RF covering for Andrew?

[flippantlydone]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/28/dubious-use-of-the-freedom-of-information-act-stopping-access-to-files-on-prince-andrew-researchers-say

Surely his dealings with trade envoys, alleged Chinese spies and Jeffrey Epstein are matters of public interest.

Of course.

You are all still paying tax for him.

What a creep.

While everyone is having to deal with COL.

I’m gobsmacked frankly that so many people who must have known about this, kept quiet! When he was meant to be representing the interests of the UK?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-s-pitch-palace-was-bad-news-for-businesses/

@Puzzledandpissedoff

That is nearly unbelievable. How did any of them think this is okay? (Rhetorical question) And then the last paragraph - years later ‘they’ are trying to cover some of it up by disappearing part of the contract.

That’s truly shocking!

I think the most die-hard monarchist must agree that there is something deeply wrong and undemocratic about parliamentary rules which prevent these allegedly nefarious activities of Andrew, the brother of the Monarch, being discussed in Parliament.

It’s in the public interest because Andrew was a trade envoy supposedly promoting British enterprise. For him to have allegedly personally benefited from these activities would, in any other sphere, be called corruption.

I’m afraid this 2019 article is from the DM but it’s worth a read:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7740505/amp/What-DID-Prince-Andrew-pocket-Pitch-Palace.html

Erskine May definitely needs reforming!

As @Tomatotater questioned below, why are all the members of the RF afforded this protection from scrutiny?

In whose interest is that exactly?

All of this certainly casts the contents of this BBC article in a new light which discusses how Wikileaks revealed that Tatiana Gfoeller, Washington's ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, criticised PA:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-11870581.amp

“In the cable, written in October 2008 …
Ms Gfoeller recounts details of a brunch in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek with British and Canadian business people.
Summing the event up, she writes: "Astonishingly candid, the discussion at times verged on the rude (from the British side)."
Under the sub-heading "Rude language a la British", she wrote that "[Prince Andrew] railed at British anti-corruption investigators, who had had the 'idiocy' of almost scuttling the Al-Yamama deal with Saudi Arabia".
She said the prince also criticised Guardian journalists - "who poke their noses everywhere" - for investigating the deal.”

Prince Andrew apparently criticising the Serious Fraud Office and Guardian journalists? Why ever would he do that I wonder? 😳

It’s in the public interest because Andrew was a trade envoy supposedly promoting British enterprise. For him to have allegedly personally benefited from these activities would, in any other sphere, be called corruption

But all records of his days as TE have been sealed. We don't know who he travelled with, what extra days he tagged on to official trips, where he went. We have to wait until 2065 to find out anything

Well, Andrew can be rude about SIAC, MI5 and the Sunday Times this morning, because he and his secretive shenanigans are today’s front page story which will be read by MPs, diplomats, celebrities and royals alike over their Sunday tea and toast.

I think a lot of journalists want these questions raised in Parliament and the Sunday Times is giving MPs and Peers a ‘public interest’ way in - they can raise this Sunday Times headline and ask about its veracity. Start getting stuff on record.

(The ‘top aide’ is Dominic Hampshire of weird, grovelling letters fame.)

I’ll try and drop the archive link (ie a non-paywalled version) in a bit unless someone else beats me to it.

https://www.thetimes.com/

Archive (non-paywalled) version of this morning's Sunday Times article as referenced above at 03.46.

https://archive.ph/pwYBT

The Duke of York was viewed by the Chinese state as a “valuable communication channel”, according to newly released court papers.

They indicate MI5 questioned Prince Andrew’s most senior aide about their “clandestine” relationship with an alleged Chinese spy ...

... Yang’s lawyers told the SIAC that the authorities knew about his relationship with the duke because “the intelligence services were in contact with Mr Hampshire in 2022”.

Open door now for parliamentarians. Fuck the permanent secretaries and the clerks and the 'top aides'. (Did anyone else see that oddball story in the Mail last night about Angela 'Andrew's a nonce' Rayner being allegedly 'chastened' by cabinet secretary Simon Case?!)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14350429/Angela-Rayner-launched-astonishing-tirade-against-nonce-Prince-Andrew-removed-official-list-deputies-Charles-authors-claim-new-book.html

I’d be astonished if the FBI pursues Andrew re Epstein because he could go on record about all the men in the American establishment who were also ‘partying’ with Epstein including Trump and Clinton.

I was wondering if Trump and all former living presidents are now effectively immune from prosecutions after that ruling from the Supreme Court, and if that would mean pursuit of others, like (say) Andrew and tech bros might be more or less likely? Trump and/or Republican senators will want their sacrificial lamb.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrrv8yg3nvo

The three liberal justices dissented strongly, expressing “fear for our democracy”.

“The President is now a king above the law,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

I’ve been wondering about this also. Andrew needs to be held to account but so do the other men.

I also would be astonished if anything is ever done about all this. Too many powerful men’s names have surfaced.

BP no longer answers journalists questions regarding PA because he’s no longer a working royal - they said. 🤷‍♀️

Powerful men
all those men
and only a woman ever convicted.

don’t know why my phone is doing this spacing.

I’ve never understood the pizza express alibi. That must surely be easy to prove one way or the other. Whoever’s party it was can just say ‘yeah actually it was my daughters and he was here’ I’m clearly missing something.
I too would like to see some men in prison. Maxwell didn’t procure all those girls for herself did she?

your phone is probably as horrified as we are. It can’t quite compute. As you said, one woman convicted. Surprise surprise.

Thank you for the archived link @TheCrowPeople .

The Sunday Times is writing volumes about this. I clicked on a further link “Prince Andrew sought £3bn from China with help from alleged spy”? Also very interesting. If he was taking 2% that would have been a handy little windfall of £60 million. Can that be right?

The nonce article is a better read in the Sunday Times original form. I was able to read it because I was able to access it from CrowPeoples’ original link. I recommend the read.

They are only immune for actions they carried out as President.

I find it interesting that all these things about Andrew are coming out now. It's almost as if no one wanted to upset the late Queen but that protection is now withdrawn.

Yes it is interesting

Mummy's favourite boy doesn't have her protection any more

He's on his own being a twat of the first order

And being hit by the consequences of his actions couldn't happen to a 'nicer' person

I think the most die-hard monarchist must agree that there is something deeply wrong and undemocratic about parliamentary rules which prevent these allegedly nefarious activities of Andrew, the brother of the Monarch, being discussed in Parliament.

There is a huge list of things that can’t be discussed in Parliament though. Just some are listed below. The Royal family is just one of them. Parliament also can’t discuss for example the conduct of Boris Johnson or why he nominated Charlotte Owens to the House of Lords, for example. They can’t discuss MPs like Neil Hamilton being bribed to ask questions.

(I think the whole rules need an overhaul, to be honest, because what they can do is say things with the protection of parliamentary privilege, meaning they can’t be sued for defamation. So MPs like Tom Watson get to accuse people of being paedophiles, and when it is determined that this is not the case, the accused has absolutely no remedy against him. I don’t think this is terribly democratic either).

• Questions should relate to ministers’ official duties, rather than their private affairs or party matters.
• Where government functions are delegated to an executive agency, accountability to Parliament remains through ministers. When a minister answers a parliamentary question, orally or in writing, by reference to a letter from the chief executive of an agency, the minister remains accountable for the answer, which attracts parliamentary privilege, and criticism of the answer in the House should be directed at the minister, not the chief executive.
• Questions should not ask about opposition party policies.
• Questions should not ask the Government for a legal opinion on the interpretation of statute or of international law, such matters being the competence of the courts.
• Questions should not ask about matters which are the particular responsibility of local authorities or the Greater London Assembly.
• Questions should not ask about the internal affairs of another country (save for questions about human rights or other matters covered by international conventions to which the United Kingdom is party).(25)
• In general, questions should not contain accusations against individuals. The names of individuals or bodies are not introduced into questions invidiously or for the purpose of advertisement.
• Questions should not ask the Government about the accuracy of statements in the press, where these have been made by private individuals or bodies.
• Questions should not ask about events more than 30 years ago without direct relevance to current issues.
• The tabling of questions on public utilities, nationalised industries and privatised industries is restricted to those matters for which the Government are in practice responsible.
• Questions should not be hypothetical, and should address issues of substance. Questions which are “trivial, vague or meaningless”(26) are not tabled.

Which department was responsible for the Trade Envoy? Was it FCO (routine that records are only released under the 30 year rule)? Or DTI?

Yes I’d agree to some extent that this is coming out now because the Queen has died. But I doubt it would have come out without Charles or William’s agreement, so I wonder if they, like us, also don’t think much of him.

Very much looking forward to Andrew Lownie's book on the Yorks. I am a fan of his tenacity and willingness to put himself through numerous FOI based court applications to get the info he seeks, at great cost to himself. He's a great writer, I enjoyed The Traitor King.

Thank you for the Sunday Times archive link, @TheCrowPeople . Looking forward to reading it.

(I'm rolling my eyes though at the posters who can't stand the Murdoch owned press/news outlets, but who are happy to read the Times/Sunday Times. I suppose Rupert is a fellow republican, though, so they give him a pass when it suits them.)

he worked for - but did not receive a salary from - the government body UK Trade & Investment (UKTI), which reports jointly to the Foreign Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Apparently. So BBC news article says