Forum menu
I see William used this as cover to go and see the dark lords of the Middle East for reasons not explained
Yes. It says volumes about the current state of play of the royal family when a trip to go and spend time in the company of the man universally now credited with ordering the murder and dismembering of Khashoggi is seen as beneficial to being seen in public with your uncle.
The parallels between Epstein and MVS aren't great. Obviously he appears significantly in the Epstein papers but he also has an island he likes to spend 6 months a year on. Where no Saudi nations are allowed to work and the western employees have to hand over all the electronic devices before arrival. And all the guests are special invitees with a striking resemblance to Epstein party guest list. And the beaches are walked by (very very young) Russian girls ordered off an online catalogue and paid £3K a day for their aesthetic appeal..and maybe more.
Interesting that one of the first things to happen was his gun license going. Wouldn't want him to do an Epstein.
Fact is this arrest was for a very difficult charge to prove, and his role/powers as business envoy were apparently very vague. Wouldn't be at all surprised that the CPS don't proceed.
If nothing else, it buys time and possibly access to evidence related to the abuse claims, and with the other European investigations, it shows how poor the Americans have been.
TBH I did wonder if it’s a bit of royal PR, before he slips off to a nice house in Dubai paid for by some unknown benefactors.
Going to to interesting to see how much legal jeopardy he is actually in.
Yes. It says volumes about the current state of play of the royal family when a trip to go and spend time in the company of the man universally now credited with ordering the murder and dismembering of Khashoggi is seen as beneficial to being seen in public with your uncle.
Well let's say hypothetically you wanted someone with the ability to persuade a certain person of your acquaintance to a place where they might just disappear and end up in numerous small packages then maybe you have another motive for the visit.
I see William used this as cover to go and see the dark lords of the Middle East for reasons not explained
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99k91gj09eo
An actually quite balanced piece on the BBC about it. This will have been in the planning for a long time, it's not something you can just phone up and say "hey, things are a bit awkward at home, mind if William pops out for some photo op stuff?"
On a thread like this I really miss jivehoneywhateveritwas 🙁
Am I the only one who thinks that the press, especially the BBC, have been completely obnoxious about this? Say what you like, nothing has yet to be proved in court and until it is they should really try to be a bit less offensive. Tother day the BBC were reporting that Andrew had refused to comment as if he was obliged to do. What did they expect? The rights and wrongs of whatever he has been up to are generally irrelevant to the rest of us yet the press are ramming it down our throats. Yet another reason to despise the press and journalism .
Actually, has Andrew actually been convicted of any offence yet? No idea, I won't give the press the **** of my shoes. Could be worse, he could be our current PM.
Yet another reason to despise the press and journalism .
Actually, has Andrew actually been convicted of any offence yet? No idea
If only there were an industry devoted to identifying and describing such major developments to the general public.
Am I the only one who thinks that the press, especially the BBC, have been completely obnoxious about this? Say what you like, nothing has yet to be proved in court and until it is they should really try to be a bit less offensive. Tother day the BBC were reporting that Andrew had refused to comment as if he was obliged to do. What did they expect? The rights and wrongs of whatever he has been up to are generally irrelevant to the rest of us yet the press are ramming it down our throats. Yet another reason to despise the press and journalism .
The problem is, it's simultaneously one of the biggest news stories in years, and yet there's nothing to say. It's not like they can just go "Andrew M-W has been detained in police custody. We have nothing further to add so here's Leo, a corgi from East Kilbride who can speak French."
It reminds me of when Princess Diana died. The radio was rolling solemn music interspersed with "We interrupt you to say that Princess Diana has died... now we'll cut to our Royal Correspondent for Dead Princesses... Hello, I'm the Royal Correspondent for Dead Princesses and I can confirm that Princess Diana is definitely dead... now back to the news room to tell you that she's still dead..."
I think the coverage is reasonable. It's revealed that people around the world who I already thought dodgy were even dodgier than I imagined. Epstein's address book is like a who's who of people who showed signs of having traits it might be possible to pander to and exploit. He played on weaknesses, sometimes sexual and sometimes not. Greed, sex, the arts, corruption - they were all things that once people compromised themselves with him could be used as levers and exploited. It's kgb style honey trap stuff and makes fascinating reading.
There is plenty to say as each new release of documents revives the affaire, it just requires the manpower to read it all. Handing governement information to random foreigners is usually regarded as spying but here it's just abuse of his position as a trade envoy. The media seem quite restrained.
I've never liked Andrew, I'm the same age as him within a few months and when little my mother used to compare me with him holding him up as a model. Then it was heroic Andy, randy Andy, beef bayonet Andy and that God awful thing he so appropriately married. I'm lovin' it all 🙂 not 🙁 If it weren't for the collatoral damage in this festival of the rich and famous making fools and vilains of themselves I'd be revelling in it. But I keep having to give myself a slap and remember the victims lured into Epstein and Maxwell's trap.
im not actually sure it is that big a news story - he’s not been charged certainly not convicted, and it’s not for the offences which really upset the public, which he may or may not have actually broken any laws even if he did some of them.The problem is, it's simultaneously one of the biggest news stories in years, and yet there's nothing to say.
If it was up to me there would be a general rule that people were not identified on arrest (by the police or others) until court proceeding started. If there was a genuine interest of justice to name someone (eg so other victims/witnesses might come forward) it would require approval from judges who would way up the risk to the person who is innocent until proven guilty.
now that WOULD be a proper story, with something to sayIt's not like they can just go "Andrew M-W has been detained in police custody. We have nothing further to add so here's Leo, a corgi from East Kilbride who can speak French."
Not sure judges should be allowed to greatly increase the risk to the person. 😉
If it was up to me there would be a general rule that people were not identified on arrest (by the police or others) until court proceeding started. If there was a genuine interest of justice to name someone (eg so other victims/witnesses might come forward) it would require approval from judges who would way up the risk to the person who is innocent until proven guilty.
There already exists a reasonable expectation of privacy before charge,the Supreme Court ruled on this so, the police don't routinely release names of arrested persons. If someone thinks their right have been abused they can take action . If you've been repeatedly named in relation to possible offences, overseas, or given a tv interview on the matters in the UK I suspect you might struggle to protect your privacy as the matter isn't really private😄
I think the coverage is reasonable. It's revealed that people around the world who I already thought dodgy were even dodgier than I imagined. Epstein's address book is like a who's who of people who showed signs of having traits it might be possible to pander to and exploit. He played on weaknesses, sometimes sexual and sometimes not. Greed, sex, the arts, corruption - they were all things that once people compromised themselves with him could be used as levers and exploited. It's kgb style honey trap stuff and makes fascinating reading.
I think what will be revealing about this - in terms of Andrew's case and Mandelsons as well - is the Epstein file release only reveals peoples actions in relation to Epstein. With these Misconduct allegations we only see what Epstein's files and so far revealed - which is only the information Epstein chose to keep (and that the DOJ hasn't redacted or withheld) . They show in both instances Andy and Mandy seemingly very casually passing sensitive material to Epstein - they don't seemingly show Epstein charming, pressuring, coercing or conspiring to obtain the info. The UK investigations will obviously take in all their dealings, not just those with Epstein - so will show whether they were just blurting out confidential info to all and sundry or if Epstein had a particular hook in them that no-one else had.
I think with Andy it may be more the former rather than the latter - it was interesting reading over the weekend that Charles had tried to block his appointment as Trade Envoy back in 2001 as it saw it as a 'disaster waiting to happen'.
I wonder if Andrew also went crying to mummy about Charles being king turning into a disaster. That’s turned out to be true aswell
The UK investigations will obviously take in all their dealings, not just those with Epstein - so will show whether they were just blurting out confidential info to all and sundry or if Epstein had a particular hook in them that no-one else had.
Indeed. With Mandleson we know he liked holidaying with Russian oligarchs and the like. I find it very likely that information was being leaked to people other than Epstein that could also help him maintain a certain lifestyle. Mountbatten-Windsor being solely dependant on Epstein seems slightly more likely, as he seems arguably less cunning/strategic, but it's far from certain. Someone else having their fingers in him, and getting pats on the back in the form of information from him, has to be investigated.
Some crackers here
If you're going to post links to ai slop its worth checking who the grim convicted racist is who's creating it
I'm not here to defend him, but the police made a statement which didn't name him, but allowed the press to very easily identify him - an age, searching two properties with the rough location and a misconduct in public office offence, was inevitably going to allow the press to piece together who it was. Of course it would probably have been hard to stop it leaking out anyway as someone at the police station or the royal household would be leakier than a sieve. So I'd actually prefer if the press were simply not allowed to report the identity of accused people.If it was up to me there would be a general rule that people were not identified on arrest (by the police or others) until court proceeding started. If there was a genuine interest of justice to name someone (eg so other victims/witnesses might come forward) it would require approval from judges who would way up the risk to the person who is innocent until proven guilty.
There already exists a reasonable expectation of privacy before charge,the Supreme Court ruled on this so, the police don't routinely release names of arrested persons.
If someone thinks their right have been abused they can take action .
The problem is you have the Streisand Effect - taking action isn't necessarily the best course of action even if you've done nothing wrong, or have done something wrong but it doesn't merit a circus.
But he hasn't given a TV interview on misconduct in public office allegations, nor has that been the focus of the overseas allegations. I'm not sure he's even been explicitly accused of any crime overseas. Being friends with a sex trafficker is not a good look for royalty but its not actually a crime. He may or may not have been leaking information to his friend, and if he was I welcome a prosecution, but I'd rather it had every chance of success rather than being undermined by a media frenzy.If you've been repeatedly named in relation to possible offences, overseas, or given a tv interview on the matters in the UK I suspect you might struggle to protect your privacy as the matter isn't really private😄
I really couldn't care about Andrew, but the principle of naming people or providing enough information to effectively name them and then trial by media is the opposite of what presumption of innocence has always been about. The fact he's sleazy and presented a spectacularly bad public interview doesn't detract from the principles of a fair trial.
If you're going to post links to ai slop its worth checking who the grim convicted racist is who's creating it
Folk posting such a.i. shit without examining where it comes from should have a 3 strikes and ur out policy against them
The ai slop tsunami has only just begun. I’ve started to see the occasional thing that’s actually quite good and I’m not sure how to feel about it.
They're having a debate, tabled by the lib dems, in the commons nominally about the sweaty nonce and releasing documents about his role as a trade envoy. This seems to involve a succession of MPs standing up and recounting their dealings with him and what an arrogant, entitled and utterly obnoxious **** he was/is
I’m not entirely sure what the point of the debate is beyond giving MPs the opportunity to have a go at him on record. It’s not as if it’s going to change anything or lead to us having any better understanding of the role of the rest of the family in this mess
It's to force release of correspondence to show the link between Mandleson and Mountbatten-Windsor, as it is suspected that the former worked hard to get (and later keep) a role for the (at the time) Prince that others thought he was very unsuitable for... which given how strong the links between both of them and Epstein have now been shown to be, could be important in showing how Epstein's network operated, which could be key to making more of his associates feel a bit hot under the collar... and ideally collared and maybe even imprisoned. Pressure to change how we appoint people to these royals (as suggested by former PM Brown) could also follow if we get to see more detail of these back room/door deals.
If all you're interested in is bringing down the Royal Family, and the end of Monarchy, this motion isn't going to help with that at all. Well, beyond it being another tiny step towards more scrutiny and questioning as regards a particular royal, that might become a precedent people look back on if/when people push for more accountability for all of them. I for one want far more transparency, as I think that's the only way to show the public what they actually support when they support a hereditary monarchy (which I do not).
It's to force release of correspondence to show the link between Mandleson and Mountbatten-Windsor,
That doesnt need them all to be putting the boot in though. I think the main purpose would be demonstrating that perhaps it isnt a good idea to not allow mps to criticise/comment on the royal family.
That doesnt need them all to be putting the boot in though.
Agreed. Must be irresistible though.
demonstrating that perhaps it isnt a good idea to not allow mps to criticise/comment on the royal family.
Good point.
They're having a debate, tabled by the lib dems, in the commons nominally about the sweaty nonce and releasing documents about his role as a trade envoy. This seems to involve a succession of MPs standing up and recounting their dealings with him and what an arrogant, entitled and utterly obnoxious **** he was/isits strange - all these people very close to the heart of power who "always knew he was a wrongun" but did bugger all about it (at least publicly). The enablers - royal protection officers (particularly senior ones who stamped out any concerns) and dept of trade staff who have approved his claims (particularly those who stamped out concerns) need to be worried that the blame game will come their way.
They're having a debate, tabled by the lib dems, in the commons nominally about the sweaty nonce and releasing documents about his role as a trade envoy. This seems to involve a succession of MPs standing up and recounting their dealings with him and what an arrogant, entitled and utterly obnoxious **** he was/is
They're all rushing to distance themselves from any involvement, as @poly says above ^^.
Never mind the potential national security scandal or the exact details, so long as we all know that the MP for [insert random constituency] had nothing at all to do with it Your Honour, in fact I always knew there was something not right, then we can all move on thank you, nothing to see here.
Always good to know there are people more cynical than myself! I think the willingness to shed more light on what's happened, including by those MPs who were in government while Andrew was lording it around the world as a Trade Envoy, is a positive thing. It's not a "move on, nothing to see" move... it could turn out to be an open up the cupboards and let the air in moment. Sorry for the optimism. Back to normal again soon.
Basically hiding behind layers of security so he can't be served by the legal team launching the civil action taking place in New York. Just attempting to get off on a technicality. Nice.
He really believes the law is for little people like us I suppose?
Not guilty? Ok, have your say, but don't hide behind the outdated institution of monarchy.
If he's found guilty in his absence he won't be jetting round the world anymore that's for sure.👍
Legal stuff like this always turns into procedure fights first, facts later. Service, jurisdiction, timing, all that boring process can drag things out for months before anyone even argues the actual claims. It is not really about hiding, it is how civil cases work when lawyers try to control where and how the case moves. The court will eventually force clarity one way or another.
I'm losing track of the details on this saga, but weren't the government trying to avoid this stuff being made public until the Police had finished with it all first?
I'm all for putting the boot in, but let's not **** up any Police enquiries first.
I'm all for putting the boot in, but let's not **** up any Police enquiries first.
'Sorry everyone, but we can't prosecute Randy Andy and Mandy because somebody on an obscure bike website populated by about 30 old men made an off colour joke.'
I'm losing track of the details on this saga, but weren't the government trying to avoid this stuff being made public until the Police had finished with it all first?
the police investigation will be about actions Andrew took as Trade Envoy and any illegality that might have been part of that, its not about how or why he was deemed suitable to be made a Trade Envoy in the first place (its worth keeping in mind he wasn't the our only trade envoy - we currently have 30 trade envoys) which is what is being discussed in parliament. There'll be questions about what due diligence was or wasn't untaken - and given that it's an unpaid post there might be less of that than we'd imagine. But these are just HR (rather than HRH) issues really for the government itself, they don't have any bearing on what the police will be investigating.
the police investigation will be about actions Andrew took as Trade Envoy and any illegality that might have been part of that, its not about how or why he was deemed suitable to be made a Trade Envoy in the first place (its worth keeping in mind he wasn't the our only trade envoy - we currently have 30 trade envoys) which is what is being discussed in parliament. There'll be questions about what due diligence was or wasn't untaken - and given that it's an unpaid post there might be less of that than we'd imagine. But these are just HR (rather than HRH) issues really for the government itself, they don't have any bearing on what the police will be investigating.
And the obvious question that should be on everyone's lips is, "if these are unpaid roles, why are people doing them?". It might be that the 8th in line to the throne had nothing else to do and felt a moral duty to support his mummy's country - but are we sure the 21 MPs, and 11 Lords/Baronesses are doing it for the good of the country? And are any of the others putting ridiculous stuff through their expenses?
There'll be questions about what due diligence was or wasn't untaken - and given that it's an unpaid post there might be less of that than we'd imagine. But these are just HR (rather than HRH) issues really for the government itself, they don't have any bearing on what the police will be investigating.
Thanks, I was getting the different strands muddled
There'll be questions about what due diligence was or wasn't untaken - and given that it's an unpaid post there might be less of that than we'd imagine.
There may be some interesting questions there though.
Private Eye reported issue before last that Charles had argued against him getting the "job" on the grounds he would just play golf and chase women but he got chosen by Blair anyway.
Although looks to be more recent reporting suggesting both Mandelson and the queen both lobbied/pressured Blair to chose him.
the obvious question that should be on everyone's lips is, "if these are unpaid roles, why are people doing them?"
This is the kind of question that says more about the self-interested cynicism of person asking it than the people doing the jobs. You'd be stunned to find out that lots of people do unpaid work for their community and country. They're all people with a decent income (either as an MP or a peer, and usually a pension in the latter case).
Being a trade envoy would be an interesting assignment that gets you in the meeting room with a bunch of interesting people, and maybe the occasional trip to the place to which you've been assigned. I can think of worse hobbies - it's not a full time job or anything close. And, hey, if you're an MP and do a decent job of this non-ministerial role, maybe next reshuffle you can be in with a shot for a junior FCDO job. Who knows?
Obviously Prince Andrew is not one of those people, was unqualified in business and government, and used these trips to pick up Rolexes and make scummy introductions. The reports that he was misbehaving were ignored. (I think even Popbitch carried stories about his entitlement and temper tantrums - although there was never anything nonce-related). On the principle of "never hire who you can't fire", Blair shouldn't have touched him with someone else's bargepole. But he always did want to suck up to the Queen.
Private Eye reported issue before last that Charles had argued against him getting the "job" on the grounds he would just play golf and chase women but he got chosen by Blair anyway.
I think mummy had quite a role in him getting the gig. She clearly didn’t agree with Charles and Blair took the easy option
Popbitch from 2015:
>> Handy Andy <<
Prince's rough trade mission
Back when Prince Andrew was a business ambassador for the government, he went on a trade mission to Kazakhstan for a big energy firm. Fellow members of the mission remember him most for his translator.
a) The translator was female
b) The translator was young
c) Weirdly, the translator didn't know a lot of English so couldn't translate much.
FYI: Andrew's nickname on the trip(out of earshot) was Mr Tickle. Apparently everyone was pleased to escape his "party hands".
The reports that he was misbehaving were ignored. (I think even Popbitch carried stories about his entitlement and temper tantrums - although there was never anything nonce-related).
TBH IMHO the nonce things probably come from the US side with the different age of consent, back in the day 16 wouldn't have been seen as under age for U.K.
But I’m not going out on a limb to defend him… other stuff could come out the woodwork since it’s open season on him.
Obviously was a different time as Bill Wyman (with Mandy Smith)wasn’t exactly hunted with pitchforks.
As an aside
In 1993, Wyman's son Stephen Wyman married Patsy Smith, the 46-year-old mother of Wyman's ex-wife Mandy Smith. Stephen was 30 years old at the time. Consequently, the ex-Rolling Stone became his own son's ex-son-in-law, the father-in-law of his ex-mother-in-law, as well as the stepgrandfather of his ex-wife.
Wyman's son Stephen Wyman married Patsy Smith
And I thought Woody Allen marrying his step-daughter was ****ing weird!!
TBH IMHO the nonce things probably come from the US side with the different age of consent, back in the day 16 wouldn't have been seen as under age for U.K.
Aye, the whole 'trafficking' accusation came about because he / Epstein crossed state lines to take advantage of more relaxed consent laws.
Obviously was a different time as Bill Wyman (with Mandy Smith)wasn’t exactly hunted with pitchforks.
As I recall at the time, a common sentiment was "go on then son, get in there you lucky bastard" with a side order of how Mandy Smith was nothing but a gold-digger hussy hoping he'd die sooner rather than later. See where the wrong 'un is in this narrative?
It's ****ed up. But it's easy to overlook just how commonplace, how normalised this all was. Rock stars dripping with young dripping women was just what rock stars did. Tabloids ran countdown clocks on 15-year olds towards the day they'd be legal to get their tits out. Savile goosed a young woman live on TotP. Love songs routinely waxed lyrical about being sweet sixteen and suchlike (seriously, just listen to the lyrics of 'wholesome' songs of the 60s and 70s, there's all manner of Wrong going on).
And now we're all going "well, why did nobody say anything?" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
the obvious question that should be on everyone's lips is, "if these are unpaid roles, why are people doing them?"
This is the kind of question that says more about the self-interested cynicism of person asking it than the people doing the jobs. You'd be stunned to find out that lots of people do unpaid work for their community and country. They're all people with a decent income (either as an MP or a peer, and usually a pension in the latter case).
Or, alternatively, the question is posed by people who don't have a private income that allows them to do work as a hobby, and are worrying whether they can afford to pay their mortgage this month, or are expected to be happy that they might save £10 on gas this month. And, it also turns out that, in this case, any cynicism was well directed.
Love songs routinely waxed lyrical about being sweet sixteen and suchlike (seriously, just listen to the lyrics of 'wholesome' songs of the 60s and 70s, there's all manner of Wrong going on)
I wouldn't be stunned at all. Indeed, I spend a considerable amount of my time doing just that. But I would be stunned if they've found 32 politicians who are always acting in everyone else's interest rather than their own.This is the kind of question that says more about the self-interested cynicism of person asking it than the people doing the jobs. You'd be stunned to find out that lots of people do unpaid work for their community and country.
They're all people with a decent income (either as an MP or a peer, and usually a pension in the latter case).
Well peers don't have an automatic income they get paid an attendance fee, which when they are trade envoying they won't be doing. Feathering your nest doesn't have to be about earning cash - political favours, self promotion etc are all reasons why MPs or Peers may well be volunteering for this.
If UK Plc needs people to do these jobs, and they bring a good ROI, why not pay them to remove the impression that there might be self-interest? Why not make them open for "anyone" with relevant skills to apply for? The impression from the list is that to be useful as a Trade Envoy you need to have some very high level access to people outside normal channels...