Time to either prosecute Andrew or forget him.

[Bougainsillier]

Firstly let me say I am in NO way defending him; hes clearly completely awful in so many ways. Finally stripped of all titles and position, and dumped over in Norfolk, but still not charged with or found guilty of any crime.

But it’s starting to feel like he’s being tried by the press now to sell stories. Isn’t there enough evidence to prosecute? Is there a cover up? Or can we just leave him to himself now? It’s news headlines endlessly…

Mandelson in the other hand is another matter..

It’s making a case with strong enough proof that will be the problem with Andrew.

With Mandelson it looks like they’ll have actual documentation on insider trading.

The sleazy sex stuff is so much harder to pin down on them without witnesses prepared to testify and other evidence to back it up.

Someone mentioned coverage in the US - Andrew’s role is mostly covered as a side mention over here - press are focused on the big hitters of Gates, Trump, the Clintons.

Everone’s speculating that the Clintons’ testimony could be revealing - I doubt they’ll talk about Andrew though.

You can’t prosecuteone without the other

One meaning Andrew and Mandelson or one meaning sex crimes vs financial crimes?

They would probably find lots of proof in the sealed Trade Envoy records.

Possibly but enough to prosecute for a crime? Lots of unsavory and unethical behaviour but specifically illegal? Stuff that people would find wrong and inappropriate definitely.

I’m not sure what the charges could be for someone like Andrew who wouldn’t have had the kind of insider info on government plans that Mandelson had.

Firstly let me say I am in NO way defending him....................... ...................................................................................................................(wait for it) ..................................................................................................................................But

Exactly. And why would anyone want to defend or justify Andrew in first place? His family? Bots? Cleaners?

I want to see ALL the allegations properly investigated, most especially I want AMW’s time as ‘trade envoy’ properly exposed and his shady, immoral and probably illegal dealings dealt with by a court of law. I want any and all people who participated in JE’s sex parties, who were involved with the women he trafficked held formally to account. I would like SF to pay her flicking debts and just piss off out of sight, in perpetuity.
anything less is continuing to protect AMW, SF and all the powerful , sleazy men who abused countless women .

Is that directed at me,? Point out where I said anything about poor Andrew. I said public opinion has had results but now it needs to be properly investigated.

The way you twist things is exactly why we need things properly investigated and not lynch mobs

I thought the Clintons had refused to testify.

Andrew deserves all he gets but the reality is that there are a lot of people who would prefer him to disappear into obscurity (unlikely I know). If he was put on trial then who knows what might come out? As others have said there is also the problem of how likely a conviction in the UK would be. There is no way he will voluntarily go to the US.

If trial in the court of public opinion is all that he is likely to be subjected to then I have absolutely no issue with that continuing. The man clearly has no shame. He has not once apologised for anything. He even said that he didn't regret his friendship with Epstein because of the benefits it had brought him. That was said on national television.

I don't care. New things keep coming out, forgetting would be an insult to the victims.

Surely misconduct in public office

Sorry posted too soon.
Isn’t there justification to explore misconduct in public office re Andrew’s time as government envoy , in addition to the links to Epstein

I don’t know enough about that area of law to know how precise the charges / evidence needs to be. Also would that implicate all of those at the foreign office that helped to facilitate any wrongdoing while Andrew was trade envoy?

If so then the evidence will never be willingly released by the government.

I think he should be prosecuted, yes.

But...because he is who he is, I can't ever see that happening, so the media will continue to do what they are doing.

They (and the public) are quite rightly pissed off that he gets to carry on in a nice cosy refurbished cottage, living his life rather than being on trial/in prison, whilst their own life is probably a bit shite due to the COL, effects of austerity and the poor job market! It's not fair.

It feel like there should be enough to do a separate investigation to the Epstein investigation but I suspect it depends a lot on how many others are trying to suppress records of their own involvement.

The Clintons have changed their minds and have agreed to both testify now - scheduled for late February.

Morally, yes - but legally? A man can often reasonably claim that he believed the trafficked woman he was sleeping with to be a prostitute acting consensually.

We don't need to have this confusion. But liberals peddling "sex work is work" are very keen to have us believe that women in prostitution are (at least by and large) perfectly happy to be there. The same lot are equally keen to push a narrative that criminalising paying women for sex (or having your mates pay them for you) is a bad thing for some reason. As long as we continue with a legal standpoint that men sleeping with women in exchange for money is basically OK, sleazy twats like Mountbatten-Windsor will always have an excuse.

You can’t put someone in prison if they’ve not been convicted of a crime though. Having sex with a trafficked woman is a crime, but the prosecution would have to prove it happened - and prove the woman was trafficked - beyond all reasonable doubt. Having said which, Andrew almost certainly does deserve to be in prison, but that fact alone is not enough to put him there.

Yeah, indeed I'm not suggesting we skip a trial; I'm asking why there hasn't been one for long. We shouldn't confuse losing royal titles with justice. One is a PR move by the King and his son, to try to save the monarchy; the other is a legal consequence for the victims. Calling his current situation a punishment is an insult to the people who actually suffer under the justice system. He’s living in a luxury exile funded by his brother, when any other person in his position would have been facing a dock years ago.

So, I’m responding to the posters who act like him moving to a 5-bedroom cottage is some kind of hardship. It’s not. Most people facing these kinds of evidence-backed allegations don't get to haggle over their next luxury residence. And... The fact that he was kept on royal contracts and shielded by the family for so long is the real scandal...

I agree about the media focus.

I know a lot of posters won’t like this but AMW could do a deal and give evidence as a whistleblower in exchange for not being prosecuted. The difficulty for him, or more accurately for KC, is it opens up civil cases for victims to sue for £££. There is also a credibility issue about his version of the truth, however, he was not under oath when he did the BBC interview.

It’s highly likely Jeffrey Epstein was murdered and that Ghislaine Maxwell has kept quiet to avoid a similar fate. Ironically AMW status means he is already more protected than most of the perpetrators. He has security, RAVEC will be monitoring threats etc.

Sadly, I suspect there are a lot of rich and powerful men who are going to walk away from this with no impact and carry on abusing.

Victims being named is also an insult to them.

The police have opened an investigation into Mandelson so maybe it's a case of watch this space. Emily Matlis was interviewed on LBC and she said that the King's last statement about Andrew was the palace saying, take him. I'm not sure if she is right but I am sure that the palace wouldn't be stupid enough to stop an investigation if anyone started one.

So why isn't anyone starting an investigation that Andrew can't refuse to answer to?

It’s all so murky with them all watching and waiting to see whose emails the media is going to rake over next. This report from CNN about the chairman of a US law firm just highlights how these men at the top were all so interlinked - thanking Epstein for amazing hospitality and asking for favours for family members… urgh.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/05/politics/brad-karp-resigns-chair-paul-weiss-epstein

CNN leading on the impact on Kier Starmer of the Mandelson stuff though…

Please may I ask, did EM mean “take him” as in the Palace saying go ahead and investigate him MrsLeonFarrell?

I would like to know why an investigation isn’t being launched too!