United Kingdom

4061 readers

47 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

Met rejects calls to investigate Prince Andrew after release of Epstein files (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago by shish_mish@lemmy.world to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Devi@kbin.social 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Met aren't wrong here, the court documents have been released to the public, but they're not new information. He went to court over the one accusation, and if there was enough weight to the others he'd have gone over them too.

That's not to say any are untrue, just it needs significant evidence to convict someone in court, if that isn't there then there's nothing they can do.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

They need significant evidence to convict someone in court who is rich and powerful. They convict poor people with tenuous evidence all the time.

[–] Devi@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not exactly. It's much easier to convict poor people cause they can't afford a good defence, but even a bottom of the class law student can shoot down no evidence.

That's the issue with sexual assault in general, there's often no evidence just by the nature of the crime.

It's shitty for the victims, but I'm not sure how much it can be helped.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

That's why they charge you with absolutely everything they can think of, which would result in 20 years in prison for minor offenses, and then offer you a plea bargain where you plead guilty to the original charge without going to court. If they can't beat you with the evidence, then they'll try to beat you with intimidation and the risk of fighting them is monumental. People with money can afford attorneys that will get those frivolous additional charges dismissed before the trial even starts. The public defender is too underpaid, too overworked, and too friendly with the judge and prosecution to offer you such aid.

[–] Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk 19 points 9 months ago

Prince Andrew named in Epstein files. surprised pikachu.

Police reject calls to investigate. Surprised Pikachu!

Buckingham Palace declines to comment . SURPRISED PIKACHU!!!11!1!

[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 11 points 9 months ago

Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the documents as Andrew is no longer a working royal.

I would posit that all of them are pretty broken.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Metropolitan police has rejected calls to launch an investigation into Prince Andrew, after the release of court documents relating to the late child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The documents, unsealed in two batches by judge Loretta Preska, identify numerous Epstein associates, including Andrew, mentioned in proceedings of a case Giuffre filed against Ghislaine Maxwell in 2015.

The campaign group Republic, which reported Prince Andrew to the police on Thursday after the release of the documents, said it was dismayed by the Met’s decision.

In one newly unsealed witness statement, Johanna Sjoberg claimed Andrew groped her at Epstein’s house in New York in 2001 when she was aged 20, with Maxwell and Giuffre also present.

The duke stepped down from public life after the furore over his friendship with Epstein, and settled the sexual assault case filed against him by Giuffre for an undisclosed sum.

In a previous statement about links to Epstein, the palace said Andrew “deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent”.

The original article contains 544 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] byroon@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Don't investigate just send him straight to prison

[–] Biohazard@feddit.uk 1 points 9 months ago

Met are complicit. The highest politicians, the rich, the powerful, are pedos and they're protecting each other.