6 ms·
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office
- asdefghyk 8mo agoAndrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office
- petepete 8mo agoSeries 7 of The Crown will be fun.
- rkachowski 8mo agoThey're purposefully being vague, but this is Prince Andrew finally facing consequences in the face of the Epstein files (?)
- OJFord 8mo agoHow is it vague? If you mean by not saying 'Prince Andrew', that's because he's already been stripped of that title.
- brazzy 8mo agoFormer 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"
- vhodges 8mo agoIf 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.
- Grum9 8mo ago[dead]
- beAbU 8mo agoHe's being prosecuted for sharing sensitive information with 3rd parties or something. He was in some cushy foreign envoy type job back then, and it seems he did not really take it very seriously. In the epstein files there is evidence that he regularly shared sensitive information with JE and others. He's not being prosecuted for raping kids. But maybe new evidence comes to light during this investigation.
- bell-cot 8mo agoIt 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.)
- benbojangles 8mo agoAnd this is of course tech related because??? If I wanted news I would just check my RSS feed.
- amiga386 8mo agoIs email evidence of misconduct in high office suitably "tech"? https://jmail.world/thread/vol00009-efta00751685-pdf?view=inbox https://jmail.world/thread/vol00009-efta00751685-pdf?view=in... https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00751685.pdf https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA007516...
- asdefghyk 8mo agoI'd suggest, their is intellectual curiosity about how the rich and powerful seem to be treated differently. Consider , others accused of such crimes, would be very quickly to court to face accusers before a judge, but in the this case it has not happened? Why? Seems to be some unspoken protection between others?
- adaml_623 8mo agoAs 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
- bell-cot 8mo ago1 - 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.
- BLKNSLVR 8mo agoI 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.
- phtrivier 8mo agoIt'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".
- sohrob 8mo agoMeanwhile in the States, their government is doxxing the victims and masking the identities of the perpetrators.
- spacebanana7 8mo agoThe 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.
- drcongo 8mo agoBlimey, he's older than he looks.
- jaxelr 8mo agoI wonder, does the streak technically still continues? As he was stripped of his titles.
- spacebanana7 8mo agoYeah it requires an act of parliament to scrap the Duke title, neither the King nor voluntary resignation can do that
- jaxelr 8mo agoI stand corrected.
- adaml_623 8mo agoThe 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?
- iso1631 8mo agoThey got Al Capone on tax fraud
- FrankWilhoit 8mo agoThis is how it is done! But it could only have been done with the King's permission. I wonder how he will spin it.
- asdefghyk 8mo agoI 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 ?
- rsynnott 8mo agoThe 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.)
- jfengel 8mo agoWhile Charles I was a disaster, Charles II is remembered as a patron of the arts and sciences. He restored the British navy, which went on to be the foundation of the Empire. His personal life was rather too colorful, but a lot of people seem to think positively of that. I doubt he's anybody's favorite monarch, but his well-respected mother seems to have thought the name was OK.
- markx2 8mo agoOfficial statements have been released that clearly state the King was not informed prior to the arrest.
- rich_sasha 8mo agoI 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?"
- beardyw 8mo agoHe was in Greggs at the time.
- rich_sasha 8mo agoIt was Pizza Express.
- rich_sasha 8mo agoIt 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.
- asdefghyk 8mo agoWhy has Andrew not been extradited to USA.? Any commoner would have been sent "quick smart" to face the accusations there in court?
- foldr 8mo agoThe obvious explanation is that none of the men who abused girls via their relationship with Epstein are being prosecuted in the USA. So why should it be surprising that Andrew is not?
- asdefghyk 8mo ago"...The obvious explanation is that none of the men who abused girls via their relationship with Epstein are being prosecuted in the USA...." That's my question too. Why not. Seems they are protected.
- foldr 8mo agoRight, but they're not protected by being members of the British Royal Family. So it doesn't seem necessary to appeal to that factor as part of the explanation for why Andrew has not been prosecuted in the US.
- asdefghyk 8mo agoGhislaine Maxwell, has said she had never saw Epstein do anything untoward.... She now says, she’ll tell everything?? in exchange for immunity.
- silexia 8mo ago[flagged]
- throwaway85825 8mo agoThe royal family really doesn't want to answer questions about what they knew and when about the trafficking. So instead they'll just get rid of him with a lesser less implicating charge.
- foldr 8mo agoI think this is a misreading of the situation. He’s being arrested because of recently uncovered evidence that he committed a crime. We can all form our own opinions on whether or not Andrew committed rape and/or sexual abuse (without too much difficulty, I assume), but this crime looks like it ought to be a lot easier to prosecute.
- throwaway85825 8mo agoIt's easy for the royal family to say they didn't know he sent an email. It's hard for them to say they didn't know about the girls, due to their security. This way only andrew goes down.
- foldr 8mo agoI think this is a very implausible take for two reasons. First, the King doesn't have that kind of power over the justice system in the UK. He cannot choose when, whether or why Andrew is arrested. Second, Andrew's arrest is a negative news story for the royal family, not a positive one. Their ideal scenario would have been one where the Andrew/Epstein story gradually dropped out of the news cycle following the stripping of Andrew's royal titles. This arrest, and likely subsequent trial, are just going to keep it in the news for months or years to come.
- throwaway85825 8mo agoFirst, the King approved the arrest because the family has veto power over all actions that effect them. Same happened when they tried to tax the family years ago. This is a limited hang out negative story. The important thing for the family is that only andrew is implicated not the family as a whole.