To wonder what happens if the police DON'T bring charges

If they can't find enough evidence they won't. If they can they will, that's it.

It was all quite a few years ago so how many records he still has is uncertain, if he was taking actual bribes his bank records may be interesting, if it was all favours and freebies it will be more difficult to prove.

His titles were stripped before any arrest.

It’s not defamatory to report that someone has been arrested and why.

Even if it was defamatory; why would someone who presumably wants all this to go away, then drag his dirty linen through the courts, with all the attendant publicity and scrutiny?

He’s not skint in the sense you mean.

Whatever happens, Andrew is and always will be, an arrogant entitled bully. His behaviour is well known to anyone who has ever crossed paths with him. He has done it to himself Im afraid and whether or not he is actually charged, nobody will now want to be associated with him

One thing that this affair has clearly demonstrated, and hopefully future governments will take on board, is that making individuals trade envoys or ambassadors representing the UK, when they do not have 20 years professional diplomatic experience is beyond stupid and must stop.

It wasn't just Epstein though was it. Many rich and powerful people involved. And she was a mother. It's quite unusual for a mother to commit suicide.

Perhaps it is but I believe it is a possibility. This wasn't just Epstein that did these terrible things it's a network of the rich and powerful

I think it's similar to what they are investigating Mandelson for, though he hasn't been arrested, they did search his homes and take away stuff though.

But this has nothing to do with her. He was arrested specifically for passing on State classified documents (to a serving paedophile) whilst working for the government as a Trade Ambassador. Misconduct in Public Office.

This was all done before his arrest though.

I think the significant thing is that the police get to seize his computers.

If they have done that and still can’t find enough for CPS to charge then maybe there is less to this than it seems.

I suspect however that they will find lots more to substantiate a Misconduct in Public Office charge.

It’s going to be politically very tricky though if it goes to trial as much more may come out in his defence. Yet declining to charge would be controversial too.

If the CPS decide there is not the reasonable prospect of a conviction and so no further action is taken on the particular charge, that does not stop other actions. The removal of his place in the line of succession will happen, more a case of when, and probably also the formal removal of all titles.

No. I think a severely traumatised woman was facing a very difficult home life after years of dealing with a brutal international press, and simply couldn't face the future any more. There was nothing to be gained by her murder, the secrecy around the Epstein affair was already crumbling and other women were coming forward.

The same as with anyone else who is arrested under suspicion.
The police will investigate, they compile evidence and then pass it to the Crown prosecution service who will decide whether to bring charges or not.
His arrest can work in AMW's favour in two ways. 1. Now there is an active police investigation, all public speculation in the media must stop or it risks jeopardising the fairness of a future trial. (And of course it won't stop) and secondly, if the CPS decide there is insufficient evidence to proceed, AMW might spend the next 20 years bringing law suits for defamation. It would give him an income and something to do.
Remember also that the CPS must decide whether prosecution is "in the public interest" which will be an interesting one for the lawyers to ponder, both from a security point of view and taking damage to the reputation of the crown into account.

What a ghoulish thing to say about a poor woman who'd been trafficked and abused.

I was listening to a podcast yesterday, a lawyer was saying that it's not easy to prove MIAPO, so Andrew could yet get away with it.

Guys, do you think Virginia Giuffre was murdered ?

He would simply keep his current status: sleazy old git who hasn't actually been convicted of anything, but whom no decent person would want to associate with.

No.

there’s a difference between what is known publicly and what is known privately.

when they stripped him of his titles it was because they knew what was coming and got ahead of the game.

if they are talking about taking him out of the line of succession it’s really bad.

it may or may not come out in public but he’s clearly done (and they clearly have evidence of) some truly horrendous stuff.

This arrest iis all about misconduct in public office (like passing confidential trade info to Epstein, for example). It's not about sex or trafficking (that of course may come later).
He's now under investigation, and it may take a long time to prepare a case against him. So charges are probably not imminent.

He has lost his titles for the lies, paying off his accuser, asking his staff to find dirt on his accuser, continuing to meet and email a known pedophile. That is besides his ex wife selling off his contact time which he must have agreed with.

What ever happens next may result in further punishments. I can not say.

This is what happens when you give an important job to someone who hasn't worked for it or trained for it in any way, doesn't really want to do it and is arrogant and entitled enough to think the normal rules don't apply.

He lied publicly about the nature of his association with Epstein and having been involved with Virginia Giuffre. He disgraced the royal family, and the king was within his rights to shun him. The removal of his title wasn't dependent on any future criminal investigation, nor was it a criminal punishment. He may yet be charged and prosecuted, but that's a different issue.

I reckon there's a lot more that has happened that us public don't know about.

It'll eventually leak to the press. I don't even think we know half of it, only a small amount.

@Emori I see, thanks for filling me in

Giuffre said he assaulted her. That's illegal. The global press (as in, every media outlet of note and standing) have released emails from him to Epstein passing on confidential international trade information. Communicating confidential information gained through state office is illegal. Whether or not he eventually faces charges is immaterial - the press reporting on this is based on actual evidence that Andrew Saxe-Coburg has done these things. Defamation requires the publication of a lie. The press aren't publishing lies about him. There's no defamation because he sent the emails, reporting that he sent them is the truth and that's not up for debate.