Do you think Andrew will face any criminal charges?

[LotsInCommon]

I’m only now reading Virginias book and it’s a very difficult read.

It’s 7 months on from Andrews arrest for misconduct in public office. Do you think he will be charged with anything to do with that? Do you think he’ll be charged with sexual abuse and rape?

@bluegreygreen

Are you trying to imply that the cache of emails were ignored ?
OMG that’s desperate.

And if true , equally as bad !

There is a difference between something being interesting to the public and being in the public interest. See, for example, Cliff Richard v the BBC - it was interesting to the public to know that his property had been raided by the police, but the courts decided there was no public interest in releasing this information or, if there was, not enough to overcome his right to privacy.

Would the public be interested in details of the settlement between Andrew and Virginia Giuffre? I would imagine so. Is it in the public interest for that information to be released and, if so, is that sufficient to overcome the rights to privacy of both parties? Probably not.

Hmm. I think in that case there is some public interest in the legal sense. Especially as it potentially involves Crown funds.

@AlwaysRightISwear

I agree .

That line ‘difference between public interest and the public being interested’ is so tiresome and trotted out all the time

We fund the Windsors . Yes how Philip went from penniless to a multimillionaire by marrying in IS in the public interest .
And I’d argue that their private life is also in the public interest if we have been fed a pack of lies .

Seriously?

I’m quite aware of the difference between the two thank you very much!

The point here is that there has been a cover up. A very serious one that goes back to the heart of the monarchy. The details of the pay off are very pertinent indeed in establishing the circumstances around how this happened.

There is a police investigation ongoing related to the actions of the alleged perpetrator and one of the people who tried to make the trial go away is at one and the same time his sibling and our head of state fhs!

The fact that AMW got away with his alleged crimes for years and we don’t know and have to guess how much his family paid VG, or rely on newspaper reports or Lownie’s sources, is because there is so little scrutiny over the actions of the royal family.

And the pay off is proof itself that the rest of the RF, including our current king, were not unaware of AMW’s predelictions and were prepared to pay a significant amount of money to make it all go away.

They did have an alternative choice which was to let the action proceed to a civil trial.

I am not a member of Republic UK but at this point it is appropriate to repeat what their membership were shouting at KC a few months back which is;

“Who knew what and when?”

Institutional bias e.g. Met Police and Stephen Lawrence, Greater Manchester Police, Yorkshire Police etc = grooming gangs.

Baroness Casey review of Met Police.

Slightly O/T but it would be hugely interesting to discover exactly how Philip - the penniless prince on marriage - amassed enough to leave a multion million pound estate.

https://apple.news/Aon7mr7j8TZmLweq88JkDSg

You seem confused

Not remotely confused; I have read the article and summarised the facts clearly.

This is the bottom line:

We know they were sent to the Lord Chamberlain by Kevin Stanford. We don't know what happened after that.

Is it not possible that his wife shared some of her wealth with her husband. Rather than having to be reliant on asking his wife for money she may have given him either a regular payment or a lump sum which he invested.

I have no problem with republicans asking questions and I do agree we need clarity on finances e.g. crown estates, Duchy and personal wealth. The personal wealth is then private.

I don’t have an issue with the Duchy’s operating on the same commercial grounds that apply to everyone e.g. charging rent for properties they own. However, they should pay corporation tax. Note: Income would be in the form of dividends so PW would pay dividend tax rather than income tax.

I see
So what exactly are you implying ?

I know journalists have been asking what action was taken once the emails were received . They have been told that they can’t comment due to the police investigation.
But the question related to 2020 not 2026 .

The very senior judge in the case in his summing up said that he had come to the decision he did because it’s not in the public interest to see private wills of individual members of the RF and their dignity has to be protected

It's the issue of dignity which stood out for me, @Chocolatethumbprints, and I'd suggest it's on a par with Dominic Grieves's remark over Charles's "black spider" letters addressing government matters: "if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king"

Though a republican I'm a firm believer in the RF having the same right to privacy as anyone else but no more than that, and surely the answer to being seen as undignified/dishonest/a political meddler, etc, is to avoid behaving that way in the firest place rather than hope to cover it up afterwards

So what exactly are you implying ?

I am not implying anything.

I am saying, very clearly, now for the third time, that We know they were sent to the Lord Chamberlain by Kevin Stanford. We don't know what happened after that.

Others on the thread have made allegations, some rather forcibly as if they were fact. I haven't.

Hmm

Well we shall see won’t we ?

Is it not possible that his wife shared some of her wealth with her husband. Rather than having to be reliant on asking his wife for money she may have given him either a regular payment or a lump sum which he invested.

I suppose she might but there wouldn't appear to have been any need given he was a named recipient of Civil List funding and continued to receive a substantial annual 'stipend' outside the Sovereign Grant right up to his death, all of which was publicly funded.

This is a bit off topic but there a reason Chinese / Russian / spies etc target the Windsors .
There is no real scrutiny of the Windsors . We know they operate above the law , the FOI act does not apply to them etc.

They are the security weak spot and others know this.

They are not above the law. The monarch has immunity as head of state, as is the case with most heads of state. The rest of the family do not have any immunity. And FOI applies to public sector bodies, not individuals. The royal family is not classed as a public sector body.

The reason they are targeted is the same reason some foreign powers spread fake stories to try to undermine trust in the authorities and mainstream media. If they can undermine public trust in UK institutions, it weakens us as a nation and makes us less of a threat to their ambitions.

@prh47bridge

I very much disagree !

We have seen how Epstein and others have easily infiltrated. We still do not know the half of it

And the Windsors very much ARE above the law . They have a blanket exclusion from the FOI Act for William and Charles in section 37 of the Act .
And guess what the old ‘public interest’ line comes up when anyone tries to use the FOI Act to enquire about any of the rest of them .
Ask Andrew Lownie
Ask those trying to find out about Andrew’s time as a ‘trade envoy’
Your answer is a bit like the window dressing the Windsors did around Andrew .
It soon falls apart when you look at it properly

It seems posters asking questions are to be accused of being foreign agents again!

Do better . We have every right to question the utter corruption at the top of our so called head of state . It’s those who meekly accept the status quo who are weakening the UK in my opinion .

Look at the monarchy in Japan . It seems as fusty dusty as the one we endure doesn’t it ?
It’s not .
It was totally overhauled post ww2 ( cough - not impossible to reform at all it seems ) and has zero political / legal influence .Its finances are transparent .

Edited to add - it is the behaviour of the Windsors themselves which has led to anyone with a modicum of intelligence to distrust them deeply . They have lied and covered up for decades . No need for any ‘foreign power’ to any undermining .

I have to amend my first post re FOI .

It is not just William and Charles who have blanket immunity from the FOI - its George too.
3 generations covered .

The rest of the Windsors have defacto immunity . Try sending an FOI request re any of the wider family and see what happens .

https://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

@prh47bridge

One last point . You try to draw a comparison between Charles Windsor and other heads of state.
That comparison is also spurious. Other heads of state have limited temporary immunity - linked to their role /official duties. Charles’ immunity is lifelong and absolute . He is also still the ‘fountain of the law’ - how medieval. It also raises more questions about Andrew’s recent legal challenges to his own brother’s courts does it not ?

Also there are monarch heads of state who ARE subject to be law - Sweden and Spain for example.

@Ukisgaslit
It seems posters asking questions are to be accused of being foreign agents again!

Who has accused you of that.

@Ukisgaslit

There are a number of nations that give their head of state immunity for life, so that they remain immune even when they are not head of state. The UK is not one of them. If Charles abdicates or ceases to be head of state in some other way, he will lose immunity. It is true that Charles is head of state for life, but this is not uncommon. Around one quarter of the world's nations appoint a head of state for life. There are very few states that do not give their head of state immunity whilst they are in office. So, contrary to what you say, my comparison holds.

By the way, Charles is not the fountain of the law. That phrase was used in older political theories to argue that the monarch alone creates the law. Critics and constitutional scholars have argued against this since at least the 17th Century, and the phrase is not generally used any more. The monarch is traditionally and symbolically referred to as the fount of justice, but not the fountain of the law.

Section 37 of the FOI exempts communications between official bodies and the monarch, the heir and the second in line to the throne. It ensures they have the same immunity as everyone else. I have communicated with government departments and they have communicated with me, but you wouldn't get any of that communication in response to an FOI request due to GDPR. This is also why Andrew Lownie won't get the information he wants about Andrew's time as trade envoy, just as he wouldn't get information about Peter Mandelson's time as an ambassador if he asked for that - it is personal information and therefore cannot be disclosed under GDPR.

If you think my answer falls apart when you look at it properly, you clearly don't understand the law. And if you really believe the Windsors are above the law, perhaps you'd better tell Anne so that she can get her criminal convictions vacated - after all, if she is above the law the courts couldn't convict her.

The point is that the public are not allowed to investigate or scrutinise an institution which we are largely funding.

And it is this lack of scrutiny which makes the members of the RF more vulnerable to Mr Chinese Spy, Mr Libyan Gun Runner, Mr Show Bizz Paedophile, Mr Mossad Agent.

And that’s only mentioning a few!

This isn’t a joke this is a serious situation. None of this is in the best interests of the UK.

No right-minded person thinks this is acceptable. The RF are surrounded by security, which the tax payer funds at vast expense, and yet the police and PPOs, owing to deference and an imbalance of power, are prevented from doing their job in the first place, and silenced when they try to speak up about it afterwards. One or two may even have received an honour in exchange for their silence.

And not only are the RF exempt from FOI laws, they are subject to little parliamentary scrutiny, they can in some instances determine law before it reaches the statute books, they are exempt from significant taxes, their wills are sealed, there are exempt from certain land laws, and there is no register of their business interests as there is for MPs.

As Lownie has discovered when writing his books; there is an omertà surrounding the RF which is maintained through their wealth, deference, their well-resourced PR operations, their strong transactional contacts with the media, their handing out of service medals and honours, and because the RF wield soft power and considerable influence and other members of the establishment enjoy having fat invitations from BP that they can display above their fireplaces.

It’s this very culture of deference and secrecy that allows the RF to indulge in some fairly dubious practices. AMW being the extreme example but KC has raised eyebrows too, as has been reported in the papers for many years, with:

~the “Fawcett the fence” debacle
~the cash for passports incident
~the bags of cash scandal
~the Dumfries House funding enquiry

These incidents were subject to internal and external enquiries but never was any major wrongdoing found!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/21/met-police-no-further-action-cash-for-honours-claims-king-charity-princes-foundation

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/how-footman-rose-in-status-6960147.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61941113

https://news.sky.com/story/inquiry-into-kings-foundation-finds-charles-former-right-hand-man-exposed-charity-to-substantial-risk-13285135

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/05/michael-fawcett-former-royal-aide-charles-once-called-indispensable