Prince Andrew

[HORT]

The King has said that the law applies to everyone.

That is correct and so Prince Andrew is innocent until proven guilty.

[Alan]

Has anyone suggested otherwise?

[HORT]

Yes. The police who arrested him "on Suspicion" but suspicion has to be a valid one otherwise they should not arrest.

[Big_Jeff_Leo]

I am pretty sure that given past mistakes that this was thought through very clearly......I mean they do not want a Cliff Richard type fiasco do they.

[HORT]

He is still innocent until proven guilty.

[Dave]

First of all, they will need to charge him with something.

Do you think that it is likely he will be charged with anything?

[ellie ellins]

This is Michael Rosen at his best:

I'm faced with a nice contradiction today. As a republican, I've spend decades being uninterested in what the monarchs and surrounding family do. I don't watch coronations, royal funerals and weddings. I leave the room when people start talking about the family gossip. In my mind, I demote their significance in order to resist the juggernaut of royalist propaganda. (By the way, this is not just a matter of the expense. It's more the fact that the monarchy's presence and surrounding flimflammery turn us into gawpers and gazers, invited to 'look up' at them as if they are superior beings. Every time a scandal arises, it does remind us (or should) that of course they are no in any way superior.
So, part of me, thinks - Andrew arrested? Yeah. So what?
Then I have to correct that and remind myself of several things. The Royal Family fit like a jig-saw piece into how our rulers (government, and the most powerful in the land) rule. There is a snug symbiotic arrangement where they all agree that they are all 'great' and 'brilliant' and 'wonderful' and that we should all admire all of them for doing a great job - even when (eg like Boris Johnson) they are rogues and charlatans. So with Andrew, there is a crisis that goes beyond the tittle-tattle of Princess Popsicle has got a lovely new bonnet or some such. This crisis implicates many people way beyond the walls of Buck House and Balmoral. There are countless people who've allowed Andrew, promoted Andrew and covered up for Andrew. You lot are all in this up to your eyes.
However, I can see another aspect. In some senses, he's the easiest target for those trying to cover up the Epstein horror. He looks 'big', when in fact, he's only 'big' in the sense that the Wizard of Oz is big. In crude material terms, he has no power. When he's removed (even more than he has been already), no walls will fall. No towers will crumble. But he looks 'big', in particular to those who love the Royal Family and the monarchy principle. Ooooo, this must be so worrying for the King!!! And people say the word 'King' like it's some kind of demi-god we're talking about here.
Meanwhile, there are people involved with the Epstein horror who are 'big'. Some of them have (or have had) huge power, huge influence, huge domination over all of us. Are we going to see Andrew as the giant sacrificial lamb, when in fact, the real bigguns walk about with all the privilege they've always had?

[Brianza]

Andrew and Mandelson have been identified to be "friends" of Epstein and could well be prosecuted. The UK has thankfully shown itself to recognise that no one is above the law no matter how rich or powerful you are. Will America do the same and allow the millions of emails to be unredacted to name their rich and powerful who were also involved or do we still have to guess, you know who, is being protected?

[HORT]

Brianza, what could Andrew be prosecuted for?

[Dave]

Misconduct in Public Office is one thing, but it is so 'complicated'. It probably wouldn't be complicated for anyone else, and they'd be sat in a cell on remand.

[Brianza]

Brianza, what could Andrew be prosecuted for?

Hi HORT,

Various serious accusations are floating in the press, none of which will be trumped up, but I agree with you that he is innocent until proven guilty.

My earlier post was identifying how the US DOJ allowed the names of a UK Prince and a high member of the UK government to be shown in the disclosed emails for the world to see. I do not see the same disclosure of "HIGH" prominent personnel names, coming from the US DOJ, who were also friends of Epstein. They are also innocent until proven guilty, providing the evidence is not trumped up.

[HORT]

Misconduct in Public Office in extremely difficult tp prove.

[Dave]

If it can be proven, do you think he should be punished or should he get away with it?

[HORT]

How can they prove the unproveable?

[Bert]

Charge him with being an arrogant git; he'll not get out of that one!

[Bert]

Dave, you ask if he's found guilty should he be punished. Definitely yes. All his teddy bears should be rearranged.

[wendy milner]

I agree Bert - they should be made to face the wall and hang their heads in shame