Holy shit:

[bloognoo@retro.pizza]

@cstross

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

[cstross@wandering.shop]

@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.)

[adrianh@mastodon.social]

@cstross <nods> The _in custody_ was the bit that most surprised me most earlier

[axx@mstdn.fr]

@cstross 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.

[deborahh@cosocial.ca]

@Klassika @cstross they'd have to append "alleged" which dulls the vibe.

[deborahh@cosocial.ca]

@GF493D body-shaming? Blocked.

[klassika@mastodon.social]

@deborahh
I know about libel, but they don’t need to use positive adjectives either

[jessfairbairn@aoir.social]

@cstross woah. I feel like this would not have happened before the Queen's death, which is depressing.

[http_error_418@hachyderm.io]

@Photo55 @Uilebheist let's not get our wires crossed, it's perfectly possible to arrest the corrupt sex criminal aristocrats for crimes and to depose and dissolve the monarchy for being unethical by its very existence even if the monarch himself is not a corrupt sex criminal

[dukeduke@mastodon.social]

@cstross I needed a good chuckle to start my day, thanks!

[kyonshi@dice.camp]

@axx @cstross 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.

[theoneswit@det.social]

@cstross

happy 66 birthday

[jessfairbairn@aoir.social]

@masek @cstross 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?

Misconduct in Public Office | The Crown Prosecution Service

(www.cps.gov.uk)

[masek@infosec.exchange]

@JessFairbairn Thank you, didn't know that. I surely hope they'll get him on that one.

@cstross

[digitalraven@retro.pizza]

@cstross There he was worrying he'd be alone on his birthday

[dulcemaria@toot.community]

@acb @cstross why not use the Tower!?

[pdcawley@mendeddrum.org]

@cstross wonder who he’s going to grass up in a desperate attempt to plea bargain?

[woodsbythesea@hachyderm.io]

@cstross @abstractcode A lot of distancing going on in Charles' statement - formally calling him Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, and the final paragraph at the end re "my family".

[pa27@mastodon.social]

@cstross About time. Now for the rest of them??

[eighthourlunch@mastodon.social]

@cstross I hope he squeals like the pig he is.