Quote: BTF @ 4th December 2019, 7:59 AM
I understand the point you are making
I'm pleased to hear it.
Let me just reiterate it for those who may have missed it:
Virginia Roberts tells a simple and credible story about her relationship with Prince Andrew.
Firkin believes her story? That's absolutely fine by me because, as I stated in one of my earlier posts, I tend to believe it myself.
Her story, however, contains absolutely no allegations of illegality or impropriety on Andrew's part during the times they spent in each other's company.
Here's the main point I've been making:
At the very start of the Panorama interview programme, the BBC falsely told the world that Andrew had committed a sex crime in the USA. They did this by stating falsely that "18 is the age of consent in the USA" when almost every viewer has heard and read the words "only 17" used to describe Virginia at the time she and Andrew allegedly had sex together in New York - a state in which the age of consent is actually 16.
In addition to the BBC telling a barefaced lie, several of the more lurid newspapers and websites are using deceitful rhetoric to create the impression that Virginia was underage during her relationship with Andrew.
Whether Virginia was coerced into providing sexual services for Epstein's associates or whether she was utterly delighted to provide those services in exchange for huge payments is an interesting question but it's a minor question in the overall scheme of things. What we should be concerned about is the fact that the BBC and a number of other major news media are guilty of the most appalling dishonesty in their reporting of the dispute between Virginia and Andrew.
If the BBC and the press and the public wish to speculate about how much Andrew knew about Epstein's unlawful activities, that's another thing that's fine by me.
What is not fine by me (and what shouldn't be fine by anybody else reading BCG) is the broadcasting and publication of lies and deceitful rhetoric with intent to convince the world that an as yet entirely innocent man is, in fact, a sex criminal - when the woman against whom they're alleging he committed those crimes has never alleged sexual impropriety on his part.
And to express my disapproval of the BBC's and the newspapers' dishonesty is "trolling"?
I think not.