Ex-Prince Andrew Arrested (On His Birthday)

Rider77 said:
One can only hope that this is the beginning of bringing guilty parties to justice. I don't know anymore about than I have read from various media sources, but I suspect this action against the former Prince has caused other prominent persons to experience some puckering. If any group other than powerful and high placed individuals were involved the jails would already have some nasty residents. Maybe there is hope, but I wait to see it before I believe it.

You could easily say that this action affords the royal family a path toward gaining more distance from an embarrassing issue. Their press ratings have suffered considerably.

I don't know how things work across the pond, but if Andrew waddled into a U S prison he might find out what sexual abuse really is.
Click to expand...
In the U.S. a celebrity or some such prominent person would be in Protective Custody.
 
Nathan said:
In the U.S. a celebrity or some such prominent person would be in Protective Custody.
Click to expand...
It's all other people that need protecting from HIM.... not the other way around..lol


The fact is if the police thought they were going to find anything in his house to incriminate him, they were barking up the wrong tree...

Did they really think after all these years esepcailly after the disastrous interview a few years ago that he would still have any incriminating evidence knocking around for them to find ?
 
hollydolly said:
106524289-0-image-m-2_1771529142942.jpg


An ashen-faced Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been pictured leaving police custody, following his unprecedented arrest on Thursday on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

The former prince looked shellshocked as he cowered in the back of a car leaving Aylsham police station in Norfolk shortly after 7pm on his return to Sandringham.

Andrew, who turned 66 today, was detained by officers during an 8am raid on his new home at Wood Farm. In events that rocked the royal family, he became the first senior royal to be arrested in modern times.


In a statement put out just minutes after Andrew's departure, Thames Valley Police said 'a man in his sixties' has been released under investigation - as images showed how the royal seemed to be trying to evade photographers following his bruising day in the cells.

Wide-eyed and with his hands clasped in front of him, Andrew cut a lonely figure as he ditched his traditional suit and tie attire in favour of a shirt and cardigan more suited to the setting that is so far removed from the upper echelons of luxury he is used to.

The photograph of the former prince, now stripped of all his titles and privileges, is sure to haunt the royal family in the days and weeks to come.

Police added that searches being conducted in Norfolk, relating to Andrew's new residence, Wood Farm, have concluded.

symbol
Click to expand...
More a look of terror, but oh, how the mighty have fallen.
 
timoc said:
More a look of terror, but oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Click to expand...
I don't know Tim... I think he's too much of a narcassist to be terrified.. I still believe he thinks nothing will happen to him ...after all he's 66 now.. and all his life he's been protected not by just his family, but by protection officers, the police themselves.. the supposed hierarchy... and I can't believe he thinks that will change, and that the police are only doing this to quiet the masses..
 
What is misconduct in public office?

Like other sections of the law in this country, misconduct in public office is largely open to interpretation.

It is defined by the Crown Prosecution Service as the 'serious wilful abuse or neglect of the power or responsibilities of the public office held'.


Those who can hold that power range from police officers and prison staff, to judges and bishops. The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor yesterday suggests that it can also include members of the royal family, although we are in unchartered territory.

That is because there is no strict definition of who might hold a public office.

Therefore, each case is assessed individually, taking into account the nature of the role, the duties carried out, and the level of public trust involved.

The former Duke of York may be considered to have held public office in the past due to his role as the UK's trade envoy between 2001 and 2011, effectively representing the Government on the world stage.

He was appointed to the role by his late mother, The Queen, and not the Government. It was also formally unpaid, with CPS guidelines saying remuneration 'is a significant factor, but not determinative' in deciding whether someone is a public official.

Police are investigating whether Andrew shared confidential reports from that role with the paedophile financier, Jeffrey Epstein.

They are believed to relate to investment opportunities in Afghanistan and south east Asia, and were sent on following Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor.

How is it proven?​

In short - with difficulty, as it is open to interpretation.

Indeed only 191 people were convicted of misconduct in public office between 2014 and 2024.

Marcus Johnstone, managing director of PCD Solicitors, said authorities would 'have to find clear evidence that Andrew knowingly abused or exploited his position'.

This, he said, 'is easier said than done'.

For a charge to be brought, the CPS states there 'must be a direct link between the misconduct and an abuse of those powers or responsibilities'.

Police searched Andrew's new Wood Farm home on the Sandringham Estate and at Royal Lodge in Windsor, where he lived for more than 20 years until just over a fortnight ago.

They would have been gathering devices, files and documents they believe may be pertinent to their investigation.

Mr Johnstone added: 'Although an investigation is now taking place, we are still a long way away from a potential prosecution.'

What are the punishments upon conviction?

Misconduct in public office carries a maximum punishment of a life sentence, but recent examples have seen much lesser terms handed out.

This includes former Met Police officer Neil Sinclair who was sentenced to nine years in prison last year after admitting a number of serious corruption offences.

The court heard Sinclair unlawfully accessed police systems and disclosed sensitive information to members of an organised crime group.

And prison officer Linda De Sousa Abreu was sentenced to 15 months in jail after she was filmed having sex with an inmate at HMP Wandsworth.

A decade earlier, retired Bishop Peter Ball was handed a sentence of just under three years' imprisonment after admitting indecent assault and misconduct in public office by 'misusing his position in authority to manipulate and prevail upon others for his own sexual gratification' involving young men.
What happens next?

The allegations date back to when Andrew was a trade envoy - a period of many years. This means police will potentially have millions of documents, messages and files to go through.

It also likely suggests it may be some time before investigators are able to piece everything together and decide whether or not there is cause to charge him. After gathering and poring over evidence, if police believe they have enough evidence to charge, they present a case file to the CPS.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, would then likely decide whether or not to authorise a charge against the King's brother.
106519509-15574933-King_Charles_pictured_with_his_brother_in_September_He_has_said_-a-295_1771526623300.jpg



What happens if police find evidence of other wrongdoing?​

While he was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, investigators may use this opportunity to look at further allegations.
The arresting force, Thames Valley Police, is also looking at an allegation that Epstein sent a woman to have sex with Andrew at Royal Lodge in 2010.
Andrew has not addressed such an accusation but has always denied wrongdoing in regards to Epstein victims.
Solicitor Mr Johnstone said police may use the raid on Andrew's properties 'as the basis to scrutinise his relationship with Epstein even further'.
'His home can now be searched, and formal questions can now be put to him at interview,' he said.
Police could spend months going over the evidence. But just because they have arrested him on suspicion of one offence, this does not mean they cannot investigate him for another. It depends where the evidence points to.

​

symbol
 
Sunkist said:
I wondered if I was the only person who had this viewpoint, even before this morning's news: I've believed Andrew is being railroaded, somebody 'out to get' him.
Click to expand...
I don't. Andrew and his former wife Sarah have been known to be morally bankrupt and avaricious for decades. It is not out of character for him to seek corrupt advantage from his position as Trade Envoy for the UK.

He is under arrest because of a suspicion that he shared confidential information with Epstein while he was serving as Trade Envoy. If true, he is definitely liable for a charge of misconduct in public office. Police have searched properties in Berkshire and Norfolk.

The police did not notify his father, King Charles, that they were about to take these actions. Charles is not protecting him
 
@hollydolly, I have a question: will his security team and other staff be questioned as well?
Where does that leave those in his employment back then who signed NDA's?

I have to wonder if they took his passport away, after all, we all know that Dubai will welcome him with open arms.
 
Last edited:
Tish said:
@hollydolly, I have a question: will his security team and other staff be questioned as well?
Where does that leave those in his employment back then who signed NDA's?

I have to wonder if they took his passport away, after all, we all know that Dubai will welcome him with open arms.
Click to expand...
I have no idea the answers to those questions, Tish.... but I did find this ...


Yes, the police can question staff who have signed Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). An NDA is a civil contract and
cannot be used to prevent an individual from reporting criminal activity to law enforcement, nor can it stop them from answering questions during a police investigation.
Key Considerations Regarding NDAs and Police Questioning:
  • NDAs Do Not Cover Up Crimes: Criminal activity is never protected by an NDA. Attempts to use an NDA to hide illegal activity are considered void and unenforceable.

  • Voluntary vs. Compelled Questioning: While staff can voluntarily speak to the police, if they are hesitant due to the NDA, police can issue a subpoena or formal witness requirement, which overrides any confidentiality clause.

  • Whistleblower Protection: Laws generally protect workers who report illegal, unsafe, or unethical conduct to authorities, overriding NDA restrictions.
  • Legal Advice: If an employee is concerned about breaching their NDA, it is advisable to seek legal counsel to determine what information they can legally disclose.
In summary, a signed NDA is not a shield against a criminal investigation. If police believe a staff member has information about a crime, they are entitled to interview them.



No idea if they've removed his passport..I would imagine not as he's not been formally charged with anything, he's only under investigation
 
VaughanJB said:
Al Capone - with all his ills - was convicted of tax evasion.

It is heartening to know Andrew will face the law, as any one of us would. Albeit, a charge not directly associated with his most heinous transgressions.
Click to expand...
Rich people get away with crimes such as fraud or insider trading all the time in the U.S. And the police often get away with murder here.
 
Sunkist said:
I wondered if I was the only person who had this viewpoint, even before this morning's news: I've believed Andrew is being railroaded, somebody 'out to get' him.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think the police have been itching to interrogate him about Epstein and have been searching for an excuse. As regards the girls, I don't think he broke any laws. The whole episode was sleazy and tacky but the girls knew perfectly well what they were doing. They were part of the jet-set lifestyle.
 
hollydolly said:
I have no idea the answers to those questions, Tish.... but I did find this ...


Yes, the police can question staff who have signed Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). An NDA is a civil contract and
cannot be used to prevent an individual from reporting criminal activity to law enforcement, nor can it stop them from answering questions during a police investigation.
Key Considerations Regarding NDAs and Police Questioning:
  • NDAs Do Not Cover Up Crimes: Criminal activity is never protected by an NDA. Attempts to use an NDA to hide illegal activity are considered void and unenforceable.

  • Voluntary vs. Compelled Questioning: While staff can voluntarily speak to the police, if they are hesitant due to the NDA, police can issue a subpoena or formal witness requirement, which overrides any confidentiality clause.

  • Whistleblower Protection: Laws generally protect workers who report illegal, unsafe, or unethical conduct to authorities, overriding NDA restrictions.
  • Legal Advice: If an employee is concerned about breaching their NDA, it is advisable to seek legal counsel to determine what information they can legally disclose.
In summary, a signed NDA is not a shield against a criminal investigation. If police believe a staff member has information about a crime, they are entitled to interview them.



No idea if they've removed his passport..I would imagine not as he's not been formally charged with anything, he's only under investigation
Click to expand...
Thanks, Holly.
I guess we will just have to wait and see, very happy those with the NDA's are protected.
 
Lavinia said:
Personally, I think the police have been itching to interrogate him about Epstein and have been searching for an excuse. As regards the girls, I don't think he broke any laws. The whole episode was sleazy and tacky but the girls knew perfectly well what they were doing. They were part of the jet-set lifestyle.
Click to expand...
The UK police action has nothing to do with the girls trafficked to Andrew in UK. It is about using his position as Trade Envoy corruptly - disclosing confidential information that no doubt was used by Epstein to further enrich himself.

That is the accusation but... innocent until proven guilty is still the standard of British justice.
 
smiley said:
he's a pillock and imagine his dear deceased mummy regarded him as her favorite - says a lot for her - wot??
Click to expand...
Mothers often prefer their sons over daughters. And Andrew is younger than Charles. To me it's clear why she regarded Andrew as her favorite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top