AMW continuing his effort to end the monarchy part 4

[simpsonthecat]

New thread. This is not ending

Oh I see what you mean @puzzled. ‘a senior member of royal family’ was all that was said , then Charles aide made a statement refuting it so people assumed it was Charles ?

Spot on, Ukisgaslit

It's all in that Guardian piece I linked, and why Michael Peat didn't leave it alone rather than making his flaccid "statement" defeats me

As usual though I suspect there was more going on behind the scenes than we'll ever know

I think the collapse of the Paul Burrell case frightened off the Police and Crown Prosecution Service from prosecuting cases that involved the Royal Family and this was perhaps imho one of the possible reasons why the police and the judiciary have been so reluctant to touch AMW,

And of course it is very worrying in relation to any potential outcome of any potential impending case relating to AMW. Paul Burrell remember stood in the Old Bailey, accused of stealing 310 items together worth £4.5 million. And that wasn’t all of the items as some of them belonged to Charles and William who didn’t want to appear as witnesses .

According to this article by Tom Bower in the DM, which anyone who is interested in the PB case should read, Charles allegedly tried to stop Burrell’s court case from going ahead against the alleged advice of his solicitor Fiona Shackleton but by then it had reached the point of no return:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5516185/How-Prince-Charles-tried-stop-court-case-Paul-Burrell.html

I can’t stand Tom Bower personally and I am not a fan of the DM either but the article is fascinating. I have no idea how true it is or not but it’s been published in the public domain.

To be strictly fair to Charles, it’s evident as far as this article goes anyway, that Paul Burrell allegedly tried to force the RF’s hand by saying he would return the items in return for the court case being dropped, or he would allegedly make known very private details about Diana’s personal life in the dock should it go ahead.

What is particularly fascinating is what happened after Sir Michael Peat was brought on board and after the late Queen’s “recollection” over which it’s apparent, according to the article, there was a fair degree of scepticism shall we say! It’s all there in the article.

The article implies that Sir Robin Janvrin, the late Queen’s private secretary, did not want to be involved in the alleged “golden bullet” resolution as one Whitehall observer called it!

What I believe may be relevant wrt AMW’s case is that the matter went as far as the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney General and the PM.

“Only two people could order the trial to end: the Director of Public Prosecutions, David Calvert-Smith; and the Attorney General, Lord (Peter) Goldsmith.
Calvert-Smith prevaricated, so Goldsmith took the lead. He went to see the Queen to explain the consequences of what he termed the ‘fiasco’, then consulted Tony Blair.”

TB was involved in the Iraq war at the time and advised that the case should be dropped

If Starmer is still in power if and when AMW’s case comes to court, would it be a popular move to say go ahead, or would his ‘careful’ instincts kick in and lead him to advise that it should be dropped I wonder?

That’s a digression, sorry, but the alleged conclusions drawn from the article are fascinating:.

** that the monarchy is not - allegedly - above interfering with a case that is already in the hands of the CPS

** that when Paul Burell’s trial collapsed, everyone got the blame but Charles, and the police were described as incompetent

** that the senior policewoman involved in the investigation of PB, DCI Maxine de Brunner, received the brunt of the blame, but then the chief of Scotland Yard promoted her to deputy assistant commissioner

**that after the trial collapsed, Maxine de Bruner allegedly received a call from Diana’s sister, Lady Sarah, claiming that - allegedly - there had been a stitch up between Charles and PB.

** that after the trial collapsed, unbelievably, it was deemed appropriate that Sir Michael Peat himself commissioned QC Edmund Lawson, to investigate the allegation that Charles’s household had influenced the halting of the trial, and he concluded that according to the available evidence, such an an allegation did not stand up to scrutiny, nor was there evidence to suggest, apparently, that the late Queen’s recollection was intended to derail the trial.

** that after the trial collapsed there was allegedly some talk between Detective Sergeant Roger Milburn and Commander John Yates about arresting Sir Michael Peat for allegedly perverting the course of justice but of course that didn’t happen.

Having read this article, I now understand more fully why Andrew Lownie is sceptical that AMW will be charged and brought to trial let alone be sent to prison? I guess we’ll have to wait and see… .

I have read that fully! Burrell is more disgusting than I imagined! , 2000 negatives ? Featuring Charles and the children naked in the bath!! , Williams private corespondents from Diana when he was at school!!! , and the obvious blackmailing! , threatening to reveal Diana’s use of cocaine! ( a new one to me!) , to reveal her sex life and who she slept with! , this from the man who was closest to her apparently! What a bastard!! , yes I saw the other allegations but I’m sorry, far from being some Machiavellian move by the royal family, I see this as a desperate attempt to keep awful things about Diana especially out of the news!
he should be in prison.

@Verityandsquab654

Thank you very much for that fascinating detailed post . Very revealing .

I’ve never believed that the Windsors are apolitical - they are VERY political but only where their own interests are involved . Laws for thee not for me .

I completely agree that Paul Burrell knows no shame and is a thoroughly despicable person jeffgoldblum.

But I think it’s a little too easy and convenient to blame the halting of the trial solely on the need to protect Diana’s image. Yes, Charles was placed in an impossible position, but the article suggests that, unlike Diana’s sister, Charles didn’t allegedly care about the crime of stealing, and I think it’s reasonably fair to assume that he was just as interested in protecting his own reputation as PB had a lot of insider knowledge about what went on between Diana and Charles and the RF. And presumably he was interested in protecting his sons’ privacy also?

And in the context of AMW’s potential trial, the more damaging allegation is that the institution of the monarchy is allegedly not averse to acting above the law and - allegedly - perverting the course of justice in a case that was already in the hands of the CPS? That allegation confronts a constitutional issue and as such is extremely serious and worrying.

One can argue that any potential charges against AMW, involving as they do possible fraud, malfeasance in public office and the alleged sexual abuse of vulnerable and or trafficked women, the alleged disclosure of state secrets, the potential endangerment of national security (alleged Chinese spy) and a fifteen year alleged cover up, and any possible subsequent trial, is so much more potentially damaging to the Crown and its reputation. Especially if it emerges that Charles did indeed contribute to the VG pay-off.

In other words, if you think of the alleged lengths that the RF is allegedly prepared to go to, to allegedly stop the trial of an alleged thief and alleged liar, what will they do about AMW? Except this time, thanks to Lownie and others, they are skewered, bc the public will be very disillusioned indeed I think at this point if nothing is done and the reputational damage to the monarchy will be huge.

I almost feel sorry for KC3 in this situation as he was one of the few who originally opposed AMW’s appointment as trade envoy. And his power to act may have been curtailed by QE2 and the hierarchical structure of the institution.

On the other hand, thinking of VG and of the other victims, I don’t feel sorry for Charles, as the RF have brought this position on themselves by dragging their feet for so long and not putting a stop to AMW’s alleged antics fifteen or more years ago. And according to Lownie the RF are still allegedly putting pressure on PPOs and the like and reminding them of the validity of their pensions while stating publically that they are fully supporting the investigation.

Interestingly, I was just listening on the radio about Nicolas Sturgeon’s former husband pleading guilty to embezzlement for £500,000 while chairman or treasurer ?? of the Scottish national party. Now if someone like him in a, relatively speaking, minor role goes to prison which they are saying is likely, how can it be argued that AMW can avoid prison if similar alleged crimes are proven in his case?

Ditto Lord Mandelsohn.

Also, if enough evidence of wrongdoing is found and AMW’s case comes to trial, it throws up all sorts of additional potential dangers for the King. The fact that he objected to AMW’s appointment as trade envoy and allegedly contributed to the collective pay off could potentially be turned around to suggest proof of knowledge of AMW’s alleged activities?

Isn’t there a law that obliges people to report crimes to the police if they are aware of them and their seriousness? (Is failure to report a crime, a crime in itself?) And there is I believe a distinction between failure to report a crime and taking actions to prevent the discovery of a crime.

And then there are all of the other potential cases arising out of a trial involving other civil servants potentially perverting the course of justice.

IMHO AMW must face trial but you can see a thousand reasons from an establishment perspective why he probably won’t.

Indeed! This is why I think the people who argue so forcefully about the beauty of our ancient traditions and unwritten constitution are very often the very section of society benefitting from them the most!

There is too much wiggle room as you say allowing the royals to be above the law when it suits them and very much involved when their existence, interests or reputation are challenged.

Ditto their financial and tax arrangements. So much smoke and mirrors obscuring which monies relate to public office and which can be categorised as private wealth.

Mic drop @Verityandsquab654

You’ve really said it all .

I don’t agree on this , I hold this completely separate from AMW and his court shenanigans, anything Burrell could say would be about Charles and Diana’s private lives and indeed that was threat he used to publicly smear Diana! , as for the other info the alleged rape by one staff member against another, that surely is not the fault of the rf and I would expect those involved to report it to the police themselves.

and before anyone says I’m blind or being a monarchy apologist! , I just don’t think this example is in any way relevant to their other behaviour.
they did him a favour ( unintentionally) had they called his bluff and he had actually said all those things publicly about Diana, he would have been crucified by the public and press !

Thx UKisGaslit I have never provoked a mic drop before 😁

PS I should correct my earlier post to Jeffgoldblum by saying that Bower’s article suggests that Charles didn’t care about PB’s stealing initially but he did care more about it later on, once he realised the extent of what had been taken including the personal items.

Sorry I should have clarified that earlier, but I was trying to say that in many people’s opinion, the reason for stopping the trial wasn’t really about the actual nature of the crime itself if that makes sense?

Of course. I think most people can draw their own conclusions about why the trial was stopped but I wasn’t aware of all the detail you added so thanks for that

You are so right about how the ‘unwritten constitution’ and ‘tradition’ are weaponised to protect the indefensible.

Interestingly, I was just listening on the radio about Nicolas Sturgeon’s former husband pleading guilty to embezzlement for £500,000 while chairman or treasurer ?? of the Scottish national party. Now if someone like him in a, relatively speaking, minor role goes to prison which they are saying is likely

if someone like him in a, relatively speaking, minor role goes to prison

Peter Murrell was the Scottish National Party (SNP) Chief Executive for over 20 years until 2023. He married Nicola Sturgeon in 2010.
He has pleaded guilty to embezzlement of £400,000, the offences taking place between August 2010 and October 2022.

From 2007, the SNP has been in government in Scotland (initially minority; from 2011 majority; 2016 minority; 2021 powersharing).
Nicola Sturgeon was deputy first minister from 2010 and first minister from 2014 until 2023.

In other words, all these offences happened while he was Chief Executive of the political party in power in Scotland, and his wife was either deputy or first minister.
In no conceivable way could Peter Murrell's role be called minor.

Peter Murrell was the Scottish National Party (SNP) Chief Executive for over 20 years until 2023. He married Nicola Sturgeon in 2010.
He has pleaded guilty to embezzlement of £400,000, the offences taking place between August 2010 and October 2022.
From 2007, the SNP has been in government in Scotland (initially minority; from 2011 majority; 2016 minority; 2021 powersharing).
Nicola Sturgeon was deputy first minister from 2010 and first minister from 2014 until 2023.
In other words, all these offences happened while he was Chief Executive of the political party in power in Scotland, and his wife was either deputy or first minister.
In no conceivable way could Peter Murrell's role be called minor.

Fair enough bluegreygreen.

I thought someone might pick up on that tbh.

I was speaking globally.

I freely admit to my shame to knowing virtually nothing about Scottish politics so I apologise for calling him a relatively minor figure. I was also gardening at the time and only half listening.

Maybe I should have used the phrase not as much in the spotlight globally as AMW or not as infamous?

I still don’t think that it detracts from my main point and opinion though, that if he is going down, and AMW is found guilty, then AMW should go to prison also? Or at least it makes it harder for special exemptions to apply?

Dare I say it …mic drop moment @bluegreygreen! 😉😁

Jeffgoldblum

How about commenting on the main point ?

That other public servants being charged, put on trial, potentially found guilty of corruption in public office, or admitting guilt, makes it harder for AMW’s case to be pushed under the carpet and if evidence is found against him, harder for his case not to go to trial?

Oh dear ! But it was all fun and games when it was said about you eh?

Sorry. Dont get this??

Your comment read to me as quite catty.

it struck me that you were trying to derail?

It’s impossible to know what’s in people’s heads when they post though so apologies if you were trying to be funny.

???? You didn’t think it was a catty comment when it was directed to you after your reply to me though? 🤔
suddenly it seems like derailing?
odd 🤷‍♀️

Do know who I think a good comparator might be to AMW in the Scotland case? - it's Nicola Sturgeon. Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. Wife of Peter 'Ahm Guilty' Murrell, the SNP CEO.

Nicola Surgeon, miraculously, has no charges to answer at this current time. Funny, that.

I think we're all interested in seeing AMW getting his just desserts.

I’m really trying not to insert a hot fuzz quote here!! 😁 , instead I will simply agree and add that tarring and feathering is too good for him!

I’m not sure why certain posters are of the belief that the AMW case could get brushed under the carpet? Because of the PB case 25 years ago? It don’t think the two are in any way comparable 🤷‍♀️

You have to hope! If there is cast-iron proof that he was passing trade secrets to Epstein he should be prosecuted. If he isn't you have to hope that Murdoch and the leftie press will kick up a right royal stink that cannot be ignored.

Why thank you !! @IAmATorturedPoet! My point exactly! I was worried I had missed the boat somewhere!

I was thinking the same thing when I was watching the news. IMHO, Murrel plead guilty in order to avoid the scrutiny of how the SNP was run in a trial and to avoid ex wife testify and perjure herself.