I saw this the other day and was looking for discussions elsewhere than reddit, but wherever it's mentioned, his death is correlated to his being a whistleblower. Is there any original reporting validating any of that?
I'm unsure exactly which claims you want validated, but BBC seems to have the relevant facts:
>Andriesz's family said he had taken his own life on 23 September, and that there was no suggestion of foul play. ...
>Weeks before his death, Andriesz told a public event led by MPs, whistleblowers and campaigners calling for fairer regulation that he felt "thoroughly let down" and had been put through "absolute hell" by the [Financial Conduct Authority], to whom he had sent evidence of what he regarded as whistleblower retaliation by [his former employer previously run by Lutnick] BGC and its lawyers.
>The FCA had previously told Andriesz there was "insufficient evidence" to conclude there had been retaliation, a conclusion he believed made it harder to win a claim against BGC at tribunal.
Unsure personally, but I dont really care either. Given current handling and behaviour fron the elite surrounding the files, I'm personally treating any accusation as true until thorough credible evidence emerges proving innocence.
There's a lot of power and resources going onto covering things up and undermining real and sound evidence reguarding a real and well documented criminal network that permeates into every level of our power structure. So, we cannot afford to dismiss anything, with or even without evidence, no? I know that's unusual, but guilty until proven innocent only works when the artibtration system itself isn't conpromised and is itself not party to guilt.
Given everything we've seen to date in relation to the epstine files, people killed to hush things, coverup efforts, especially the botched ones we have proof for, it does paint a pretty clear picture which supports murder of the whistleblower being a very credible accusation.
It is my position that if you hold any power or influence, you're immediatly guilty and complicit. Even if publically vocally against the powerstructures most heavily implicated. We know those guilty own or contorl all major platforms and they have a vested interest in only promiting / allowing those complicit to wield influence.
I saw this the other day and was looking for discussions elsewhere than reddit, but wherever it's mentioned, his death is correlated to his being a whistleblower. Is there any original reporting validating any of that?
I'm unsure exactly which claims you want validated, but BBC seems to have the relevant facts:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwm2686gl6knoUnsure personally, but I dont really care either. Given current handling and behaviour fron the elite surrounding the files, I'm personally treating any accusation as true until thorough credible evidence emerges proving innocence.
There's a lot of power and resources going onto covering things up and undermining real and sound evidence reguarding a real and well documented criminal network that permeates into every level of our power structure. So, we cannot afford to dismiss anything, with or even without evidence, no? I know that's unusual, but guilty until proven innocent only works when the artibtration system itself isn't conpromised and is itself not party to guilt.
Given everything we've seen to date in relation to the epstine files, people killed to hush things, coverup efforts, especially the botched ones we have proof for, it does paint a pretty clear picture which supports murder of the whistleblower being a very credible accusation.
It is my position that if you hold any power or influence, you're immediatly guilty and complicit. Even if publically vocally against the powerstructures most heavily implicated. We know those guilty own or contorl all major platforms and they have a vested interest in only promiting / allowing those complicit to wield influence.
Amen.
With power comes complicity.
I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
too much Implying