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?

I agree, there is no love lost there BUT it's all about preservation of the Monarchy isn't it..

So whilst Charles will not be trying to save AMW's skin, he will be trying to bury bad news about what his brother has done.

p.s. Thank god for people like Andrew Lownie. Without him we would know very little
Lownie vigorously says that the monarchy operates behind closed doors due to exemptions from Freedom of Information laws, sealed royal wills, and a lack of parliamentary oversight.
Good on him for challenging the lack of transparency. Andrew & Sarah were protected and there was a total lack of accountability.

Sorry X post

All this chasing Andy, takes the focus off of all the other creepy, high up wrong-uns.
It's just so much better to target sweaty Andy than go for the American predators, eh

I agree, however, I think he went too far revealing the sexual abuse AMW experienced as a child. That was inexcusable imo. And cruel. You don’t like the man, fine. I accept that. But do not put things in that happened to him as an 8 year old boy.

Utter, utter nonsense I’m afraid.

Of course the archives are available now!

The point is, specific parts were blocked to Andrew Lownie in 2015 and 2017 when he was researching his biography of Mountbatten, despite them having been purchased by the University of Southampton in 2011 using £2.8 million of public funds from the Heritage Lottery Fund under the premise that it would be entirely open to the public.

However, the specific, restricted portions containing Lord and Lady Mountbatten's personal diaries and letters was largely forced into public view due to Lownie’s long legal campaign which is a matter of public record and not a figment of Lownie’s imagination as you appear to be insisting BunnyBunbunbun.

You do know that Freedom of Information requests are, generally speaking, a matter of public record too?

There is an extensive administrative and legal trail documenting Lownie’s FOI requests, which were filed, rejected, and ultimately escalated serves as official proof of his efforts.

Lownie made two FOI requests, one in 2015 and one in 2017 which the university refused on the The University of Southampton refused disclosure. They cited Section 44 of the FOI Act (statutory prohibition) and a Directive issued by the Cabinet Office instructing them to keep specific parts of the collection closed due to sensitive references to the Royal Family and the 1947 Partition of India.

Please note, this is nothing to do with digitalisation! And whether digitalised or not, it didn’t affect the legal status of the documents which should have been accessible by the public. Lownie I am sure would have been happy to receive them in whatever form they were in!

The university then held an internal review which is a matter of record, and upheld the secrecy. Lownie, being an extremely dogged researcher, escalated the case by lodging an official complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in August 2018.

The ICO ruled comprehensively in Lownie's favour in December 2019 and issued a Decision Notice ordering the University of Southampton to release the withheld diaries and letters.

But instead of complying with the ICO order, the University of Southampton and the UK Cabinet Office appealed the decision to an Information Tribunal, triggering a costly legal standoff between 2020-2021.

In response to this, Lownie launched a high-profile crowdfunding campaign on CrowdJustice to cover his legal expenses, which eventually exceeded £450,000.

Facing ongoing contempt proceedings and heavy political pressure (including a UK Parliament Early Day Motion in July 2021 condemning the secrecy), the University and the Cabinet Office capitulated just days before a final tribunal hearing.

By November 2021, they uploaded over 33,00 pages of diaries and letters on-line, representing roughly 99.8% of the collection.

Are you seriously trying to stand by your argument BunnyBunbunbun that none of the above is a matter of public record and that Lownie made it all up?

It’s actually a matter of academic record too
as Lownie published a comprehensive breakdown of the entire legal timeline, the public authorities' delay tactics, and the exact FOI mechanisms used in his paper Censoring Our History, published in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society.

As a byproduct of his fight, Lownie filed subsequent Subject Access Requests (SARs) to find out how the government handled his case. The Cabinet Office released files proving they had logged over 650 hours monitoring his FOI crowdfunding, social media activities, and speaking engagements regarding the Mountbatten book. The records are all easily accessible at Crowdjustice.

As for your Carl Beech point that people anywhere can make things up; what does it prove specifically in relation to Lownie? Absolutely nothing! You may as well say that because Mr Blobby is a man in a padded costume and not a real character, then Lownie is therefore somehow not trustworthy! There is no logic to your argument whatsoever!

Lownie said he wrestled with that decision and did not include it lightly but he included it in a very discreet way in the latter chapters for two reasons:

~ fairness, because it gave a more rounded picture of the man and didn’t excuse but perhaps offered an explanation for his subsequent behaviour,

~ accuracy, because if this fact somehow came out later on, and Lownie had not included it in the book, then Lownie may have been accused of being unfair to AMW by leaving out what some may interpret as a mitigating factor.

Well it shouldn’t take the focus off all the other powerful men involved. Congress need to do their job!

But we all need to prosecute our own!

As some of us have said all along there was no more chance of Andrew giving evidence in court than there was of Paul Burrell, and for the same reason ... he'll have too much information about the rest of them

So if "discovering some irregularity" is what's needed in the latest attempt to shut this down that's what may well happen, except they'd better hope it's more effective than making a show of ostracising him

And of course this is a very convenient distraction from "When did the Windsors know ...?"

He should accept his slap on the wrist. Even if he/they think he didn’t do anything wrong. He’d be in isolation I’d expect anyway. Out early on good behaviour. Foolish otherwise.

I’ve just caught back up with this thread and some thoughts:

• KC can tell AMW till he is blue in the face to keep his head down, etc. but he has no legal power to prevent AMW from acting as he wishes, How would anyone actually control their sibling in this situation?
• AMW is currently a free man (whether he should be is a separate argument) and as such is like any private person free to travel abroad, attend public events etc. Do you really think AMW is entitled to less freedom than everyone else? Note: I think the issue is the media publicising the movements of a private person stirring up conflict.
• The current judicial review is a sensible defence tactic, try to rule the searches unlawful and you can’t use the evidence gathered to prosecute. This is likely to depend on highly technical fine detail of who legally owns the property being searched and whether the search warrant was correctly drafted. Ironically the smoke and mirrors of what KC, the RF, Crown Estates etc. own, may see AMW succeed.
• None of us know the true wealth & income of AMW, Prince Harry etc. as private individuals. This is because they, just like us, are entitled to privacy. The media speculate, so do we but ultimately we don’t truly know what he can afford in terms of legal fees.
• There are multiple examples on Mumsnet of parents and siblings continuing to support children and siblings who have been convicted of horrendous crimes. It is not unusual that a mum and brother may support AMW, including with housing and finances, without them endorsing what he did. is it right - no, is it natural familial behaviour - yes. The issue is where The Crown uses its power e.g. the statement about VG. That is plain wrong as the power imbalance is far too great.
• I want to see a properly evidenced case prosecuted in court - that takes time. Like pp said misconduct in public office is notoriously difficult to prove particularly at higher levels. It’s like H&S breaches, it is very rare senior people are successfully prosecuted.
• WRT VG and JE - I’ve said it before, besides GM, I can’t see the victims getting justice.

I don't not like the man. I appreciate what he has done uncovering a lot that would not be known to us.

Maybe I am hopelessly naive but I am not convinced that AMW will get off with this. LI think the RF were surprised at the backlash about Burrell and the late Queen’s sudden recollection of matters .
Plus there has been widespread condemnation and revulsion as details about AMW’s sordid , greedy lifestyle have emerged .
It strikes me that William reads the room better than KC and he will certainly push for the legal process not to be hindered .
William will be King in the not too distant future and he is not going to want the Andrew and Harry sagas to drag on .

Possibly nobody did, he's just convinced himself it's a good idea. This is after all the same man who thought his car crash Maitlis interview had "gone well". He really isn't all that bright.

I agree apart from the fact it is in everybody's interests if the whole matter were dropped.
We don't know but the Palace are aiding and abetting AMW for that to happen.

AMW has not been arrested for anything to do with Ms Guiffre.
or so I understand.
I thought he was arrested for potential charges for leaking confidential information to Epstein when he was a trade envoy.
My understanding is that the police do not have all the information regarding Epstein's emails from the US, so unless that is forthcoming, (and investigated) then charges are unlikely

And it strikes me that an incredibly stupid situation has been allowed to arise whereby Trump has a hell of a lot of leverage over immediate family members of our Head of State, in terms of the release (or not) of documents.

We don't know what his crimes are on UK soil are, do we? We will probably never know.
It irks me that the Americans are calling for Andrews head whilst doing nothing to capture the paedophiles over there.

I'd never call you naive, Mylovelygreendress, and you're quite right about the backlash over Burrell, Andrew and the rest; on the latter I strongly suspect it's the only reason the RF took any action at all

They've ridden even this though, with help along the way from parliament mewing that "it's family matter" and an awful lot of "they didn't knows ...", and I honestly don't see any change happening until William acceeds, which I'd suggest is something monarchists might hope for sooner rather than later

In fairness the Queen was always going to be a hard act to follow with the respect she enjoyed (justified or not), but under Charles's reign the horrors just keep on coming and IMO he has neither the judgement nor moral authority to even begin to address them

And yes, @milveycrohn, the current investigation - such as it is - concerns Andrew's conduct in public office rather than the alleged sexual impropriety, but if they manage to make this go away I'd say the chances of him being charged with anything else are nil

the current investigation - such as it is - concerns Andrew's conduct in public office rather than the alleged sexual impropriety, but if they manage to make this go away I'd say the chances of him being charged with anything else are nil

I don’t think that this is true?

AMW was arrested in February and the TVP issued the following statement in May broadening the scope of the enquiry;

« … detectives renewed their appeal for witnesses amid concern that the public believes they are only investigating allegations linked to the trade reports, when in fact misconduct in public office can apply to a much broader list of offenses, Britain’s Press Association reported.

“Misconduct in public office is a crime that can take different forms, making this a complex investigation,’’ Assistant Chief Constable Oliver Wright said. “Our team of very experienced detectives are working meticulously through a significant amount of information that has come in from the public and other sources.”

Misconduct in public office can include sharing confidential financial information, financial misconduct, willful neglect of duty, and sexual misconduct. It also covers corruption and improper interference, conflict of interest, perverting the course of justice, dishonesty or fraudulent conduct or misconduct leading to personal gain.
Police said they are looking into “a number of aspects of alleged misconduct” following the release of the U.S. documents, and they are working with the Justice Department to get additional information related to the investigation.

Thames Valley Police also issued an update on its inquiry into allegations that a woman was taken to a location in Windsor for sexual purposes in 2010.

“Should she wish to report this to police, it will be taken seriously and handled with care, sensitivity and respect for her privacy,’’ police said in a statement.

Florida attorney Brad Edwards told the BBC in January that he represented a woman who said that Epstein sent her to England in 2010 to have a sexual encounter with Mountbatten-Windsor at his home in Windsor.

https://www.nxsmediawire.com/news/uk-broadens-inquiry-into-former-prince-andrew/

And yes, , the current investigation - such as it is - concerns Andrew's conduct in public office rather than the alleged sexual impropriety, but if they manage to make this go away I'd say the chances of him being charged with anything else are nil

I wonder if the Judicial Review is about the search teams in the houses overreaching the strict terms of the warrants. That is, they had grounds to look for evidence of misconduct only, so can’t use any evidence they came across of sexual misconduct in his private time, in private quarters? ‘The fruit of the poisonous tree’ and all that legal stuff?

That's a very valid point about misconduct involving any number of things, @Chocolatethumbprints, but despite the appearance of "investigations" I'll still be amazed if anything comes of it

The entire ethos of this institution is to make unwelcome things go away, and no matter what it takes I've not the least doubt it'll be occupying a lot of time to ensure exactly that

And also use of RAF bases for Epstein to fly girls into, and out of. And this apparently authorised by AMW?
90 flights came in and out of the UK with Epstein's victims aboard. Some were to RAF bases and the MOD are looking into it.

Yes, oh yes. There will not be robust investigations as to how this happened, why this happened, how to improve systems to ensure something like this never happens again.
Instead, it will be... how can we cover this up, what message can we put out there that will close this down and satisfy the British public. We know this.,

30,000 emails concerning this passed to the Lord Chamberlain in 2020. Those emails showed he was passing on confidential government. He sat on it. Course he did.

They arrested him to take the heat off and now it can be seen justice was done. I expect he knew about it and went along with it.

Yes I have become so cynical now that I am
wondering if the arrest and now the judicial review fall under the heading of a planned crisis management strategy!

Maybe not the fact of the arrest itself … 🤨 that’s a bit too far-fetched… . 😀

But maybe the King and the MIGS were consulted when it was about to happen? Who knows? That’s sheer speculation on my part!

I can’t find the interview now but I am sure Lownie hinted that AMW had been tipped off in advance about the police’s arrival, as he was up and dressed at a respectable time of the morning and the police didn’t carry out a dawn raid. And I remember Lownie saying before that, that AMW had allegedly been holed up over the Christmas holidays allegedly destroying potential evidence.

Obviously it would be great for AMW if he evaded being charged and going to trial on a technicality.

And there possibly might be a collective sigh of relief in royal circles if certain bits of evidence did not come to light as trial evidence?

But would it be good overall for the image of the royal family if AMW gets away entirely with no further punishment? There is so much evidence out there now that I am not sure that the public would be entirely at ease with that?

And there are still moves in Washington to un-redact, if that’s a word, some of the Epstein papers. so there is a possibility of more incriminating evidence coming to light?

And they are reporting on the news tonight that even if the arrest warrants are deemed unsound, that doesn’t necessarily disqualify all of the evidence?

Fascinating I must say, but I hope we are not looking at an attempt at a cover up.