LBFseBrom
would you care to lay out in detail in what particular way Lownie’s book Entitled is scurrilous please?
Lownie didn’t set out to write a book that was filled with of scandal; he wrote about his conclusions following four years of meticulous, rigorous, research, relying on court papers, freedom of information disclosures, ex-staffers and correspondence. Virtually every reviewer has praised Lownie’s thorough methodology. Others described it as “lawyerly” and “convincing” .
He not only laid out in forensic detail AMW’s greedy exploitation of his official role and others, including vulnerable women, for own private gain and pleasure, and the details of AMW’s relationship with Epstein, which went on a lot longer than AMW admitted to in the BBC interview, he set the entire story of AMW’s and SF’s extraordinary greed and entitlement against a background of a wider cover up and institutional decay.
I think what AL discovered was a shock, even to him!
And when the Epstein files were released a short while after publication, they backed up virtually every single detail that Lownie has set out in Entitled.
I simply cannot understand how and why intelligent people are still trying to deny Lownie’s credibility and findings and are still choosing to believe the BP spun versions of these narratives?
Is it out of deference and a mistaken belief that holding some members of the RF to account over their nefarious actions somehow damages the UK?
To me the absolutely opposite is true. If you want a strong group of countries that is respected across the world, then one of it’s most powerful institutions needs to be trustworthy and credible first and foremost, and operate on a basis of accountability and transparency.