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.
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.
The 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.
I 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.
The crime he was arrested for carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, but I doubt anyone has ever been given that sentence. It's fodder for the masses to think it's a serious crime
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'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?
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"
He'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.
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?
spacebanana7|11 days ago
drcongo|11 days ago
jaxelr|10 days ago
petepete|11 days ago
adaml_623|11 days ago
* 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|11 days ago
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|11 days ago
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.
throwaway85825|10 days ago
foldr|10 days ago
gib444|10 days ago
bell-cot|11 days ago
(Sadly, expecting the Yanks to follow their lead on that would be pure fantasy.)
beardyw|10 days ago
rich_sasha|10 days ago
rich_sasha|10 days ago
In the US..? Epstein tragically was committed suicide, and no other cases are forthcoming.
asdefghyk|10 days ago
Any commoner would have been sent "quick smart" to face the accusations there in court?
asdefghyk|10 days ago
FrankWilhoit|11 days ago
rsynnott|11 days ago
(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.)
markx2|10 days ago
asdefghyk|11 days ago
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 ?
foldr|10 days ago
benbojangles|11 days ago
asdefghyk|10 days ago
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?
amiga386|11 days ago
https://jmail.world/thread/vol00009-efta00751685-pdf?view=in...
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA007516...
rkachowski|11 days ago
OJFord|11 days ago
brazzy|11 days ago
beAbU|10 days ago
He's not being prosecuted for raping kids. But maybe new evidence comes to light during this investigation.
Grum9|11 days ago
[deleted]
sohrob|11 days ago
adaml_623|11 days ago
iso1631|11 days ago
silexia|10 days ago
[deleted]
asdefghyk|11 days ago