Eddie Hearn...

Eddie Hearn: Fan or Not A Fan?


  • Total voters
    38
Jul 6, 2019
3,755
3,993
Not everyone epstein knows will be a paedo. There are plenty of reasons he could have Barry's details.

He might be looking for comp tickets to the darts (2 adults and 2 juniors).

Or maybe he wanted a backstage ticket to the gymnastics World Cup?
 
Aug 1, 2016
28
4
26
Not everyone epstein knows will be a paedo. There are plenty of reasons he could have Barry's details.

He might be looking for comp tickets to the darts (2 adults and 2 juniors).

Or maybe he wanted a backstage ticket to the gymnastics World Cup?
Haha. I heard Adam Smith was also in the book?
 
May 26, 2018
5,405
2,404
All I’m saying is it’s more plausible that Hearn and his wife were in Epstein’s black book for reasons not relating to being a pedophile. They both have a history in finance after all.
IF there is an innocent explanation, give it and move on.
Failure to do so just arouses suspicion...
 
Aug 1, 2016
28
4
26
Innocent until proven guilty?

I’m genuinely not being dishonest... but do you think his wife is a pedo or sexual predator based on her being in the book?
 
Nov 30, 2018
50
33
40
Bazza Hearn was featured on that BBC Four 'The 80's' on Monday - he had a massive smile on his face when Steve Davis won his first snooker title.
 
Reactions: shenmue
Jul 6, 2019
3,755
3,993
Honestly. There is loads of legitimate reasons he would know him. (eg. It will be useful to have a contact that can get sports tickets should you want them).

Just because Epstein was a paedophile it doesn't mean all his actions were driven by that, or that everyone he knows is suspect. He would have family, friends, colleagues, and associates the same as everyone else.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want my name having anything to do with the dirty old creep, but it's possible that people worked with him without being nonces.
 
Reactions: Fanta Punch
Aug 1, 2016
28
4
26
I'm saying neither has been proven guilty, making both Prince Andrew and Barry Hearn innocent. Right?
That’s irrelevant in Prince Andrew’s case as there’s sufficient evidence to suggest he’s a pedo/sexual predator, regardless of whether or not he’s been found guilty in a court of law.

The Hearns don’t have accusations from real people accusing them of wrong doings, email correspondence with people close to Epstein talking about one of the victims, or multiple pictures with Epstein. Prince Andrew does. Not recognising these facts is dishonest.

When I said innocent until proven guilty it was in regards to Barry Hearn and his wife being in Epstein’s book, with no evidence to suggest any sexual wrongdoings.

Now can you see why Prince Andrews connection to Epstein and Barry Hearn and his wife’s connection to Epstein are completely different?

Baring in mind you made the equivalence between the two, not me.
 
Last edited:
May 26, 2018
5,405
2,404
When I said innocent until proven guilty it was in regards to Barry Hearn and his wife being in Epstein’s book
Understood.
You apply "innocent until proven guilty" to people that you want to believe are innocent.
Alternatively, you apply guilty until proven innocent to people that you want to believe are guilty.

Got it...
 
Aug 1, 2016
28
4
26
Understood.
You apply "innocent until proven guilty" to people that you want to believe are innocent.
Alternatively, you apply guilty until proven innocent to people that you want to believe are guilty.

Got it...
Nope. I wouldn’t apply innocent until proven guilty with Prince Andrew as there’s clear evidence that’s been released to suggest he isn’t innocent from a logical point of view. If he wasn’t related to the Queen I’m sure he’d be on trial and being found guilty.

You can’t bring yourself to admit that there is real evidence to suggest Prince Andrew is a sexual predator, and there’s isn’t any for The Hearns’s.
 
May 26, 2018
5,405
2,404
You can’t bring yourself to admit that there is real evidence to suggest Prince Andrew is a sexual predator, and there’s isn’t any for The Hearns’s.
to suggest? Yes.
to prove guilty? No.
Thus making him innocent until proven guilty.


Why is Eddie scared of somebody bringing up the subject in an interview if Bazza is innocent?
Looks very fishy to me...
 
Aug 1, 2016
28
4
26
to suggest? Yes.
to prove guilty? No.
Thus making him innocent until proven guilty.


Why is Eddie scared of somebody bringing up the subject in an interview if Bazza is innocent?
Looks very fishy to me...
There’s evidence to suggest he’s guilty which is why I wouldn’t use that phrase with Prince Andrew.

Because it might make them look bad. In the same way that anyone with a connection to Harvey Weinstein looks bad regardless of whether or not they did anything.