14 minutes ago, JAG said:

Sympathy, or rather lack of it is one thing

Being able to prove criminal behaviour, "beyond reasonable doubt" is another.

Donkeys years ago (1994?) I spent some time socialising (drinking) with the officers of the ship he commanded (HMS Cottesmore) in Campbeltown. If you have ever been to Campbeltown in September you will understand that there is little else to do! Arrogant, entitled, incompetent, rude sleazeball is a pretty accurate summary of their opinion of him as well!

The government/ navy allowed him to command a ship?🤦😱

Had it been regular Mr Joe Soap or Mrs John Doe,would they have been released so soon ?

8 hours ago, mfd101 said:

I don't think Starmer has any say in what the police & other law enforcement entities decide to pursue and prosecute. That's rather the point of modern democratic legal systems, is it not? (which of course excludes - or should exclude - the USofA).

Yes, on paper the police are supposed to be independent from the government. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. The PMO and UK Government most certainly has a say, and unfortunately an undue influence. The pursuit of social media commentators demonstrates this. The government enacted legislation that gave the police the undue power to pursue social commentators. It was the PMO and its ministers who stated that action would be taken. The PMO can tell the Home Office Secretary to focus on certain activities. Doesn't the Home Secretary appoint the head constables? Please do not tell me that the police services came up with the idea of pursuing people who posted comments on social media on its own. The government sets criminal justice priorities including prosecution priorities, and the social media file was given top priority, while the machete/knife wielding thugs were not. The one handed approach to policing of public demonstrations is a result of the Home Office making its positions known and the prosecutions office letting the police know that it did not consider pursuing the pro Hamas protestors who violated multiple laws worth an effort.

8 hours ago, RayC said:

The government/ navy allowed him to command a ship?🤦😱

It was quite a small ( Hunt class Minehunter) ship. The First Lieutenant ( second in command) was an unusually senior and experienced officer for that post - AMW was away on "Royal Duties" a lot of the time, and of course could not be allowed to get things seriously wrong.

To be fair, he had been through Dartmouth, trained as a helicopter pilot, fought in the Falklands War as such, and completed the normal career progression of a Naval Officer up until that point.

19 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

The testimony of the victims. Of course, it would need to be proved in a court of law ("he said / she said") but some of the emails released in the files tend to back up Giuffre and other victims.

Age of consent in the UK is ..... 16.

21 hours ago, mfd101 said:

The arrest - as first presented a day or so ago - related (or was said to relate) to his transmitting government trade information to Epstein, NOT matters sexual.

Probably sensible for people to keep the 2 issues separate in their minds. They have potentially very different legal implications.

Mandelson, Blair, Starmer all the same offences, sexual and secrets.

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Mandelson, Blair, Starmer all the same offences, sexual and secrets.

What offences have any of them been charged with in a court of law?