I think I understand what you are saying but I think it is worse than this.
One famous person, who I'm not going to name here (because who it is doesn't matter really in one sense) is portrayed in the emails as a person with a transactional relationship with Epstein.
They had regular financial problems, they contacted Epstein and he wired them the money that they asked for.
I think it is understandable to read between the lines in this kind of thing. In normal life people I know only ask for money from financial institutions. So what does it say that a person is contacting a guy with a Google Mail account and an island instead?
Secondly I think most people would assume that the person giving the money was likely expecting something in return. The mind boggles to imagine what that could be with Epstein.
I think you might have an exaggerated idea of how uniformly institutional investment and borrowing is. I've known of some real fly-by-night characters involved in that line, guys operating basically out of their own little offices.
And if that TV drama about Andrew's interview is to be believed, Epstein gave Andrew £ 125, 000 as a gift, and then suggested that he hang around NYC for a few days because "I've got some people who really want to meet you." So he seems to have been trading financial favours in exchange for networking opportunities, as well.
My own impression is that Epstein was someone like Stephen Ward of Profumo fame, but more on an international scale, and with way more money to throw around.
What utter nonsense. Stephen Ward was not a sexual abuser of young women. He was thrown under a bus by the Brotisj Establishment because he was not one of them. He was wrongly convicted of living off the immoral earnings of Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies when he clearly did not do do and he committed suicide before he could be sentenced.
I was thinking in terms of being someone who tried to gain entry into influential circles by promising men in those circles access to women. That Epstein also engaged in sexual assault doesn't change the nature of that motivation.
And when you say the British establishment "threw [Ward] under the bus because he wasn't one of them", you mean they just didn't like this outsider showing up at their parties, so they fabricated pimping charges against him out of whole cloth? Or were there some independent suspicions of him in the first place, and the establishment just didn't do an adequate job of defending him?
Okay. Seems a lotta work just to get someone out of your social circle. I woulda thought they coulda just stopped inviting him around.
Maybe it was more something like they were embarrassed by the sexual indiscretions of their fellow establishment-types, so scapegoated Ward as the cause based on having introduced some of the women into their circles?
I think it is understandable to read between the lines in this kind of thing. In normal life people I know only ask for money from financial institutions. So what does it say that a person is contacting a guy with a Google Mail account and an island instead?
People with a lot of money get hit up for gifts and loans all the time.
Years ago I dated a professor whose degrees were from Harvard and who had a friend from those days who was extremely successful and massively wealthy, like owns a big French Impressionist oil painting and hangs it in the living room level of wealthy. The prof and I once had lunch with this old college friend and his wife, and the prof tactfully and obliquely hit the guy up for research funding, and the rich guy tactfully and obliquely turned him down.
I also know someone related to a billionaire; my friend says the rich dude is asked for money by friends and family all the time.
... Second, in a related way, it is interesting how many rich and powerful people wanted to be in his cohort like moths to a flame. Why were none of those worried about the association? ...
Query whether it was that way round or whether Epstein somehow had particularly smarmy networking skills, such that he seems to have been able to inveigle into his orbit almost anybody that he thought might be useful to him either then or at some point in the future, often by the providing of favours that gave him some sort of a hold over them. I suspect no one will ever know, and the buzz of media paranoia this has generated means that no one will ever dispassionately be able to find out.
Part of that mystery is whether his prime motivation was using his contacts to give him opportunities to procure and match sexual opportunities, or whether the procurement side of his operation was just an adjunct to get access to the rich to get business and financial opportunities.
It would be prudent to assume that just because he had someone's contact details in his address book that is on its own, without further evidence, either proof of guilt or that he ever tried to utilise that potential information.
Changing the subject @North East Quine was discussing Gretna Green and the historic greater flexibility of Scottish matrimonial law as compared with that in England and Wales. Until 1987, in England and Wales one required parental consent to get married under 21. That was reduced to 18 in 1987, but no longer applies because since 2023 one cannot get married at all until one is 18.
Epstein somehow [might have] had particularly smarmy networking skills, such that he seems to have been able to inveigle into his orbit almost anybody that he thought might be useful to him either then or at some point in the future, often by the providing of favours that gave him some sort of a hold over them. I suspect no one will ever know, and the buzz of media paranoia this has generated means that no one will ever dispassionately be able to find out.
I'll enter into the record here that, watching a few clips of his interviews with Bannon, Epstein does not seem to have had the most scintillating intellect or conversational skills(*). Something I might personally take into negative account when analyzing his appeal to elite circles, ie. he wasn't getting let in because of his insightful eloquence.
(*) He came off to me as an even lower-rent Edward de Bono. Not that guys like that are totally bereft of knowledge or insight(de Bono was way better educated than I am), but they often tend to pontificate on things they know little about. At one point, Epstein says that "people like Socrates didn't write anything down, they had other people write down what they said", and then when Bannon mentions that was true about Jesus as well, seems confused about the relevance of that.
I'll enter into the record here that, watching a few clips of his interviews with Bannon, Epstein does not seem to have had the most scintillating intellect or conversational skills(*). Something I might personally take into negative account when analyzing his appeal to elite circles, ie. he wasn't getting let in because of his insightful eloquence.
(*) He came off to me as an even lower-rent Edward de Bono. Not that guys like that are totally bereft of knowledge or insight(de Bono was way better educated than I am), but they often tend to pontificate on things they know little about. At one point, Epstein says that "people like Socrates didn't write anything down, they had other people write down what they said", and then when Bannon mentions that was true about Jesus as well, seems confused about the relevance of that.
I am not convinced that "insightful eloquence" is what gets a person into elite circles in the way I was describing. I suspect it is a matter of being able to massage the ego of the person you are socialising with in such a way that makes them feel that you care about both them and the things they value, and that you really love and admire them. It does not matter much whether that is actually true or not provided you can create that illusion - and, of course, that you can give them something they want. It is a way of mastering flattery without it becoming too nauseous to the target.
Fundamental to this also, I suspect, the ability to convey these vibrations interpersonally to the target is surprisingly difficult for a third party to pick up.
Great conversational skills are often more about your ability to listen than your ability to impress people with your knowledge, I think. It's your ability to make people feel heard and understood.
That's hard to catch when you're watching a conversation. I've known some people who are truly boring in social settings, but are also amazing conversationalists because they'll really hear you. Maybe he was one of those. And he kept files on all the people he heard. Jerk.
Part of that mystery is whether his prime motivation was using his contacts to give him opportunities to procure and match sexual opportunities, or whether the procurement side of his operation was just an adjunct to get access to the rich to get business and financial opportunities.
I have, on probably about three different occasions, casually played the role of a social facilitator between disparate friends and groups of my standing acquaintance, some of whom, I am weirdly proud to say, are now better integrated into each other's orbits than I am.
That can be quite fun, and you don't really bother trying to put into practice any quid pro quo, everything just kinda mixes together. You introduce Jack to Jill and they start dating and get married and open a cafe but now they're divorced but they still own the cafe together and you only really see 'em at xmas anyhow but the cafe still makes some money for them and it's all great.
I'd imagine it's not much different among the jet set, probably even moreso(*). The fact that some of them engage in morally reprehensible behaviour wouldn't necessarily alter the basic social dynamic.
(*) Mandelson's letter in Epstein's birthday book described the endings of their various meet-ups as "He always leaves me with new and interesting friends." I suspect this was seen as a common feature of JE's social circle.
It would be prudent to assume that just because he had someone's contact details in his address book that is on its own, without further evidence, either proof of guilt or that he ever tried to utilise that potential information.
And be especially cautious in interpreting statements like "Wally MacWidget appears in the files 76 times." I know of at least one case where such a stat was being tossed around by the enemies of a certain politician, yet I think it's now pretty well-established that Epstein was advising his clients about how the policies of this politician would impact their financial situation, just like a zillion other in investment wizards do every day.
Let’s fantasize that Andrew was a sweet innocent naive man who had no idea how Epstein knew such friendly young definitely adult women.
He would still have known that Gaddafi was a piece of shit corrupt violent dictator implicated in the Lockerbie bombing in addition to all his other crimes. So in what universe does this official UK government envoy think it either his duty, or remotely appropriate, to set up contacts for Gaddafi so he can further enrich himself ?
It’s not unlike a US congress person on a trade delegation trying to hook up Osama Bin Laden with a sleazy British banker on the down low in exchange for a commission.
I believe that for a period between about 2003, when Gadaffi renounced his nuclear program, and 2011, when the US and its allies ousted him from power, it was considered at least semi-respectable to do business with the guy. Google "Gadaffi and Goldman Sachs" for an example of one such deal, albeit one that went south.
It was still pretty dodgy all around, the way Gadaffi's Libya went from a pariah terrorist-state to a semi-respectable friend of the west, and then back to an evil pariah state, all within less than a decade. Just that Mountbatten Windsor's actions might not be that singularly outta-bounds for their time and place.
I may have cross posted my edits - it is very specifically bad, from a British perspective, to try to enrich the person responsible for ordering the UK’s worst ever terrorist attack.
...it is very specifically bad, from a British perspective, to try to enrich the person responsible for ordering the UK’s worst ever terrorist attack.
Well, you can check The Guardian for...
UK banks held $ 680m of Libyan state funds
The Royal Bank Of Scotland is included there, and I'm guessing they might have branches in or near Lockerbie.
Not saying any of this was particularly honourable(and obviously it did provoke some disapproval, at least in The Guardian), just that Mountbatten Windsor might not have been doing much different than what a lot of respectable businessmen were doing at the time. And possibly less, since it doesn't seem the planned meeting between Epstein and Gadaffi went ahead.
Banks are private businesses, though I’d question the ethics of facilitating money laundering anyway, but Andrew was an official representative of the British state.
Banks are private businesses, though I’d question the ethics of facilitating money laundering anyway, but Andrew was an official representative of the British state.
Yeah, the legal, and to some extent, political-philosophical issues are qualitatively different between the bank-Gadaffi situation and the Andrew-Gadaffi situation(*). I think I was thinking more sociologically.
I realize the "royal" in the name of the Scottish bank doesn't mean state ownership, but still, I'm assuming the ladies and gents who run that bank occupy positions at the pinnacle of professional legitimacy atop UK society. So MW or anybody else could probably be forgiven for thinking that investing in Libya was a basically respectable thing for a public institution to do.
(*) But serious question here, that might help clear some things up for me...
If it had been found, for example, that there was criminal jury-rigging on Pitch The Palace, would this have been an issue for Andrew as a private-sector businessman, the British state, or both?
...MW or anybody else could probably be forgiven for thinking that investing in Libya was a basically respectable thing for a public institution to do.
Mea culpa, because if I'm understanding this correctly, wheress the banks were helping the Libyan government manage its wealth, Andrew was trying to hook Epstein up with Gadaffi for purposes of investing Gadaffi's private fortune.
Arguably makes a difference, since the Libyan government's return on its investment trickles down to its citizens in the form of services etc, whereas Gadaffi was trying to invest money for his own private benefit.
Still, the general respectability of Libya's government post-2003 might have been rubbing off somewhat on the leader personally.
If it had been found, for example, that there was criminal jury-rigging on Pitch The Palace, would this have been an issue for Andrew as a private-sector businessman, the British state, or both?
Essentially there are three issues:
Firstly, when Andrew is acting in a private capacity - does he behave ethically / lawfully and if he does not, do our institutions hold him as accountable for that as anyone else behaving in the same way. (To which that answer is no, clearly, not - but the current scandal suggests society feels that he has moved way beyond the conventional unspoken limits of that situation.)
Secondly, does he trade on his position as a member of the royal family to make money - to an extent that people feel is unacceptable. So making a big deal of your title in a personal brand is fundamentally acceptable, if tacky; offering to invite someone for dinner with his Dad in exchange for a couple of thousand quid would not be. A somewhat related point, is whether as a member of the royal family being paid by the state - is he /was he doing enough work ie charitable work, recognition work (visiting, meeting people opening sites and events), diplomatic work at the request of the government (hosting heads of state royal tours etc). He ceased to be funded by the state in 2019 when he stepped down as a working royal - which was because of a scandal.
Thirdly, when he is fulfilling a public function is he / was doing that properly. He had two public functions - one was to do charitable/recognition/diplomatic work and the other was a specific appointment as a trade envoy, a clearly defined role with legal obligations.
Pitch at the palace was trading on the royal name in a way that would be seen as somewhat acceptable - even though he’d be acting in a private capacity - but if he ran it in a corrupt way that would have been an issue if it were publicly known. And if he committed a serious crime then the general public don’t want to be giving him money and don’t want him being an official representative of the state.
So Andrew has not been convicted of anything, but the public have become so angry about his conduct - that the state has reacted by stripping him of his titles and his publicly funded income, and his residence. So tax payers no longer directly pay for his lifestyle, and he no longer represents the state in any official way nor has any official status. The risk for the monarchy, and the government, is who knew what when - did either the royal family, the government or the security services cover up serious crimes on Andrew’s part. If the monarchy did this, it will undermine their legitimacy and support for a republic will grow.
What we know is:
Andrew’s conduct has been persistently unethical for decades - in ways that have both become more obvious and more out of whack with the zeitgeist over the years. He used to have some respect as someone who fought in the Falklands war but his later behaviour has pretty much eclipsed that.
Andrew was in contact with Epstein whilst he was a trade envoy, it appears he forwarded confidential government documents to private individuals including Epstein - the police are now investigating whether this constitutes misconduct in public office, which is a serious criminal offence that can carry a custodial sentence. Allegations relating to this are essentially the same as what is being alleged about Peter Mandelson - public office being used for private gain and without regard to, and sometimes detrimentally to, the national interest.
Trying to make Gaddafi, of all people, richer in the midst of this - is simply to add insult to injury.
This all matters constitutionally - because before Elizabeth II had grandchildren (and before the law on primogeniture was changed) had Charles had been struck by lightening or assassinated, Andrew would be our head of state. He crystallises for many people, all the disadvantages of a hereditary monarchy.
I trust it is acceptable, even in Hell and in a thread about ghastly people and what they did, to inject a bit of light relief.
This week's Church Times has much sensible comment about Epstein, including from Angela Tilby, a regular columnist. Her words are wise and pertinent. But the text does include an unfortunate misprint, viz:
'Epstein understood the darker cravings of the human heart. Introductions to the powerful, the paying off of un¬ manageable debts, seductive “mas¬ sages”, the thrill of forbidden sex, glamour, and fame — Einstein provided it all. Faust-like, his moral compass was “what you will'.
I remember the thrill of learning about Einstein's theories and vision as a young student. Fortunately I missed out on the other horrid things he apparently could have given me.
The Epstein files has brought out cancel culture at its worst.
Our legal system used to be (maybe it still is?) innocent until proven guilty.
No longer. You can "allege" whatever the hell you want and are guilty by association. You have to resign whether you're guilty or not.
"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to state actions to punish crimes. People get sacked for things that aren't crimes or on a burden of proof lower than that for criminal offences all the fucking time. I've seen careers wrecked in teaching over far more minor allegations than enabling child sexual abuse, insider trading, and/or misconduct in public office on far less evidence. Sacking is not a judicial punishment and cannot be subject to the same level of proof. It's a fact of politics that reputation matters.
But is it right that all those people get sacked on far less evidence? Or indeed, no evidence at all except an allegation?
Not really, in the sense that that term is usually used. Ward wasn't tossed out of establishment circles because they didn't like his political opinions, but(going by @Sojourner's telling of the events) because they found him a low-class lout.
I was an 1 year old in Oz ( before you were a spark in your old man’s eye) and it was clear even to a pre pubertal colonial like meself that Stephen Ward was “not one of us” to the fuckers who threw him under the bus.
The convicting judge’s summing up is worth a read; for pompous and self-righteousness nastiness it is hard to beat.
Pitch at the palace was trading on the royal name in a way that would be seen as somewhat acceptable - even though he’d be acting in a private capacity - but if he ran it in a corrupt way that would have been an issue if it were publicly known. And if he committed a serious crime then the general public don’t want to be giving him money and don’t want him being an official representative of the state.
Okay. So, if PATP had been corrupt, it would have damaged the image of the monarchy, because of Andrew's separate role as a royal, but the British state wouldn't have been legally answerable for his crimes, because he was still just acting in his private capacity when hosting the show.
......
'Epstein understood the darker cravings of the human heart. Introductions to the powerful, the paying off of un¬ manageable debts, seductive “mas¬ sages”, the thrill of forbidden sex, glamour, and fame — Einstein provided it all. Faust-like, his moral compass was “what you will'.
I remember the thrill of learning about Einstein's theories and vision as a young student. Fortunately I missed out on the other horrid things he apparently could have given me.
<tangent>
Apologies for pedantry but it was Pitch@Palace
Notwithstanding that it was founded by a priapic buffoon it did actually achieve some good results. The idea behind it was sound, it was only marred by association with AM-W (rather like the Invictus Games and Harry, I fear).
......
'Epstein understood the darker cravings of the human heart. Introductions to the powerful, the paying off of un¬ manageable debts, seductive “mas¬ sages”, the thrill of forbidden sex, glamour, and fame — Einstein provided it all. Faust-like, his moral compass was “what you will'.
I remember the thrill of learning about Einstein's theories and vision as a young student. Fortunately I missed out on the other horrid things he apparently could have given me.
It made me smile, anyway.
To our prayers!
At least Einstein is pronounced correctly.
As already explained, EP-steen is the correct pronunciation of Epstein.
It wasn't really explained here but I have found an explanation which makes sense.
It is really a question of spelling, and of people seeing the combination ei and not being sure what to make of it: consider receive vs. height.
Immigrant Jews of a couple of generations back, perhaps tired of correcting others, in some cases took on the pronunciation of those around them, hence Epsteen and Bernsteen rather than Epshtayn and Bernshtayn.
Einstein was Jewish, but a middle-class German, rather than an Eastern European Yiddish speaker. And that he was an established figure when he went to America. Thus the German pronunciation prevailed, minus the thick sch of “Einschtein.”
But the dropping of the sht sound in Einstein, shows that it's absurd to talk about correctness. Some words get Anglicized, some don't, some partially. I remember saying chiaoscura to an Italian friend, and she shuddered at my pronunciation, but it's an English word.
It wasn't really explained here but I have found an explanation which makes sense.
It is really a question of spelling, and of people seeing the combination ei and not being sure what to make of it: consider receive vs. height.
Immigrant Jews of a couple of generations back, perhaps tired of correcting others, in some cases took on the pronunciation of those around them, hence Epsteen and Bernsteen rather than Epshtayn and Bernshtayn.
Einstein was Jewish, but a middle-class German, rather than an Eastern European Yiddish speaker. And that he was an established figure when he went to America. Thus the German pronunciation prevailed, minus the thick sch of “Einschtein.”
I thought it had been in this thread, but it was in the thread on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The discussion of it starts here. You have to scroll through posts to find responses; my response noting the Yiddish factor (but ignoring the st=sht factor) is here.
But the dropping of the sht sound in Einstein, shows that it's absurd to talk about correctness. Some words get Anglicized, some don't, some partially.
This. And the bottom line is that the correct pronunciation of a person’s name is the pronunciation that person uses, even if that pronunciation isn’t standard or seems odd.
And yes, I have been told that I pronounce my name incorrectly, even though the pronunciation I use, and my family has always used, is the traditional pronunciation in the part of the US I’m from.
Epsteen is only the correct pronunciation in relation to Jeffrey Epstein in a place where you would normally call the sculptor Jacob Epsteen and the physicist, mathematician and Nobel Prize winner Albert Eensteen.
Epsteen is only the correct pronunciation in relation to Jeffrey Epstein in a place where you would normally call the sculptor Jacob Epsteen and the physicist, mathematician and Nobel Prize winner Albert Eensteen.
As has been explained to you, you are wrong. And as @quetzalcoatl has pointed, you’re not even being consistent about your wrongness.
Query, is that actually correct? He is alleged to have treated women badly and to have let an acquaintance procure women for him for sexual liaisons, all of which, if true, is thoroughly reprehensible. But they appear in his case to have been of age. It is the person who did the procuring who happened to have been found guilty of committing a sexual offence with someone else and sent to prison for it.
However, isn't the thing the ex-Duke of York is alleged to have done that is actually an offence the passing on of confidential financial and commercial state information to a foreigner to whom he should not have divulged them?
Or have I missed something in this long and complicated saga?
The link cited seems to be about something else, journalist outrage that he might not have told one of their number the truth. He was not in court. He had not been cautioned. He was not under oath. Beyond the general principle that one should not tell lies, does anyone really have any particular obligation to tell journalists the truth? Or, to some extent, when it comes to admitting things or not doing, are journalists fair game?
If you schedule an interview on national tv to give your side of the story - then yes, the expectation is you tell the truth. The explanation wasn’t supposed to be primarily for the journalist but for the public - who were at that point paying his wages.
Secondly, Guiffrre alleged he sexually abused her - because she was not in a position to consent. The implication of the public concern about his long term association with Epstein is that, this is a the tip of a very unpleasant iceberg. The photos that have emerged of him on all fours over a woman lying on the ground have made such concerns even more salient.
@Enoch in general terms, what do you consider to be evidence of rape where physical violence has not occurred in addition to the sexual assault ?
Moreover:
to have treated women badly and to have let an acquaintance procure women for him for sexual liaisons,
A man he knew to be a convicted paedophile. Even if you happen to think it is ethical to act as a middle man for sex work - would he really think a rapist is likely to be procuring and organising the clients of sex workers in a lawful non-coercive way ? Is anybody that fucking stupid ? A man he knew to be content to rape children ?
"I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office.
"What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities.
"In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation.
"Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.
"As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter.
"Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.
The arrest underscored a striking contrast in the official responses to the Epstein files. The British authorities have moved aggressively to investigate the possibility of crimes emerging from the three million pages of correspondence with Mr. Epstein, while police in the United States have not.
Must be nice, having law enforcement that enforces the law. All over Europe, heads are rolling, but here it's just business and rampant abuses of every kind as usual.
"I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office.
"What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities.
"In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation.
"Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.
"As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter.
"Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.
"Charles R."
Not much else he could say.
Well, he could have said "I didn't know what else to get my brother for his birthday, so I had him detained at my pleasure." It's always easier to deliver difficult news with humor.
The arrest underscored a striking contrast in the official responses to the Epstein files. The British authorities have moved aggressively to investigate the possibility of crimes emerging from the three million pages of correspondence with Mr. Epstein, while police in the United States have not.
Must be nice, having law enforcement that enforces the law. All over Europe, heads are rolling, but here it's just business and rampant abuses of every kind as usual.
Fair comment.
The case of Mr AM-W is now sub judice, so further comment from us in the UK is perhaps inappropriate, but it will be interesting to see what happens. Once again, it is the victims of these wretched people (whether AM-W is among them or not) who will suffer most.
Comments
I was thinking in terms of being someone who tried to gain entry into influential circles by promising men in those circles access to women. That Epstein also engaged in sexual assault doesn't change the nature of that motivation.
And when you say the British establishment "threw [Ward] under the bus because he wasn't one of them", you mean they just didn't like this outsider showing up at their parties, so they fabricated pimping charges against him out of whole cloth? Or were there some independent suspicions of him in the first place, and the establishment just didn't do an adequate job of defending him?
I was enjoying working out precisely what you meant/implied. Ah well, back to The Times crossword.
Okay. Seems a lotta work just to get someone out of your social circle. I woulda thought they coulda just stopped inviting him around.
Maybe it was more something like they were embarrassed by the sexual indiscretions of their fellow establishment-types, so scapegoated Ward as the cause based on having introduced some of the women into their circles?
People with a lot of money get hit up for gifts and loans all the time.
Years ago I dated a professor whose degrees were from Harvard and who had a friend from those days who was extremely successful and massively wealthy, like owns a big French Impressionist oil painting and hangs it in the living room level of wealthy. The prof and I once had lunch with this old college friend and his wife, and the prof tactfully and obliquely hit the guy up for research funding, and the rich guy tactfully and obliquely turned him down.
I also know someone related to a billionaire; my friend says the rich dude is asked for money by friends and family all the time.
Part of that mystery is whether his prime motivation was using his contacts to give him opportunities to procure and match sexual opportunities, or whether the procurement side of his operation was just an adjunct to get access to the rich to get business and financial opportunities.
It would be prudent to assume that just because he had someone's contact details in his address book that is on its own, without further evidence, either proof of guilt or that he ever tried to utilise that potential information.
Changing the subject
@North East Quine was discussing Gretna Green and the historic greater flexibility of Scottish matrimonial law as compared with that in England and Wales. Until 1987, in England and Wales one required parental consent to get married under 21. That was reduced to 18 in 1987, but no longer applies because since 2023 one cannot get married at all until one is 18.
I'll enter into the record here that, watching a few clips of his interviews with Bannon, Epstein does not seem to have had the most scintillating intellect or conversational skills(*). Something I might personally take into negative account when analyzing his appeal to elite circles, ie. he wasn't getting let in because of his insightful eloquence.
(*) He came off to me as an even lower-rent Edward de Bono. Not that guys like that are totally bereft of knowledge or insight(de Bono was way better educated than I am), but they often tend to pontificate on things they know little about. At one point, Epstein says that "people like Socrates didn't write anything down, they had other people write down what they said", and then when Bannon mentions that was true about Jesus as well, seems confused about the relevance of that.
Fundamental to this also, I suspect, the ability to convey these vibrations interpersonally to the target is surprisingly difficult for a third party to pick up.
That's hard to catch when you're watching a conversation. I've known some people who are truly boring in social settings, but are also amazing conversationalists because they'll really hear you. Maybe he was one of those. And he kept files on all the people he heard. Jerk.
I have, on probably about three different occasions, casually played the role of a social facilitator between disparate friends and groups of my standing acquaintance, some of whom, I am weirdly proud to say, are now better integrated into each other's orbits than I am.
That can be quite fun, and you don't really bother trying to put into practice any quid pro quo, everything just kinda mixes together. You introduce Jack to Jill and they start dating and get married and open a cafe but now they're divorced but they still own the cafe together and you only really see 'em at xmas anyhow but the cafe still makes some money for them and it's all great.
I'd imagine it's not much different among the jet set, probably even moreso(*). The fact that some of them engage in morally reprehensible behaviour wouldn't necessarily alter the basic social dynamic.
(*) Mandelson's letter in Epstein's birthday book described the endings of their various meet-ups as "He always leaves me with new and interesting friends." I suspect this was seen as a common feature of JE's social circle.
And be especially cautious in interpreting statements like "Wally MacWidget appears in the files 76 times." I know of at least one case where such a stat was being tossed around by the enemies of a certain politician, yet I think it's now pretty well-established that Epstein was advising his clients about how the policies of this politician would impact their financial situation, just like a zillion other in investment wizards do every day.
What the actual ever living fuck ?
By "link Gaddafi to Epstein", you mean he tried to put Gaddafi and Epstein in contact with one another?
He would still have known that Gaddafi was a piece of shit corrupt violent dictator implicated in the Lockerbie bombing in addition to all his other crimes. So in what universe does this official UK government envoy think it either his duty, or remotely appropriate, to set up contacts for Gaddafi so he can further enrich himself ?
Thanks.
(ETA link to article on the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher.)
It’s not unlike a US congress person on a trade delegation trying to hook up Osama Bin Laden with a sleazy British banker on the down low in exchange for a commission.
I believe that for a period between about 2003, when Gadaffi renounced his nuclear program, and 2011, when the US and its allies ousted him from power, it was considered at least semi-respectable to do business with the guy. Google "Gadaffi and Goldman Sachs" for an example of one such deal, albeit one that went south.
It was still pretty dodgy all around, the way Gadaffi's Libya went from a pariah terrorist-state to a semi-respectable friend of the west, and then back to an evil pariah state, all within less than a decade. Just that Mountbatten Windsor's actions might not be that singularly outta-bounds for their time and place.
Well, you can check The Guardian for...
The Royal Bank Of Scotland is included there, and I'm guessing they might have branches in or near Lockerbie.
Not saying any of this was particularly honourable(and obviously it did provoke some disapproval, at least in The Guardian), just that Mountbatten Windsor might not have been doing much different than what a lot of respectable businessmen were doing at the time. And possibly less, since it doesn't seem the planned meeting between Epstein and Gadaffi went ahead.
Yeah, the legal, and to some extent, political-philosophical issues are qualitatively different between the bank-Gadaffi situation and the Andrew-Gadaffi situation(*). I think I was thinking more sociologically.
I realize the "royal" in the name of the Scottish bank doesn't mean state ownership, but still, I'm assuming the ladies and gents who run that bank occupy positions at the pinnacle of professional legitimacy atop UK society. So MW or anybody else could probably be forgiven for thinking that investing in Libya was a basically respectable thing for a public institution to do.
(*) But serious question here, that might help clear some things up for me...
If it had been found, for example, that there was criminal jury-rigging on Pitch The Palace, would this have been an issue for Andrew as a private-sector businessman, the British state, or both?
Mea culpa, because if I'm understanding this correctly, wheress the banks were helping the Libyan government manage its wealth, Andrew was trying to hook Epstein up with Gadaffi for purposes of investing Gadaffi's private fortune.
Arguably makes a difference, since the Libyan government's return on its investment trickles down to its citizens in the form of services etc, whereas Gadaffi was trying to invest money for his own private benefit.
Still, the general respectability of Libya's government post-2003 might have been rubbing off somewhat on the leader personally.
Essentially there are three issues:
Firstly, when Andrew is acting in a private capacity - does he behave ethically / lawfully and if he does not, do our institutions hold him as accountable for that as anyone else behaving in the same way. (To which that answer is no, clearly, not - but the current scandal suggests society feels that he has moved way beyond the conventional unspoken limits of that situation.)
Secondly, does he trade on his position as a member of the royal family to make money - to an extent that people feel is unacceptable. So making a big deal of your title in a personal brand is fundamentally acceptable, if tacky; offering to invite someone for dinner with his Dad in exchange for a couple of thousand quid would not be. A somewhat related point, is whether as a member of the royal family being paid by the state - is he /was he doing enough work ie charitable work, recognition work (visiting, meeting people opening sites and events), diplomatic work at the request of the government (hosting heads of state royal tours etc). He ceased to be funded by the state in 2019 when he stepped down as a working royal - which was because of a scandal.
Thirdly, when he is fulfilling a public function is he / was doing that properly. He had two public functions - one was to do charitable/recognition/diplomatic work and the other was a specific appointment as a trade envoy, a clearly defined role with legal obligations.
Pitch at the palace was trading on the royal name in a way that would be seen as somewhat acceptable - even though he’d be acting in a private capacity - but if he ran it in a corrupt way that would have been an issue if it were publicly known. And if he committed a serious crime then the general public don’t want to be giving him money and don’t want him being an official representative of the state.
So Andrew has not been convicted of anything, but the public have become so angry about his conduct - that the state has reacted by stripping him of his titles and his publicly funded income, and his residence. So tax payers no longer directly pay for his lifestyle, and he no longer represents the state in any official way nor has any official status. The risk for the monarchy, and the government, is who knew what when - did either the royal family, the government or the security services cover up serious crimes on Andrew’s part. If the monarchy did this, it will undermine their legitimacy and support for a republic will grow.
What we know is:
Andrew’s conduct has been persistently unethical for decades - in ways that have both become more obvious and more out of whack with the zeitgeist over the years. He used to have some respect as someone who fought in the Falklands war but his later behaviour has pretty much eclipsed that.
Andrew is alleged to have committed sex offences - and information in the Epstein files contradicts public statements he previously made about his contact with Epstein. Being shown to have lied undermines the credibility of his denials.
Andrew was in contact with Epstein whilst he was a trade envoy, it appears he forwarded confidential government documents to private individuals including Epstein - the police are now investigating whether this constitutes misconduct in public office, which is a serious criminal offence that can carry a custodial sentence. Allegations relating to this are essentially the same as what is being alleged about Peter Mandelson - public office being used for private gain and without regard to, and sometimes detrimentally to, the national interest.
Trying to make Gaddafi, of all people, richer in the midst of this - is simply to add insult to injury.
This all matters constitutionally - because before Elizabeth II had grandchildren (and before the law on primogeniture was changed) had Charles had been struck by lightening or assassinated, Andrew would be our head of state. He crystallises for many people, all the disadvantages of a hereditary monarchy.
This week's Church Times has much sensible comment about Epstein, including from Angela Tilby, a regular columnist. Her words are wise and pertinent. But the text does include an unfortunate misprint, viz:
'Epstein understood the darker cravings of the human heart. Introductions to the powerful, the paying off of un¬ manageable debts, seductive “mas¬ sages”, the thrill of forbidden sex, glamour, and fame — Einstein provided it all. Faust-like, his moral compass was “what you will'.
I remember the thrill of learning about Einstein's theories and vision as a young student. Fortunately I missed out on the other horrid things he apparently could have given me.
It made me smile, anyway.
To our prayers!
But is it right that all those people get sacked on far less evidence? Or indeed, no evidence at all except an allegation?
Cancel culture.
Not really, in the sense that that term is usually used. Ward wasn't tossed out of establishment circles because they didn't like his political opinions, but(going by @Sojourner's telling of the events) because they found him a low-class lout.
Low-class lout? I think not.
I was an 1 year old in Oz ( before you were a spark in your old man’s eye) and it was clear even to a pre pubertal colonial like meself that Stephen Ward was “not one of us” to the fuckers who threw him under the bus.
The convicting judge’s summing up is worth a read; for pompous and self-righteousness nastiness it is hard to beat.
Okay. So, if PATP had been corrupt, it would have damaged the image of the monarchy, because of Andrew's separate role as a royal, but the British state wouldn't have been legally answerable for his crimes, because he was still just acting in his private capacity when hosting the show.
That's basically what I was wondering. Thanks.
At least Einstein is pronounced correctly.
Apologies for pedantry but it was Pitch@Palace
Notwithstanding that it was founded by a priapic buffoon it did actually achieve some good results. The idea behind it was sound, it was only marred by association with AM-W (rather like the Invictus Games and Harry, I fear).
This. And the bottom line is that the correct pronunciation of a person’s name is the pronunciation that person uses, even if that pronunciation isn’t standard or seems odd.
And yes, I have been told that I pronounce my name incorrectly, even though the pronunciation I use, and my family has always used, is the traditional pronunciation in the part of the US I’m from.
However, isn't the thing the ex-Duke of York is alleged to have done that is actually an offence the passing on of confidential financial and commercial state information to a foreigner to whom he should not have divulged them?
Or have I missed something in this long and complicated saga?
The link cited seems to be about something else, journalist outrage that he might not have told one of their number the truth. He was not in court. He had not been cautioned. He was not under oath. Beyond the general principle that one should not tell lies, does anyone really have any particular obligation to tell journalists the truth? Or, to some extent, when it comes to admitting things or not doing, are journalists fair game?
Fixed code: Dafyd Hell Host.
Secondly, Guiffrre alleged he sexually abused her - because she was not in a position to consent. The implication of the public concern about his long term association with Epstein is that, this is a the tip of a very unpleasant iceberg. The photos that have emerged of him on all fours over a woman lying on the ground have made such concerns even more salient.
@Enoch in general terms, what do you consider to be evidence of rape where physical violence has not occurred in addition to the sexual assault ?
Moreover:
A man he knew to be a convicted paedophile. Even if you happen to think it is ethical to act as a middle man for sex work - would he really think a rapist is likely to be procuring and organising the clients of sex workers in a lawful non-coercive way ? Is anybody that fucking stupid ? A man he knew to be content to rape children ?
Developing as I type
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/19/police-former-prince-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-sandringham
As @Hugal says, a developing story.
"I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office.
"What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities.
"In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation.
"Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.
"As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter.
"Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.
"Charles R."
Not much else he could say.
The late queen would have been devastated.
Must be nice, having law enforcement that enforces the law. All over Europe, heads are rolling, but here it's just business and rampant abuses of every kind as usual.
Well, he could have said "I didn't know what else to get my brother for his birthday, so I had him detained at my pleasure." It's always easier to deliver difficult news with humor.
Fair comment.
The case of Mr AM-W is now sub judice, so further comment from us in the UK is perhaps inappropriate, but it will be interesting to see what happens. Once again, it is the victims of these wretched people (whether AM-W is among them or not) who will suffer most.