Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ink

Jeffery Epstein's Death .... Metabunk.org

Recommended Posts

suDiEs9.jpg

 

 

dCOVH9q.jpg

 

 

2wLp45Y.jpg

 

 

Kc9BKBL.jpg

 

 

iewv8SG.jpg

 

 

Jj46isf.jpg

 

 

ij3xi8u.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metabunk is just plain bunk,it attempts credibility but by its sheer doggedness in attempting to debunk every single event worldwide only succeeds in making its stance ever more tenuous. 

Mick West an establishment drone, its such an archaic formula. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lui said:

Metabunk is just plain bunk,it attempts credibility but by its sheer doggedness in attempting to debunk every single event worldwide only succeeds in making its stance ever more tenuous. 

Mick West an establishment drone, its such an archaic formula. 

 

yes the problem with looking at single isolated events in isolation and automatically taking the official line is that you then don't see the events within a wider context so you miss the patterns of behaviour

 

Also it misses MOTIVE

 

So for example if you look at the epstein case there is a pattern emerging here of people who are accused of being involved in elite pedo circles who get exposed by the public and are then facing investigation who then conveniently 'die' before they can go to court

 

For example greville janner who despite attending the house of lords and collecting his paycheque for doing that was deemed too demented to attend court and then died before he could be questioned further

 

Then there was leon brittan who had somehow lost one of the most important documents ever handed to him which contained information about elite pedo rings. he died before he could be questioned in the investigation

 

Then there was this story today about a guy who was involved in beating children in religious camps where the archbishop welby had worked. That guy was to be brought back from south africa to be questioned and suddenly had a heart attack!

 

Are these people really dying at such inconvenient times or are they simply being spirited away by the elites to safe destinations to live out their days out of the public eye? Is there a pedo protection service giving pedos new lives somewhere?

 

Justin Welby 'to give evidence' as investigation begins into Church camps where boys were beaten

13 August 2019 • 6:49pm
 
The Archbishop of Canterbury is expected to be called to give evidence to an independent review into the sadistic beatings of boys at Church of England holiday camps.

Before his ordination, the Most Rev Justin Welby had served as a "dormitory officer" at evangelical camps where John Smyth QC carried out beatings of boys and young men.

The church announced an independent review into the assaults carried out by Smyth in the 1970s and 1980s.

The investigation will try to establish which Church staff knew about the abuse, whether they responded appropriately and whether the attacks could have been prevented.

Smyth, a former barrister, was the chairman of the Iwerne Trust between 1974 and 1981. The organisation invited boys and young men from public schools, including students from Winchester College, to the camps, known as “Bash camps”.

It emerged in 2017 that Smyth, an anti-gay campaigner, had handed out up to 800 lashes to numerous males, some so severe the victims were left bleeding.

Shortly before he was due to be extradited from his home in South Africa to Britain to be interviewed by Hampshire Police, Smyth died from a heart attack. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/13/justin-welby-tell-review-handling-brutal-abuse-boys-christian/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, muir said:

Justin Welby

 

I am not surprised Mr Welby is involved in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 11:28 PM, ink said:

While I await any more posts....

 

It is very interesting that I got banned within 35 mins from metabunk lol ....

 

To join you have to confirm an email and then are only allowed for any post to be seen once it is authorized by a moderator!

 

Now compare that to here?

 

So this utterly debunks lol anyone who states that this forum does not allow free speech .... and shows that de-bunking forums restrict any voice which they do not agree with :)

 

My single post is shown via one of the images above .... I am not hiding anything unlike metabunk P74i5HX.gif

Nobody should be being banned from this forum for anything if we agree with free speech. Yet it has happened. As for Epstein. Unless they find the video footage/photos of top cabal fucking kids then all died with him. A little black book of phone numbers will add up to nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9wA92qR.jpg

 

 

7yaFgtx.jpg

 

 

XJ78T4j.jpg

 

 

GwphNuM.jpg

 

 

jfU8UO7.jpg

 

 

jglqT41.jpg

 

 

KhZ57MY.jpg

 

 

dY2eL2W.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To have to have a discussion of the fucking meaning of pedophilia .... means that you have lost all sense of any personal moral compass!

 

FrcUOuY.jpg

 

FFS .... iw66nlD.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the above discussion of the meaning of pedophilia which has been 'moved' by 'Mick' ....

 

Unless you are logged in and thus a allowed member of meta bunk, you cannot view the meta bunk consideration of the meaning of pedophilia .... what are you hiding?

 

 

meta63.jpg.d9fcbf6af3e9ba6dce235340d8502477.jpg

 

 

You see the link .... it reads

 

https://www.metabunk.org/was-epstein-technically-a-pedophile.t10863/

 

And yes.... I have tried it in different forms or styles of browser interaction ....

 

Try it for yourself .... why would you hide such a conversation?

 

I wonder lol

 

:)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/11/2019 at 2:40 AM, ink said:

You must excuse me as I am getting a tad bored (they dont post enough and I have already taken quick snap video of the site) .... but one poster made me laugh by posting this when they didn't mean to :)

 

CQoHXCj.jpg

 

They look like three special-needs cases. Not white supemacists. If Thor turned up and started shooting  then yeah, I would entertain the media's'white supremacy' spiel, but not these three weird Jewey looking spods.

Edited by Truthspoon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ink said:

With regard to the above discussion of the meaning of pedophilia which has been 'moved' by 'Mick' ....

 

Unless you are logged in and thus a allowed member of meta bunk, you cannot view the meta bunk consideration of the meaning of pedophilia .... what are you hiding?

 

 

meta63.jpg.d9fcbf6af3e9ba6dce235340d8502477.jpg

 

 

You see the link .... it reads

 

https://www.metabunk.org/was-epstein-technically-a-pedophile.t10863/

 

And yes.... I have tried it in different forms or styles of browser interaction ....

 

Try it for yourself .... why would you hide such a conversation?

 

I wonder lol

 

:)

 

 

The more that I consider the above .... the more TECHNICALLY I think it is shit.

 

How can someone consider that TECHNICALLY it could be morally right to fuck kids?

 

Only someone who TECHNICALLY considers that 'law' is the all and overriding point of view could think that TECHNICALLY there is a conversation to be interacted within which could discuss such.

 

Fuck your TECHNICALLY considered ideas about pedos.... and fuck your hiding the conversation mick the prick.... and I mean that TECHNICALLY

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ink said:

With regard to the above discussion of the meaning of pedophilia which has been 'moved' by 'Mick' ....

 

Unless you are logged in and thus a allowed member of meta bunk, you cannot view the meta bunk consideration of the meaning of pedophilia .... what are you hiding?

 

yeah he stepped in there pretty quick to tuck that stuff out of sight didn't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, muir said:

yeah he stepped in there pretty quick to tuck that stuff out of sight didn't he?

 

He did mate .... how there can be a discussion as to the technicality of an act of child fucking and if it is morally ok .... I don't know!

 

As to this thread .... I will still document (via images) all who post there but I will not any longer re-post here!

 

But .... if there comes a need .... I will have it all :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something which made me laugh ....

 

A professor Kelly had his students create two hoaxes for a project called "Lying about the past" back in 2008 which he wanted to see if they would go viral and become 'truth'!

 

One was put out to the main stream and the other to Reddit (this is before Reddit became over ran with shills) .... the main stream one was taken as truth and had to be told that it was a lie .... the Reddit one took only 26 mins before being called out as a lie!

 

One is the 'slave' mentality .... the other has open and critical self thought.

 

Just made me laugh as I was reading the thread over there :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Reinold said:

Alex Jones says:

It's Official: Jeffrey Epstein Was Murdered

So I suppose that makes all dispute or debate redundant.

It was interesting while it lasted.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=ukvmU_1565963186

 

Tell me "off ramp" .... are you part of the Palladian Order?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Reinold said:

Alex Jones says:

So I suppose that makes all dispute or debate redundant.

It was interesting while it lasted.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=ukvmU_1565963186

 

It seems that Alex Jones was misinformed.

 

Because although Alex Jones said "It's Official: Jeffrey Epstein Was Murdered" the official verdict is in fact suicide.

 

I don't know how Jones could have got that so wrong. I got my info from the BBC:

Jeffrey's Epstein's death in a Manhattan jail cell has officially been ruled a suicide by hanging, according to the New York medical examiner.

 

I was the one who italicised "officially".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 7:11 PM, ink said:

To have to have a discussion of the fucking meaning of pedophilia .... means that you have lost all sense of any personal moral compass!

 

FrcUOuY.jpg

 

FFS .... iw66nlD.gif

 

 

No it doesn't at all -

If you are going to accuse people of Paedophilia - then its important you know what Paedophilia is.

 

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 12:06 AM, ink said:

 

 

The more that I consider the above .... the more TECHNICALLY I think it is shit.

 

How can someone consider that TECHNICALLY it could be morally right to fuck kids?

 

Only someone who TECHNICALLY considers that 'law' is the all and overriding point of view could think that TECHNICALLY there is a conversation to be interacted within which could discuss such.

 

Fuck your TECHNICALLY considered ideas about pedos.... and fuck your hiding the conversation mick the prick.... and I mean that TECHNICALLY

 

 

 

 

Heres why - above you are conflating someone saying he isn't a Paedophile with thinking its OK to fuck kids -

 

Paedophilla specifically refers to young children ( Typically under 11 yrs - very pre-puberty).

 

Look at the UK and all those Pakistani grooming gangs  - and now look at the likes of Robinson and the EDL screaming Paedos at them.

What they did was vile and reprehensible but it wasn't Paedophilia.

Pointing that out here doesn't mean I have no moral compass - it doesn't mean I dont care about the victims because they are older than others - It just means they are 2 different crimes -

You may want to consider as well that Paedophilia is often regarded as a mental illness and treatable -  Whereas the grooming gangs selected vulnerable underage (post puberty so most looked womanly) girls simply because they were ideal targets for exploitation.

 

You may think it doesn't matter abusing underage girls is wrong regardless of age and I would agree with you - but where the law stands getting it right is important.

 

 

As for Epstein - the girls are reportedly all over 15 - therefore Epstein is not a Paedophile.

 

As for other People associated that gets messy really quick especially as many aren't from the US.

 

Lets imagine Alan sugar** had (consensual) sex with a 17 year old at an Epstein party - In the UK that's OK legally (age of consent is 16 in case you are not from UK) in the US that's a crime (age of consent 18) - so who's laws apply - now where men have gone to the far east to fuck kids - they have been charged in the UK because they have gone abroad to break UK laws - But in this instance whilst he may have broken US law he hasn't broken UK law. I cant see the UK going all out to extradite him or attack him for something that isn't a crime here - nor  can I see the US pursuing it.

 

 

 

**Chosen Sugar because I dont think the 2 have been associated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eldnah said:

You may want to consider as well that Paedophilia is often regarded as a mental illness and treatable -  Whereas the grooming gangs selected vulnerable underage (post puberty so most looked womanly) girls simply because they were ideal targets for exploitation.  I would rather rapist scum couldn't hide behind mental illness and try to escape justice that way

 

 

Forgot the red text in the original and cant edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eldnah said:

Paedophilla specifically refers to young children ( Typically under 11 yrs - very pre-puberty).

 

I don't agree and I wish I could give you a massive thumbs down.

 

The age of consent varies in different countries, but most adults recognise a child of 11-16 years who is having sex which a much older adult

has been groomed and some cases brainwashed to do so.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eldnah said:

As for Epstein - the girls are reportedly all over 15 - therefore Epstein is not a Paedophile. 

 

The age of consent in Florida is 18 years.

 

Please provide a link to say all the girls were over 15 years.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eldnah said:

No it doesn't at all -

If you are going to accuse people of Paedophilia - then its important you know what Paedophilia is.

 

Heres why - above you are conflating someone saying he isn't a Paedophile with thinking its OK to fuck kids -

 

Paedophilla specifically refers to young children ( Typically under 11 yrs - very pre-puberty).

 

Look at the UK and all those Pakistani grooming gangs  - and now look at the likes of Robinson and the EDL screaming Paedos at them.

What they did was vile and reprehensible but it wasn't Paedophilia.

Pointing that out here doesn't mean I have no moral compass - it doesn't mean I dont care about the victims because they are older than others - It just means they are 2 different crimes -

You may want to consider as well that Paedophilia is often regarded as a mental illness and treatable -  Whereas the grooming gangs selected vulnerable underage (post puberty so most looked womanly) girls simply because they were ideal targets for exploitation. I would rather rapist scum couldn't hide behind mental illness and try to escape justice that way

 

You may think it doesn't matter abusing underage girls is wrong regardless of age and I would agree with you - but where the law stands getting it right is important.

 

 

As for Epstein - the girls are reportedly all over 15 - therefore Epstein is not a Paedophile.

 

As for other People associated that gets messy really quick especially as many aren't from the US.

 

Lets imagine Alan sugar** had (consensual) sex with a 17 year old at an Epstein party - In the UK that's OK legally (age of consent is 16 in case you are not from UK) in the US that's a crime (age of consent 18) - so who's laws apply - now where men have gone to the far east to fuck kids - they have been charged in the UK because they have gone abroad to break UK laws - But in this instance whilst he may have broken US law he hasn't broken UK law. I cant see the UK going all out to extradite him or attack him for something that isn't a crime here - nor  can I see the US pursuing it.

 

 

 

**Chosen Sugar because I dont think the 2 have been associated.

 

Ok .... I am not going to reply to this yet.

 

I have read it 5 times now and I am rather saddened by it :(

 

I know that we haven't been great buddies or even agree on much of anything .... but I am very surprised that you, handle, consider that which you post to be correct!

 

I actually thought more of you.

 

I would ask you to re-consider it?

 

please!

 

 

Edited by ink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ink said:

 

Ok .... I am not going to reply to this yet.

 

I have read it 5 times now and I am rather saddened by it :(

 

I know that we haven't been great buddies or even agree on much of anything .... but I am very surprised that you, handle, consider that which you post to be correct!

 

I actually thought more of you.

 

I would ask you to re-consider it?

 

please!

 

 

On what grounds - What is it you want me to reconsider

 

1) That discussion of what Paedophilia is - is wrong - hardly in fact in light of how many people dont understand the legal definition its a very valid discussion to have -

With the caveat - that im speaking in very strict terms of how its legally defined

Start suggesting that its not Paedophilia if they consent and then the conversation will rapidly become - Yes it is and what you are trying to do is not debate paedophilia (the attraction to young children) but  justify abusing children  by claiming a small child can agree - No they cant and fuck off.

 

Or2) That  Paedophilia relates to the attraction to young children - How can I reconsider that - its the legal definition

That the grooming gangs targeted young women girls - based on vulnerability rather than age and they weren't Paedophiles attracted to young children - That is also the fact (despite the far rights screams)

(There is another term for people attracted to pubescent children - and its possible some fell into that category - but generally they targeted girls that resembled young women).

 

Should also be noted that not all Paedophiles are a danger to children - they know its wrong so do not act on it. 

In effect Paedophilia isn't a crime - acting on it is .

 

Or 3)That using the correct definition - doesn't mean people think its not really a crime  what happened - Well of course not but accuse somebody of the wrong thing they go free - its important to understand the terms .

 

4) That Epstein is not a Paedo if all the victims were  15 + well no that's the fact - and ive not seen any article involving a victim under the age of 15.

 

So at present I stand by my point that it appears Epstein is not a Paedophile -

That doesn't mean he isn't a sex trafficker a child abuser and (at the very least a statutory ) rapist. Dont go confusing arguing he isn't guilty of committing one very specific crime with arguing he didn't commit others.

 

Or 5) my point that - It becomes a legal mess when you cross borders because laws are different - especially where people are also of different nationalities - Easy to get them if the flout there own countries laws (see Gary glitter ) harder if they have not broken there own laws  - You note I carefully used the terms legally rather than morally - but the fact remains Alan Sugar would commit no crime having sex with a 16 yr old in the UK - He would in the US -

The UK will not help him if he is arrested in the US - he knew the law tough shit - but they probably would not hunt him down as they did with glitter who had gone abroad to do what was against UK Law.

 

Personally I wouldn't want a 50 yr old man near my 17 yr old daughter - but unless it can be shown he groomed her - or held a position of responsibility (care worker, teacher etc) what I like, what I consider proper, what I find repugnant dies not come into it as there is no law being broken.

 

Edited to add

I do think you've misunderstood me - but without knowing what it is you think im saying - I cant address the point and rephrase it for clarity

Edited by Eldnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

The age of consent in Florida is 18 years.

 

Please provide a link to say all the girls were over 15 years.

 

 

Please provide one that states they weren't - As soon as you produce evidence that he had sex / was attracted to children - I will have no trouble describing the man as a paedophile

 

I have not seen a single accusation levelled that involved anyone under 15* - until I do then I can only go with the evidence presented - which is theres been no reports of young children

 

*One claims to have met him at 14 but the assault took place when she was 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage age in the USA is different from age of consent:

 

  • Parties in California, Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas may get married at any age with parental consent. In Kentucky, the consent of a judge may also be needed and in Texas, marriage is not allowed under the age of 14 for males and 13 for females.
  • The ages for males and females to marry differs in some states. In New Hampshire, the ages at which you may get married with parental consent are 14 for males and 13 for females. In Kansas and Massachusetts, the age for marriage with consent is 14 for males and 12 for females.
  • Parties may marry with consent by reason of pregnancy or the birth of a child even if they are underage in: Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington, and West Virginia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×