
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The forces' higher echelons aren't as
silly or impractical as some seem to think.
Having experienced, as a civilian, the forces' higher echelons, I don't
quite take the same view. Whenever this sort of topic comes up, I fully
recommend Norman Dixon's book On The Psychology of Military Incompetence. >>> In the end I used it as a handbook to navigate interactions with such very >>> thin-skinned people. It didn't always go well, as sometimes one had to
speak truth to power.
Without wishing to appear rude, might I suggest you buy another book ?
Why? Isn't being on a Sandhurst cadet's reading list good enough?
What book would you have Sandhurst replace it with?
Military incompetence almost follows automatically from the fact that army >> officers are only ever engaged in real battles on active service for perhaps >> less than 1% of their careers. So that time serving incompetents are only
ever found out once its already too late and its too late to find suitable >> replacements.
The nub of Dixon's book is an unsurprising picture of people selecting for officer service those who are like themselves.