World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Counterpoint to that: assume I'm Andrew and only care about my legacy. I don't think that applies to Andrew; I think that, while he's alive, he wants to be out of the spotlight, as unaffiliated with this as possible, not to be prosecuted, and not to potentially piss off old Epstein buddies who might have deeper dirt on him. But assume.
If I do nothing, I'll be a footnote in the history books. People will most often see me on some list devoid of context as part of the royal family. My crimes will be explored in as much depth as possible in any extensive biography, but who's really going to be reading one of those? And to the extent they do, surely there's some room for an overly skeptical person to doubt it. Meanwhile, my name is going to be overshadowed by other figures like Trump for anyone reading history about the Epstein case.
If I confess, then Epstein is not only the absolute foremost thing I'll be remembered for, but my name is going to come up at the top of and all over any account of what's easily going to be one of the most scandalous criminal conspiracies of the 21st century. Even the dumbest, most overly skeptical idiot won't be able to deny my involvement – of which I'm sure I'm going to have to go into gruesome specifics under oath to be permanently documented. Sure, maybe the five people who read a biography about me might see how I stood up and brought down the conspiracy and think, "Wow, he sure was slightly less of a monster for doing that!", but the reality is that I'm probably making it much worse for the incurious general public who would otherwise, at best, see and forget me.
Probably not. Without any investigation it will all be speculation. Biographies are written for a commercial audience. Who's going to buy a biography of Andrew? People who like the royals, not people who hate them. If he'd actually appeared in court, the biography would have to address it. But, with it all just speculation, they can mention the speculation and move on.
It's possible that some of the people who met with Epstein did it because they knew he could introduce them to other rich and powerful people. They might not have known about the child sexual abuse. Or they suspected something, but thought that Epstein was always seen with barely legal 18-year-olds, and that that was the extent of it.
I personally don't think that Epstein introduced himself to billionaires by saying "Hi, I'm Jeff Epstein, I rape children, are you interested in raping children too?" I don't believe that being a billionaire automatically means you not only enjoy raping children, but are excited to share that hobby with other people. Epstein probably sounded them out, investigated them, and only went into details with the ones who weren't going to expose him. And, most likely, he got blackmail material on anybody who he did share his "hobby" with. He probably kept anybody who he thought might expose him at arms length, and he only let them see him with girls who were 18+.
So, while that plausible deniability exists, I'm sure Andrew wants to be able to claim that he was buddies with Epstein, but was so clueless that he never knew about the child sexual abuse.
He's also got a wife and kids who are high profile, his selfishness will extend to them, he wants them to be able to have legacies too or else he's going to die hated by the few people who still love him. Sarah is absolutely telling him not to go even near an open window right now, stay in the dark for the rest of time. He seems to actually listen to her a bit, too.
She's in the files too. Little doubt she knew what was going on, and yet she chose not only to not speak out, but she profited from Epstein money and contacts. She might as well have been holding the girls down. Inaction is a chosen course of action and all who knew and did nothing are guilty.