How is it vague? If you mean by not saying 'Prince Andrew', that's because he's already been stripped of that title.

Former prince. And t's not purposefully vague, the article explicitly says "It comes after Thames Valley Police said they were assessing a complaint over the alleged sharing of confidential material by the former prince with late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein"

Is email evidence of misconduct in high office suitably "tech"?

https://jmail.world/thread/vol00009-efta00751685-pdf?view=in...

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA007516...

1 - Assume it was decades ago. That I've heard, a fair number of the released emails mentioned Jeff's 2008 conviction. But to paraphrase Leona Helmsley, "only the little people need to follow laws". That attitude seems to be very common in the emails.

2 - Isn't it convenient that zero major news organizations - controlled by high profile people and their buddies - are raising that issue? Not that I believe there to be any public support for competent & systematic enforcement of the laws against such behavior. That I've heard of, nobody even cares about how Jeff got off with a slap on the wrist in 2008.

I also kinda have the question of: Who is the new Jeffrey Epstein?

Nature abhors a vacuum, and it seems the space that Epstein filled was large and branching and significantly profitable (in money, information, and influence). There's no way there isn't at least one other person that's started to fill the void.

Ideally, the ramifications of association with Epstein should shrink the size of the vacuum considerably, but the pursuit of those associates has really only just started and, as someone else has already pointed out, some countries / governments are protecting these associates rather than investigating / prosecuting. As such, there's not much discouragement yet.

They got Al Capone on tax fraud

I think there is a lot more of this story to play out ...

Still seems to be lots more to play out.

Example - Why all the supposed "...rich and powerful names ...." being seemingly protected ?

What do they have to hide ?

The thing about a lot of monarchical powers in the UK is that the monarch gets to keep them, provided of course that they only ever use them as prescribed by the government. As to what happens otherwise, well, Charles III won't want to emulate Charles I.

(I'm kind of amazed he chose that name, tbh; it's not particularly uncommon for British monarchs to rename themselves on taking the throne, and it has... baggage.)