Men, power, money and sex have throughout history been a combination often leading at least to unsavoury mess and perhaps depravity and tragedy: Epstein knew how to press the buttons and pull the strings and now we are seeing theatre playing out possibly for months and years unravelling the worst that this ancient combination has to offer.
Has any real public good been served by publication of the Epstein files by the U.S. Department of Justice? Is it not extraordinary for a judicial authority to disclose in public, not at trial, material gathered during investigation and which contains, they say, insufficient evidence to support prosecutions? In fact, of course, the millions of files disclosed so far have been redacted to protect victims and survivors, as people abused have been labelled, and to avoid harm to other so far innocent people, and other seemingly good judicial reasons. Other files have not been published at all. So, what is the public good which has been served?
AGENDAS AND BENEFIT
The files relate to the monstrous Epstein, who evidently abused dozens of children sexually and, allegedly, may have procured such children for third parties. But how does publication help those victims and their families get over the experience suffered? In some cases, their position has been worsened as the redaction process was imperfect and various names and pictures of victims were carelessly and wrongly released. Those victims and families still demand release of all other Epstein files. But in what other potentially criminal cases do the Police or other judicial authorities release all the background information including evidence they may want to use to get a conviction in court? Are Epstein’s victims entitled to some special rights which are not after all afforded to most victims of sex trafficking or abuse?
Politicians in the USA, Republican and Democrat, are using the association of public figures involved with Epstein (in no case yet involving known underage girls, using the UK 16 years as the age of consent) in order to destroy reputations and obtain advantage. Hardly beneficial to the public yet at least. Their aims advantage the victims not at all. Embarrassment of public/powerful figures is a by-product but is there really anything that unusual in hearing they may have been involved in paid for sex of some sort?
The media and others are pouring huge amounts of energy into analysis of hundreds of thousands of emails, videos and other records. Speculation as to who is guilty of what is rife and mere speculation not supported by real evidence can be most damaging. Are we at risk of again embracing trial by media, so often the tool these days to break public figures, whether fair or not? And geopolitical and existential events, wars and daily outrages of greater import than the Epstein crimes and especially dalliances by the likes of Clinton, Trump and Musk with Epstein, take second place to these files. Investigation to find the facts and then revelation of clear crimes can be justified but not the daily headlines which have taken over the media. The public will not be reading the files, but journalists and influencers will, and the public will be served up out of context quotes and summaries which reflect the agendas of the publishers, not the truth.
As the snowball effect of accumulated publicity takes hold, if there is a criminal case for any person to answer (and the Department of Justice, after all this time, seem to have found insufficient evidence), will it ever be possible for anyone to get a fair trial after they have been tried and sentenced by the media/public already?
A further corruption seems to be creeping in. Gislaine Maxwell refuses to testify to a U.S. congressional hearing, pleading the Fifth Amendment, a right to silence in criminal proceedings. That plea cannot be used as evidence of guilt. She is criticised widely for so pleading as if she is in the wrong: but this is her freedom. Lawyers for the victims accuse people who stay silent as supporting sex abusers: but that itself is an abuse. We all have a right to silence, like it or not, including Prince Andrew and Mandelson.
As far as the UK is concerned, Prince Andrew, before the recent disclosure of files, had become a pariah for his Epstein dealings and had lost any respect. That has been compounded by the new disclosures and maybe he will be found to have disclosed confidential information, which would be even more disgrace especially if there are criminal charges. But it is insignificant compared to the Epstein crimes of abuse and let’s face it other big things in the world, including the ongoing grooming scandals in the UK. Mandelson was known to be a liar and a cheat, but politicians and others still sought his advice. Would the true extent of the corruption that is Peter Mandelson have been discovered without the publication of the files? Probably no, but again, small beer really. More important is the fact of the Prime Minister’s poor judgement about that man but is not his poor judgement already well established; and this event is merely, with enough political agendas stoked by this news giving his enemies ammunition, a possibly final or near final nail in his credibility. That was but a question of time anyway.
LET’S REFOCUS
One can only hope the media get bored of the Epstein revelations. Where crime is found by the authorities, then the law should be applied. But is it not possible to stop the sleaze obsession which underlies interest in the associates of Epstein, because it is mostly about sexual liaison by the “elite”? As reporting is peppered with “allegedly” and legal disclaimers that merely knowing Epstein is no evidence of wrongdoing, and virtuous “our thoughts are with the victims”, perhaps greater energy could be exhibited for the dreadful slavery and sex trafficking and child abuse which is endemic in the UK and even more so in the USA. It is estimated that in the USA there are 300,000 cases a year of child commercial sexual exploitation (The Safe Home Project records). Epstein understood a simple, and surely well and widely appreciated, fact of history: the combination of men with power, money and sex, is a recipe for a lot of excess and the essence of this story is more of the same. He knew how to exploit this combination and seems to have been very attractive, and adept at leading men to the honeypots. Perhaps they suffered from the modern disease known as FOMO.
Reputations of well-known and influential men will be tarnished. They and their families may suffer humiliation, and their relationships may be seriously damaged. It is to be hoped that future wealthy and powerful men will learn a simple lesson about arrogance, decency and appropriateness.
Leave a Reply