Murky Maxwell, Vexatious Vine, & Rabid Rachel

Matthew Steeples calls out those who’ve tried to excuse “murky” Ghislaine Maxwell – most especially ‘journalists’ Sarah Vine and Rachel Johnson – and lauds those who’ve joined him in demanding the mucky madam no longer be called a “socialite”

Some of those who came out ‘in support’ or at least ‘in sympathy’ for Ghislaine Maxwell prior to her having been confirmed last week as nothing but a “convicted sex offender,” have unsurprisingly gone quiet. Others, including allegedly even her own husband Scott Borgerson, it seems, have unceremoniously ditched her.

Of these peoples’ views of croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s one-time lover, one or two have rather conveniently changed their minds and then there’s the case of two Tory tattling Daily Mail hacks – Rachel Johnson and Sarah Vine.

On 14^th November, Vine – the soon ex-wife-to-be of the “loose cannon, nutter” Labour to Tory transplant The Rt. Hon. Michael Gove MP – penned a column in which she banged on about how “Maxwell [was] not a live threat to others” and claimed she needed to “be treated with respect and humanity.” She showed her sympathy for this wicked woman’s plight and in doing so belittled the mucky madam’s victims.

Now, today, Vine has returned to the topic and – whilst avoiding taking stance on what punishment should be given out – noted: “It’s not the obvious Freudian aspects of Ghislaine’s life that I find most interesting. It’s what her trial tells us about the world in which we once lived – and the one in which we live today.”

Peddling herself as some kind of expert on high society in spite of having no known connection with such a world, comprehensive school educated Vine – a woman once mocked by fellow Tory MP wife Sophie Swire as laughably lowbrow and “lumbered with cooking all the food” whilst “bending over backwards to please the Camerons” – continued:

“Quite simply, it wasn’t just Ghislaine who was on trial in that New York courtroom, but an entire culture. A culture where wealth, privilege and power gave people permission to do whatever to whomever whenever they wanted, without fear of consequences… A culture that, when all is said and done, was rotten to the core.”

Turning to another topic, that of Brigitte Macron being outed as potentially transgender, Vine again brought up Maxwell and pointedly began with the words: “Madame Macron’s real murky past…” She concluded: “What does disturb me, especially in the light of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, is the idea that [Macron] allegedly seduced her future husband when he was just 15 and she 39.”

In using the word “murky” of a lady subjected to what are apparently completely untrue rumours, vexatiously vicious Vine has yet again shown herself as someone who likes to have a pop at clearly wronged people like Madame Macron whilst excusing someone genuinely “murky” like Ghislaine Maxwell. It does her no favours and is yet again proof that it is time for this supporter of the reintroduction of the death penalty to be sent off to journalistic Siberia. Her ice cold manner might actually go down a bit there, after all.

Remaining remarkably quiet on the other hand at this time, Boris Johnson’s sister and sometime colleague of Sarah Vine at the Daily Mail, Rachel, has yet to come out with her thoughts on the verdict and victims in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.

Known for having more front than Harrods and a megaphone in place of a mouth, Ms. Johnson ludicrously expressed “pity” for Ghislaine Maxwell in The Spectator in November.

At the time, she went all “jolly hockey sticks” and was slammed after stating:

“It’s hard not to feel a batsqueak of pity for Ghislaine Maxwell – 500 days and counting in solitary confinement.”

“I intersected briefly with her at Oxford. As a fresher I wandered into Balliol JCR one day in search of its subsidised breakfast granola-and-Nescafé offering and found a shiny glamazon with naughty eyes holding court astride a table, a high-heeled boot resting on my brother Boris’s thigh.”

“She gave me a pitying glance but I did manage to snag an invite to her party in Headington Hill Hall – even though I wasn’t in the same college as her and Boris. I have a memory of her father, Bob, coming out in a towelling robe and telling us all to go home.”

“I’m sure fairweather friends would not reveal they went to a Ghislaine Maxwell party: as Barbara Amiel’s brilliant memoir Friends and Enemies proves, you only know who your real chums are when you’re in the gutter.”

Now, unsurprisingly, with only the prospect perhaps of an invite to Miss Maxwell’s penitentiary facility rather than a society party, Ms. Johnson will now have to go the same way as she did after calling the Duchess of Sussex “exotic.” Apologising for that particular gaffe, the journalist admitted in January 2018: “It didn’t go down well and I hereby apologise Harry” and now, we call on her to do the same to the victims of the convicted criminal Ghislaine Maxwell.

Elsewhere, in an opinion piece in today’s The Guardian, Joan Smith was one columnist, however, who got it right when she echoed my own sentiments – expressed on Thursday in an article titled: “Ghislaine Maxwell – From ‘Seasoned Socialite’ to ‘Sordid Sex Trafficker’” – and stated: “Let’s call Ghislaine Maxwell what she is – a sex trafficker, not a socialite.”

Going further, Smith summed up this wicked woman perfectly in three paragraphs. Of the deviant daughter of ‘The Bouncing Czech,’ she remarked:

“Predators have a sixth sense when it comes to choosing co-conspirators. Maxwell was a grown woman when she met Epstein… It must have occurred to Maxwell by now that the two men she put absolute faith in, her father and her ex-lover, both left her to face the music after their apparent suicides. And for what?”

“The columnist Barbara Amiel, who is married to the former newspaper magnate Conrad Black, recalls a conversation that shows Maxwell in an unexpected and highly unflattering light. ‘I bet I’m in charge of more lavatories and bathrooms than you are,’ Maxwell suddenly said as the two women were walking along a beach. While Amiel thought about it, Maxwell reminded her to include those on planes. ‘Thirty-nine,’ said Amiel and Maxwell’s face lit up. ‘I win,’ she exclaimed.”

“Questions about Maxwell’s relationship with Epstein have now been cleared up. She procured girls for him and it speaks volumes about her moral compass, or lack of it, that she evidently cared more about the number of lavatories in his mansions than the vulnerable teenagers she exposed to sexual assault and rape.”