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.
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".
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.
It'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.
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 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?
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.)
While 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.
Readit News
* When did other high profile people know about this illegal and immoral behavior
* Who else is getting away with similar behavior right now
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.
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.
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".
(Sadly, expecting the Yanks to follow their lead on that would be pure fantasy.)
In the US..? Epstein tragically was committed suicide, and no other cases are forthcoming.
Any commoner would have been sent "quick smart" to face the accusations there in court?
(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.)
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.
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 ?