I mean, he was basically doing sex tourism with the people of the UK footing the bill - so yeah. That was obvious for a long time. Surprised that we're actually at the point when people are starting to get arrested, much less a defrocked royal. There are very obviously MANY people within the Epstein Files for which the files themselves provide abundant evidence of crimes.
@masek They got him on the *easy to prove* charge. Others may follow. I suspect he'll get the full Rolf Harris treatment, whenever the King needs to throw the proles another cookie.
@masek looking into "Misconduct on Public Office", there is a section about "abuse of position for a sexual purpose". Hopefully things can get expanded to that, even if they can't get him on sexual assault?
If he is convicted and jailed, would he be in with the general population, isolated for his own safety as is commonly done with sex offenders (“Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise”, as the possibly apocryphal acronym goes), or would he have the privilege of one of his residences being designated as a prison and little else changing?
I assume that the armed police guy was occupied on the phone with his boss when the arrest team came to the door in marked cars. And I bet he didn't get thrown in the back of a paddy wagon.
Trying to assemble a violin from raw gluons. The damned thing have no musical sense. But that's OK, neither do I.
@dgold If the King handles this properly (for PR values of "properly") it'll keep England a monarchy for at least another generation. (Scotland is already majority republican.)
@Uilebheist An odd desire, to keep the defrocked alleged sex criminal free, and lock up the best king we have had this century. Having made your desolation, let's call it peace.
I love that in the BBC report of the police statement, the police say that they are not naming the suspect and care should be taken by publications so as not to appear in contempt of court, immediately followed by the link you just posted in bold
Admittedly swift action over the Epstein business is the only way to save the British monarchy at this point in time. Anything Epstein is radioactive kryptonite to the King, and the monarchy was already in big trouble as the halo of deference conferred by his late mother's longevity dissipated. (*She* was a national institution and symbol of unity: he's just a stuffy old billionaire in a fancy hat.)
he wasn't arrested for pedophilia, though (and to shield myself from draconian English libel laws designed to shelter aristocrats from accountability, something he denies).
He was arrested for misconduct in office, i.e. leaking confidential government information to Epstein for insider trading purposes.
I am not so sure about the peril for the monarchy. Don't underestimate the resistance to change of the English. Even the Australians have not ditched Charles as head of state despite his direct involvement in the coup against the democratically elected prime minister in 1975 (his mother was also involved, but too canny to leave a paper trail, unlike dimwit Charles).
I really dislike the way the BBC keep calling him "Andrew". We are not on a first name basis. He's a shit. Don't make him familiar, call him by his full or last name.
It's one of the bad British things, assuming everyone is familiar and to some degree sympathetic to the royal family.
@axx I think that has more to do with how royalty works in Britain. The British royal family does not necessarily have a surname, they just use Mountbatten-Windsor when a surname is required. So for most of his life he was Prince Andrew (no surname needed) before he was stripped of his titles and becoming Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
And yes they should call him by his surname by now.
@kyonshi @axx I think a lot of people will go "Mountbatten-Winds-who?" as it's not a name people are used to (though it's showing up a lot more recently!) so they need to be clear who they're talking about.
I also have a memory there's some stuff in journalistic style guides about when you refer to people by first and last names; last name is possibly associated with having been convicted? (Not that sure on that one though!)
@passedwonder @kyonshi I'm not English, I didn't grow up with these characters really being part of my media landscape, but it didn't take me very long to understand that "the Royals = the Windsors / Windsor-Mountbattens". I think it says maybe more about the lack of historical knowledge or public education that the name of the ruling family isn't well-known.
It would be interesting to check the journalistic rule you suggest, because that rings no bell for me.
I am happy to hear that at least on your side of the Atlantic they are arresting pedophiles. It appears to me, here in the US the powers that be don’t give a shit.
@Charlie Stross You can tell how pissed off a public officials peers are when a government actually prosecutes one of its insiders for "misconduct in public office"! Now if only they'd go after the other tens of thousands...
Seems it's the leaking of confidential commercial/economic info to Epstein et al that got him banged up, not the trafficked/underage Epstein girls or the callgirls in the Palace and orgies while travelling OS on government business. No surprises there.
Charles might want to follow the example of Philippe II of Orléans, regent of France during Louis XV's minority.
When one of his cousins, Count Antoine-Joseph of Hornes, a wastrel with gambling debts, was arrested for robbery and murder, the regent had him condemned to a commoner's execution by breaking on the wheel (as opposed to beheading), despite pleas for clemency or at least a less shameful death by the aristocracy. He is said to have uttered (probably apocryphally) "when I have bad blood, I have it drawn by a leech".
Sure it sucks that fascists took over the country, but on the other hand, imagine the fun when their figurehead Donald Trump has his Mussolini moment, and his body is dragged through the streets of New York behind a car until utterly obliterated!
Hot Take: Predictive text suggestions have influenced human thinking with it's suggestions for years. Turns out, the AIs were programming us to see them as useful tools, rather than existential threats!
Okay, I am fine with disagreeing on topics. Let us keep this honest though. As predictive text solutions have been around for far longer than AI and does not have its roots in AI. Think Tree Sitter for instance. I would also not call a Science that has saved hundreds of millions of lives and increased the quality of so many more lives an existential threat.
So many people today want to point out how unregulated corporations are using AI in an inappropriate way but fail to mention that the issue is unregulated corporations and not the technology (AI).
I have worked with and on AI since the 80's, yes I am a new comer to an old science, long before artificial neural networks were a reality and were just a mathematical hypotheses yet to be implemented. I have seen AI grow in areas of Medicine, Driver Assistance (adaptive speed control, collision detection and warning systems to parallel parking) Traffic Control Syst
Okay, I am fine with disagreeing on topics. Let us keep this honest though. As predictive text solutions have been around for far longer than AI and does not have its roots in AI. Think Tree Sitter for instance. I would also not call a Science that has saved hundreds of millions of lives and increased the quality of so many more lives an existential threat.
So many people today want to point out how unregulated corporations are using AI in an inappropriate way but fail to mention that the issue is unregulated corporations and not the technology (AI).
I have worked with and on AI since the 80's, yes I am a new comer to an old science, long before artificial neural networks were a reality and were just a mathematical hypotheses yet to be implemented. I have seen AI grow in areas of Medicine, Driver Assistance (adaptive speed control, collision detection and warning systems to parallel parking) Traffic Control System and so much more.
It is not a bad technology, it is being used poorly by unfettered capitalists that continue to go unregulated. Though people are not up in arms about the unregulated corporations misuse of one of our greatest technologies of the century, they are up in arms about the technology itself that they do not understand. I call it the Isaac Asimov syndrome (actually I just made that up).
You are a great guy based on what I have heard from you and appear, from what I have seen, to be a committed engineer. Yet, I strongly disagree with your stated issues with AI as I find them misplaced. Fire has burned down cities and kept people alive by its warmth. We should not judge a technology by its misuse or by its success when use appropriately. We should judge it by its own virtues or lack of them. I am sorry to see that you do not appear to believe that.
If something really needs fixing it is our policy of letting unfettered capitalism running amuk and our corporations having no realistic regulations.
@Unus Nemo Well, a) it was in jest (you know, like there's an AI conspiracy, and they're controlling everything?), but OK? and b) you are incorrect.
I too have worked with AI, and in particular neural network simulations, also since the 1980s. The alignment problem has not been solved, and if we go on this way, we will likely soon all succumb to one paperclip maximizer or other!
I am glad to hear you were just kidding . I will continue to agree to disagree on AI being broken. Do we have room for further improvement, yes, Is AI intrinsically and fundamentally broken, no.
I believe that those of us actually working on AI and not Chatbots are making a lot of significant improvements.
@Unus Nemo I don't think I could even *spell* LISP any more! Left that behind in the early 90s and went more into Artificial KindaSmart systems, where we do the "learning". Something like expert systems, but for highly discriminating industrial decision systems...
Tech Support: Now log into your google account. Me: I don't have a google account. TS: Yes, OK, so you need to log in to Google. Me: No, I don't have a Google account to log in to. TS: Please follow this link and sign in. Me: OK, I followed the link. What do you want me to enter for username and password? Ts: Please use your Google account. Me: I DO NOT HAVE A GOOGLE ACCOUNT! I did not have one before. I do not have one now. No logging in to Google has ever occurred, BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE A GOOGLE ACCOUNT. TS: I don't understand. Me: I know...
According to a call full of men who apparently all have college degrees, we have to both track a particular kind of process and also *NOT* track that kind of a process...
Now comes the two-hour process of explaining to both schools of thought that they are *both* wrong!
@Ivan Excellent victim-blaming! "Sure, our storm-troopers kidnapped a little kid to use as bait for their bad parent, but their terrified parents ran away, so it's their fault we have to be monsters!"
"Members of the Assembly Transportation Committee are very interested in regulating e-bikes, but don't fully grasp what the devices are, let alone understand existing legislation that already governs their use."
"Federal immigration agents bashed open a door and detained a U.S. citizen in his Minnesota home at gunpoint without a warrant, then led him out onto the streets in his underwear in subfreezing conditions, according to his family and videos reviewed by The Associated Press."
"Our officers know what the Constitution is, they know what right and wrong is, and they know when people are being targeted, and that's what they were."
I take this statement very seriously. I mean, if *anyone* knows what targeting people of color looks like, it sure as hell is the cops!
Brooklyn Park Police Chief Mark Bruley revealed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been pulling guns on off-duty officers of color while illegally demanding their citizenship papers.
Given the recent explosion in numbers of innocent citizens murdered by those who purport to be government in places like Iran, West Africa, Isreal, and Michigan, I wonder: Do the anti-gun nuts still think normal, innocent people shouldn't have any way to defend themselves?
Do you really think that ICE could possibly be this nonchalant about violating citizens' rights in a city with 80-90% gun ownership?
In case you were wondering how bad a dystopian corpo-police state the US has become, my metropolitan area has less than 200,000 people, and this is what its map looks like just for the License Plate Cameras from one corporation!
Your phone spies on you. Your computer spies on you. Your TV spies on you. Your "assistant" spies on you. Your fucking vacuum robot and refrigerator spy on you! Sure there are technical solutions for many, but are *you* sure you caught them all? I'm sure as hell not!
Maybe encrypted mesh networks will work, I dunno... But if we don't stop this soon, we'll all exist in a dynamic hellscape designed to forcibly squeeze every last bit of money, attention, information, and life out of you!
You’ve seen the footage. ICE Agents demand she gets out of the car. She accelerates the SUV. Shots fire, and within hours, the internet decides the verdict. ...
"When officers are vilified, demonized, or used as political props, it fuels hostility, emboldens bad actors, and puts lives directly at risk." - Cool. Cool. And also, when officers do insane fucking things that anyone who isn't *trying* to excuse them can see, and people die or get permanently injured, that also puts lives directly at risk. But hey, I get it. The blue fraternity only actually gives a shit about officers. The rest is just a job
The East Wing was over a bunker. Excavation took way too long for the job. They switched to a "hardened infrastructure" architect during construction. The contractors are the ones who built underground datacenters in Israel...
I've had a bit of a realization. If the Trump regime has decided the "antifa" kids are their mortal enemy, and the antifa kids stand against fascism, what does that mean the regime think of themselves as?
The Trump regime has declared themselves immune to prosecution for any law-breaking. They now have no controls at all on their behavior, paving the way for the inevitable fascist government they've been trying to build.
Why do the worst people always look like just an average Joe? This murderous prick could be the Dad of one of my kids' friends, and I'd never have given him a second thought. Monsters need to come with signs...
I do not believe it should even be an option to not make public the actions of any officer. Except during investigation, after that it should all be fully accessible for review by any citizen.
Listen, America, after reading the Donald's latest remarks about how he plans to cancel elections and rewrite the Constitution, I've come to a realization. In 10 years, this disrespectful jackass will be dead, one way or another. The only real question left is whether the men standing over his grave are giving it a NAZI salute, or pissing on it. If you dumbfucks decide to wake up and make the right choice, give me a call. I'll drink a couple of 2-liters of Mountain Dew on the ride over....
I have read that there are 9 or more instances just like this in the last physical year. This is not a new level of violence for them, it is their status quo. In fact the officer in question that murdered (in my opinion) this innocent lady also murdered (in my opinion) another victim in Chicago recently.
note: Be advised I have not fact checked this. There could be more or less events I am unaware of.
Twenty-five years ago, when Republicans *and* Democrats were panickedly calling for passage of the completely unpatriotic "Patriot Act", I warned them. I railed against them for voting for a bill they hadn't read. I showed them the text where it was mostly taking away our civil liberties and privacy, but not actually doing anything to protect us.
The worst thing it did was define terrorism as breaking *ANY LAW AT ALL* with the intent of influencing the public. Any law. Intent. Stop and think, I said, how easily a lawyer or law officer could use any random facts about you to establish "intent", not even for protesting (which PS, is defined as terrorism if you litter or commit any other trivial offence while doing it, because you're trying to influence the public), but for literally anything, like jaywalking.
Well, congratulations, Republicans and Democrats, here we are:
As she drove away from ICE officers, she "weaponised her car" in a "domestic terror attack", Noem said.
... Show more...
Twenty-five years ago, when Republicans *and* Democrats were panickedly calling for passage of the completely unpatriotic "Patriot Act", I warned them. I railed against them for voting for a bill they hadn't read. I showed them the text where it was mostly taking away our civil liberties and privacy, but not actually doing anything to protect us.
The worst thing it did was define terrorism as breaking *ANY LAW AT ALL* with the intent of influencing the public. Any law. Intent. Stop and think, I said, how easily a lawyer or law officer could use any random facts about you to establish "intent", not even for protesting (which PS, is defined as terrorism if you litter or commit any other trivial offence while doing it, because you're trying to influence the public), but for literally anything, like jaywalking.
Well, congratulations, Republicans and Democrats, here we are:
As she drove away from ICE officers, she "weaponised her car" in a "domestic terror attack", Noem said.
You know, when all those assassins failed to murder Trump, I thought it was for the best, what with murder being wrong and all. I'm beginning ro realize that the turmoil might have been worth it, if it meant we wouldn't have to live under this fascist dictator...
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.
In which the ignorant weasel in charge decides to eliminate actual heroes to prevent comparison, then does it the stupidest way possible as publicly as possible...
Pete Hegseth cuts the pension and strips Senator Mark Kelly of his military rank, because he — a democrat— had the audacity to disagree with the Trump regime.
A hacker known as Martha Root broke in and deleted three white supremacists websites at the end of a talk during the annual hacker conference Chaos Communication Congress in Germany.
Madeleine Morris
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Oh dear!
Well, better late than never.
Infoseepage
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •AlexTECPlayz
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Martin Seeger
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Charlie Stross
in reply to Martin Seeger • • •Martin Seeger
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Frank Endrullat 🌻
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Darwin Woodka
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •@masek
Really here in the US if any of this ever gets prosecuted we might end up RICOing the lot of 'em.
This account no longer exists.
in reply to Martin Seeger • • •@masek
That is Trump’s biggest concern, losing the wealth?
He can just declare sex scandal as unreal.
Ever since they got Capone.
Jess Fairbairn
in reply to Martin Seeger • • •@masek looking into "Misconduct on Public Office", there is a section about "abuse of position for a sexual purpose". Hopefully things can get expanded to that, even if they can't get him on sexual assault?
cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidanc…
J. Kathleen Cheney
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •acb
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •HighlandLawyer
in reply to acb • • •His Former Majesty's Prison Sandringham?
Dulce Maria (she/her)
in reply to acb • • •Sander
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Deborah Preuss, pcc 🇨🇦
in reply to Sander • • •WellsiteGeo
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •I assume that the armed police guy was occupied on the phone with his boss when the arrest team came to the door in marked cars.
And I bet he didn't get thrown in the back of a paddy wagon.
Trying to assemble a violin from raw gluons. The damned thing have no musical sense. But that's OK, neither do I.
Greem (Graeme. Not Graham!)
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •EevaXTiina
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Nibor4000 🇬🇧 Ⓥ
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Tristan Colgate-McFarlane
in reply to Nibor4000 🇬🇧 Ⓥ • • •Jonny Bradford
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Steinar Bang
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •The case of the Crown vs Andrew Mountbatton-Windsor...?
Interesting times!
Charlie Stross
Unknown parent • • •Dave🏳️🌈
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •J.J.Fux 1660-1741
in reply to Dave🏳️🌈 • • •Linza
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •GF493D
in reply to Linza • • •Charlie Stross
in reply to GF493D • • •GF493D
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Uilebheist
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •MidgePhoto
in reply to Uilebheist • • •An odd desire, to keep the defrocked alleged sex criminal free, and lock up the best king we have had this century.
Having made your desolation, let's call it peace.
J.J.Fux 1660-1741
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •I bet he's sweating now. 🤣
Bloognoo
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Colin
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Charlie Stross
in reply to Colin • • •@abstractcode
Both.
Admittedly swift action over the Epstein business is the only way to save the British monarchy at this point in time. Anything Epstein is radioactive kryptonite to the King, and the monarchy was already in big trouble as the halo of deference conferred by his late mother's longevity dissipated. (*She* was a national institution and symbol of unity: he's just a stuffy old billionaire in a fancy hat.)
Tony Fisk
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •@abstractcode
Look, give him another sixty years and he'll be an equally hallowed institution.
... and a serious concern to those wondering how he's still going.
Fazal Majid
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •he wasn't arrested for pedophilia, though (and to shield myself from draconian English libel laws designed to shelter aristocrats from accountability, something he denies).
He was arrested for misconduct in office, i.e. leaking confidential government information to Epstein for insider trading purposes.
I am not so sure about the peril for the monarchy. Don't underestimate the resistance to change of the English. Even the Australians have not ditched Charles as head of state despite his direct involvement in the coup against the democratically elected prime minister in 1975 (his mother was also involved, but too canny to leave a paper trail, unlike dimwit Charles).
Adrian Howard
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •James Henstridge
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •αxel simon ↙︎↙︎↙︎
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •I really dislike the way the BBC keep calling him "Andrew". We are not on a first name basis. He's a shit. Don't make him familiar, call him by his full or last name.
It's one of the bad British things, assuming everyone is familiar and to some degree sympathetic to the royal family.
not a martian, honest
in reply to αxel simon ↙︎↙︎↙︎ • • •@axx I think that has more to do with how royalty works in Britain. The British royal family does not necessarily have a surname, they just use Mountbatten-Windsor when a surname is required. So for most of his life he was Prince Andrew (no surname needed) before he was stripped of his titles and becoming Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
And yes they should call him by his surname by now.
Passed Wonder
in reply to not a martian, honest • • •@kyonshi @axx
I think a lot of people will go "Mountbatten-Winds-who?" as it's not a name people are used to (though it's showing up a lot more recently!) so they need to be clear who they're talking about.
I also have a memory there's some stuff in journalistic style guides about when you refer to people by first and last names; last name is possibly associated with having been convicted? (Not that sure on that one though!)
αxel simon ↙︎↙︎↙︎
in reply to Passed Wonder • • •@passedwonder @kyonshi I'm not English, I didn't grow up with these characters really being part of my media landscape, but it didn't take me very long to understand that "the Royals = the Windsors / Windsor-Mountbattens". I think it says maybe more about the lack of historical knowledge or public education that the name of the ruling family isn't well-known.
It would be interesting to check the journalistic rule you suggest, because that rings no bell for me.
Charlie Stross
in reply to αxel simon ↙︎↙︎↙︎ • • •αxel simon ↙︎↙︎↙︎
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •joat
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Elon Musk 🚀
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •How are you doing today hope you’re feeling well and your family? You are having a direct text from Elon.
Jess Fairbairn
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Duke
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Landa
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •So, will he be the first Mountbatten to reside in the tower?
@cstross
TheOneSwit
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Everyday Cyborg
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Piers Cawley
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Graeme 🏴
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •eighthourlunch
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Sheila
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Blaise
in reply to Charlie Stross • •like this
Cainmark Does Not Comply 🚲 and diana 🏳️⚧️🦋🌱 like this.
Cainmark Does Not Comply 🚲 reshared this.
Cress
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •OMG, what if he goes to Wormwood Scrubs!
I bet Charlie is thinking thank god he got him out of his circle when he did.
So ironic Fergie is in the files too.
Lets see how UK justice system works on this, the Judge will have some dinner stories after this.
Killa Koala
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Fazal Majid
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Charles might want to follow the example of Philippe II of Orléans, regent of France during Louis XV's minority.
When one of his cousins, Count Antoine-Joseph of Hornes, a wastrel with gambling debts, was arrested for robbery and murder, the regent had him condemned to a commoner's execution by breaking on the wheel (as opposed to beheading), despite pleas for clemency or at least a less shameful death by the aristocracy. He is said to have uttered (probably apocryphally) "when I have bad blood, I have it drawn by a leech".
chuckdude
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •deedlebaum
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Cleethorpes Info Bot
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •