So, after the con artist formerly known as prince, who is next?
Fergie?
Mandelson?
Farage?
Mandelson has to be safe bet.
Boris?
Boris made an ex-KGB officer a Lord didn't he?
Is that barge still available on Portland harbour? Going to need somewhere to lock them all up where they aren't going to be murdered be the regular nonces.
Mandelson is a pretty good bet.
newspaper or media folk? Piers Morgan?
So are the BBC just going to continue with this rolling news bollocks of Andy's arrest ? ( not playing down what he's alleged to have done of course). Its just continuous speculation chatter. What with the Winter Olympics taking over BBC One, we have now lost Homes Under the Hammer from this mornings routine 🤨
Boris made an ex-KGB officer a Lord didn't he?
That's an outrageous, hysterical, Russophobic comment. Lord Evgeny Lebedev is the son of a former KGB officer, which is obviously totally different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lebedev
I doubt we'll see many others in relation to the Esptein files. Maybe a few token gestures thrown under the bus to protect the real monsters involved.
I notice that MPs are now allowed to throw Andrew under the bus but not question the role of his brother or late mum
I notice that MPs are now allowed to throw Andrew under the bus but not question the role of his brother or late mum
Have you found references to them in the Epstein files that nobody else has come across? (In a manner of speaking…)
Have you found references to them in the Epstein files that nobody else has come across?
Who do you think payed off c£12m to Giuffre for Andrew then? And why?
Farage?
That would be like all the Christmas's coming at once. But i think he's too wily to be ensnared so easily.
That said the man is arrogant, and arrogance can leave them thinking they are above the law.
Farage has 9 jobs, which are now earning him some £700,000/year. All those companies arent giving him £20k for 16 hours a month without expecting something from him, and its not his personality or witty ripostes.
He is expected to use his office to benefit themselves, their bank accounts or their businesses.
Whats his latest ? Based on reports from early 2026, Nigel Farage and the Reform UK party received £200,000 in donations from a company linked to a church warden who works for a secretive, Iranian-born billionaire family.
They even financed his trip to DAVOS
They dont want him on the payroll thinking he is best experienced in architectural interiour design.
Or honest Bob Jenkins who pulled the strings to save a billionaire property developer Richard Desmond £45m-£50m in tax, in exchange for a nice dinner and a £12k donation to the party.
Have you found references to them in the Epstein files that nobody else has come across?
Who do you think payed off c£12m to Giuffre for Andrew then? And why?
Oooh the grand old duke of york, he had 12million quid, he gave it to a girl he never met, for something he never did.
At least give Basil Brush credit for using his joke.
I notice that MPs are now allowed to throw Andrew under the bus but not question the role of his brother or late mum
Have you found references to them in the Epstein files that nobody else has come across? (In a manner of speaking…)
His arrest relates to his trade ambassador role his mum lobbied hard for him to have. The payoff was Charles and his mum trying to cover things up. Yes there are photos with Charles and Epstein but not compromising ones
Much as I'm hoping this is the start of a great clean up of dodgy dealings, I can't see much happening.
Misconduct in public office sounds a great "catch all" charge but is reportedly very hard to prove. I can see the Police/CPS struggling to get enough evidence to proceed with a reasonable chance of conviction after all this time, cue everyone screaming about a cover up because they are obviously guilty. The media frothing itself senseless over these arrests is raising a lot of expectations.
I really hope that the searches and spotlight produce some evidence and witnesses related to the far more important abuse victims, and hopefully UK cases will produce evidence linking other abusers elsewhere.
I really hope that the searches and spotlight produce some evidence and witnesses related to the far more important abuse victims,
I’m not sure you can entirely separate the two. He went from unqualified sacked maths teacher to incredible financial wealth and power which facilitates him in his abuse. People leaking documents to him that made him richer, enabled him to buy young girls.
Misconduct in public office sounds a great "catch all" charge but is reportedly very hard to prove. I can see the Police/CPS struggling to get enough evidence to proceed with a reasonable chance of conviction after all this time,
given the high profile of the two arrested people so far I expect they have some decent evidence. If the evidence was poor then they would not have arrested them.
given the high profile of the two arrested people so far I expect they have some decent evidence. If the evidence was poor then they would not have arrested them.
Arrests are based on reasonable suspicion
Charges are made on the basis of evidence
I agree. If they ever get as far as charging them, making the case stick with what is widely reported as a very difficult charge to prove does make me suspicious. If I want to get really tin foil hat you can make a case for Mandy to be convicted and Andrew not to protect the Monarch, its not like Andrew is ever going to see the inside of a cell even at the lowest category prison there is.
given the high profile of the two arrested people so far I expect they have some decent evidence. If the evidence was poor then they would not have arrested them.
Arrests are based on reasonable suspicion
Charges are made on the basis of evidence
yes but given the high profile of the two arrested I expect the amount of evidence they have already is more than they would have had to arrest someone lower profile. This is the first royal arrested for hundreds of years - they must have more than reasonable suspicion IMO
yes but given the high profile of the two arrested I expect the amount of evidence they have already is more than they would have had to arrest someone lower profile
There does seem to be a lot of doubt from the legal experts and cops with comments. The basic evidence does seem clear but then it seems to be a lot about why someone did it and for that you need to ask them and rely on them giving answers which drop them in it.
So on reflection good chance Andrew is screwed.
Interesting that Mandelson is whinging about being arrested. Tough sh1t I say.
yes but given the high profile of the two arrested I expect the amount of evidence they have already is more than they would have had to arrest someone lower profile. This is the first royal arrested for hundreds of years - they must have more than reasonable suspicion IMO
well theres stacks of evidence in both Mandleson's and Andrews case's in that theres emails from both of them sending confidential government documents to Epstein. In some instances just minutes after they'd received them. It almost seems they seemed keener to pass them on Epstein than they were to actually read them themselves
How much more evidence would be enough for you?
Those emails in isolation don't give any explanation as to why they did it. They don't show if it was pre-agreed that the information would be sent, they don't show if there was joint enterprise with Epstein, or bribery or coercion or threat. And emails only show this behaviour in relation to Epstein becuase it's only Epstein's email account thats available to be scrutinised. So it's not clear if this was unique to a relationship with him or whether Andy and Mandy were both in the habit blurting out secrets left right and centre to anyone in their address book.
And the why is going to be key as to whether either of them get charged or convicted
I wonder what the details of misconduct in public office covers? Anything to do with misuse of public funds or is that something different. I only ask cos there's a great quote from the article in the Graun today:
His staff often requested attractive women be invited to events, to which “one consul replied, ‘I’m a diplomat, not a pimp,’”
And the why is going to be key as to whether either of them get charged or convicted
Is it though? I don't think drug dealers or rapists get acquitted on a question of why the offence was committed, it's kind of a black and white did/did not.
Motive is part of the charging decision rather than the decision to convict or acquit - 1/ is there a reasonable chance of conviction; 2/ is it in the public interest to prosecute. IANAL but aware of several profile cases and suspect there will be loads more low profile ones where 'common sense' has applied.
Again IANAL but it can also then form part of the sentencing - where minimal sentencing is applied because of the motives.
Granted, seems unlikely to apply in these cases, I can't think of a justifying motive for (for example, and allegedly) having sex with trafficked minors. I could if I squint very hard potentially see one for giving state secrets to a foreign power - for example allegedly being blackmailed for having compromised oneself by allegedly having sex with trafficked minors...
I could if I squint very hard potentially see one for giving state secrets to a foreign power - for example allegedly being blackmailed for having compromised oneself by allegedly having sex with trafficked minors...
You’d have to really, really squint as that form of duress doesn’t seem to meet the standards in E&W case law; no threat of serious physical harm, no immediacy, opportunities to escape from the threat and the defendant getting themselves involved in criminal activity which might lead to the issues. (IANAL but I did have someone try to argue duress with me years back, it’s quite an interesting area and the courts have been clear in nailing down what it actually means / how it can be used.)
Is it though?
With this law apparently so. Its a very old one dusted off and given some strange (to me anyway) considerations for police/cps. Hence why there were already some anti corruption activists pushing for it to be replaced with a better law .
Its a very old one dusted off and given some strange (to me anyway) considerations for police/cps.
A cynic might suggest that’s because the people, traditionally, at risk are the people who operate the legal system, the police, senior civil servants, MPs so have no real desire to have it working well. Turkeys voting for christmas kinda thing.
I wonder what the details of misconduct in public office covers?
It's a deliberately vague piece of legislation, partly because 'Public Office' covers everything from parish councillior to the Prime Minister and all the civil services, public agencies and quangos supporting them in between. Quite often 'conduct' is defined by an individual's contract and the contractual stipulations relating to conduct for the head of MI6 will be different to those for the head of Leisure Services in Grimethorpe - so 'misconduct' is really defined by context rather than a central piece of legislation. What tends to muddy things is contracts in regard to conduct tend to me more sharply defined for lower ranking public officials, who will have quite clearly defined specific roles, but greater levels of seniority come with broader remits and also greater latitude to use discretion.
It hinges less on what is done than how and why something is done. Both these cases involve leaking government information. Theres a difference between leaking government information by simply being careless, or doing so in what you believe to be the public interest - being a whistleblower - , or to serve your own political ambition, or doing so to knowingly advantage an enemy foreign power, or doing so to enrich yourself and your co-conspirators.
Is it though? I don't think drug dealers or rapists get acquitted on a question of why the offence was committed, it's kind of a black and white did/did not.
Drug dealers and rapists aren't being charged with misconduct in a public office. Different laws and also different kinds of law - Statute and Common Law.
Is it though? I don't think drug dealers or rapists get acquitted on a question of why the offence was committed, it's kind of a black and white did/did not.
Drug dealers and rapists aren't being charged with misconduct in a public office. Different laws and also different kinds of law - Statute and Common Law.
My criminal law classes were nearly 40 years ago, but doesn't "mens rea" cover the why, even for drug dealers and rapists?
The CPS guidance is quite a good run through on the offence
https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/misconduct-public-office
I read that Mandy was complaining about being arrested because he was considered a flight risk! Who would have thought he would he wouldn’t consider running away to some suitable jurisdiction to hide.
It's a deliberately vague piece of legislation, partly because 'Public Office' covers everything from parish councillior to the Prime Minister and all the civil services, public agencies and quangos supporting them in between. Quite often 'conduct' is defined by an individual's contract and the contractual stipulations relating to conduct for the head of MI6 will be different to those for the head of Leisure Services in Grimethorpe - so 'misconduct' is really defined by context rather than a central piece of legislation. What tends to muddy things is contracts in regard to conduct tend to me more sharply defined for lower ranking public officials, who will have quite clearly defined specific roles, but greater levels of seniority come with broader remits and also greater latitude to use discretion.
It hinges less on what is done than how and why something is done. Both these cases involve leaking government information. Theres a difference between leaking government information by simply being careless, or doing so in what you believe to be the public interest - being a whistleblower - , or to serve your own political ambition, or doing so to knowingly advantage an enemy foreign power, or doing so to enrich yourself and your co-conspirators.
I didn't know any of this. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Motive is part of the charging decision rather than the decision to convict or acquit - 1/ is there a reasonable chance of conviction; 2/ is it in the public interest to prosecute. IANAL but aware of several profile cases and suspect there will be loads more low profile ones where 'common sense' has applied.
Again IANAL but it can also then form part of the sentencing - where minimal sentencing is applied because of the motives.
Granted, seems unlikely to apply in these cases, I can't think of a justifying motive for (for example, and allegedly) having sex with trafficked minors. I could if I squint very hard potentially see one for giving state secrets to a foreign power - for example allegedly being blackmailed for having compromised oneself by allegedly having sex with trafficked minors...
Granted, seems unlikely to apply in these cases, I can't think of a justifying motive for (for example, and allegedly) having sex with trafficked minors.Nobody has been arrested for that. I think if it does happen than the defences will be - I had no idea they were minors, Epstein told me they were willing participants and old enough.
I think there are far easier to conceive "excuses": (i) "DTI were well aware I had business connections and expected me to share the content - there was no reason to give me the information they didn't want leaked" or (ii) "It was in the UK's best interest to build strong strategic links and trust with certain key investors, it was important not to blindside or surprise those investors, the role of a trade envoy involves buildng those relationships - sometimes by sharing information not in the public domain".I could if I squint very hard potentially see one for giving state secrets to a foreign power - for example allegedly being blackmailed for having compromised oneself by allegedly having sex with trafficked minors...
I can definitely see that being a "trade envoy" or whatever could put you on a narrow edge between encouraging someone to invest in something and insider dealing.
I can also definitely see Randy Andy not bring clever enough to figure it out.