The thing about a lot of monarchical powers in the UK is that the monarch gets to keep them, provided of course that they only ever use them as prescribed by the government. As to what happens otherwise, well, Charles III won't want to emulate Charles I.
(I'm kind of amazed he chose that name, tbh; it's not particularly uncommon for British monarchs to rename themselves on taking the throne, and it has... baggage.)
I also kinda have the question of: Who is the new Jeffrey Epstein?
Nature abhors a vacuum, and it seems the space that Epstein filled was large and branching and significantly profitable (in money, information, and influence). There's no way there isn't at least one other person that's started to fill the void.
Ideally, the ramifications of association with Epstein should shrink the size of the vacuum considerably, but the pursuit of those associates has really only just started and, as someone else has already pointed out, some countries / governments are protecting these associates rather than investigating / prosecuting. As such, there's not much discouragement yet.
It's unfortunately very possible that someone else is filling the "bring underage girls to rich guys" part (seriously, we have to "teach this fantasy out" for most little boys) ; but it might be someone more discrete, with a smaller network, and who will not merge the "socialite businessmen" persona with the "pimp for the rich" persona.
Also, it might be an anomaly that one person has a very big network ; maybe it's usually more of a "small adjacent networks".
So it would be like asking "who replaced pablo escobar or bernard madoff". The answer is (unfortunately) very likely not "no-one" ; but it might very well be "not one".
1 - Assume it was decades ago. That I've heard, a fair number of the released emails mentioned Jeff's 2008 conviction. But to paraphrase Leona Helmsley, "only the little people need to follow laws". That attitude seems to be very common in the emails.
2 - Isn't it convenient that zero major news organizations - controlled by high profile people and their buddies - are raising that issue? Not that I believe there to be any public support for competent & systematic enforcement of the laws against such behavior. That I've heard of, nobody even cares about how Jeff got off with a slap on the wrist in 2008.
Former prince. And t's not purposefully vague, the article explicitly says "It comes after Thames Valley Police said they were assessing a complaint over the alleged sharing of confidential material by the former prince with late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein"
If you read through the BBC post, it alludes to passing confidential trade documents to Epstein... but of course that's probably because he was being blackmailed by Epstein for f*cking under age girls.
The abuse perpetratored by Epstein is obviously hideous but is there an argument that his corporate and government espionage activities need to be looked at as a clear organized criminal conspiracy?
It is unreal to me that all the criminal prosecution is only happening to Brits. Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew, likely Peter Mandelson.
In the US..? Epstein tragically was committed suicide, and no other cases are forthcoming.
The last time the Duke of York was arrested was in 1483. And before that, the most recent prior was in 1452 during the War of the Roses.
Blimey, he's older than he looks.
I wonder, does the streak technically still continues? As he was stripped of his titles.
Yeah it requires an act of parliament to scrap the Duke title, neither the King nor voluntary resignation can do that
Series 7 of The Crown will be fun.
He was in Greggs at the time.
It was Pizza Express.
This is how it is done! But it could only have been done with the King's permission. I wonder how he will spin it.
Official statements have been released that clearly state the King was not informed prior to the arrest.
I can't for one minute imagine no one asked "if one were to suspect a member of royal family of [...] and arrested them, what would the King say?"
The thing about a lot of monarchical powers in the UK is that the monarch gets to keep them, provided of course that they only ever use them as prescribed by the government. As to what happens otherwise, well, Charles III won't want to emulate Charles I.
(I'm kind of amazed he chose that name, tbh; it's not particularly uncommon for British monarchs to rename themselves on taking the throne, and it has... baggage.)
I think there is a lot more of this story to play out ...
Still seems to be lots more to play out.
Example - Why all the supposed "...rich and powerful names ...." being seemingly protected ?
What do they have to hide ?
As always when reading about these stories I have two questions:
* When did other high profile people know about this illegal and immoral behavior
* Who else is getting away with similar behavior right now
I also kinda have the question of: Who is the new Jeffrey Epstein?
Nature abhors a vacuum, and it seems the space that Epstein filled was large and branching and significantly profitable (in money, information, and influence). There's no way there isn't at least one other person that's started to fill the void.
Ideally, the ramifications of association with Epstein should shrink the size of the vacuum considerably, but the pursuit of those associates has really only just started and, as someone else has already pointed out, some countries / governments are protecting these associates rather than investigating / prosecuting. As such, there's not much discouragement yet.
It's unfortunately very possible that someone else is filling the "bring underage girls to rich guys" part (seriously, we have to "teach this fantasy out" for most little boys) ; but it might be someone more discrete, with a smaller network, and who will not merge the "socialite businessmen" persona with the "pimp for the rich" persona.
Also, it might be an anomaly that one person has a very big network ; maybe it's usually more of a "small adjacent networks".
So it would be like asking "who replaced pablo escobar or bernard madoff". The answer is (unfortunately) very likely not "no-one" ; but it might very well be "not one".
1 - Assume it was decades ago. That I've heard, a fair number of the released emails mentioned Jeff's 2008 conviction. But to paraphrase Leona Helmsley, "only the little people need to follow laws". That attitude seems to be very common in the emails.
2 - Isn't it convenient that zero major news organizations - controlled by high profile people and their buddies - are raising that issue? Not that I believe there to be any public support for competent & systematic enforcement of the laws against such behavior. That I've heard of, nobody even cares about how Jeff got off with a slap on the wrist in 2008.
And this is of course tech related because??? If I wanted news I would just check my RSS feed.
Is email evidence of misconduct in high office suitably "tech"?
https://jmail.world/thread/vol00009-efta00751685-pdf?view=in...
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA007516...
They're purposefully being vague, but this is Prince Andrew finally facing consequences in the face of the Epstein files (?)
How is it vague? If you mean by not saying 'Prince Andrew', that's because he's already been stripped of that title.
Former prince. And t's not purposefully vague, the article explicitly says "It comes after Thames Valley Police said they were assessing a complaint over the alleged sharing of confidential material by the former prince with late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein"
If you read through the BBC post, it alludes to passing confidential trade documents to Epstein... but of course that's probably because he was being blackmailed by Epstein for f*cking under age girls.
Who said blackmailed? They were friends, it was just a guy giving another guy insider information about a business opportunity.
You can't arrest someone for the "probably" conjecture of the latter, but you can arrest them if you have tangible proof of the former.
[dead]
It would be lovely if the Brits could truly clean house on this issue.
(Sadly, expecting the Yanks to follow their lead on that would be pure fantasy.)
Meanwhile in the States, their government is doxxing the victims and masking the identities of the perpetrators.
The abuse perpetratored by Epstein is obviously hideous but is there an argument that his corporate and government espionage activities need to be looked at as a clear organized criminal conspiracy?
They got Al Capone on tax fraud
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office