Police asking Andrew's protection officers what 'they saw or heard' as part of Epstein files review
www.bbc.co.uk
The Metropolitan Police says officers have been asked to consider whether anything "they saw or heard during that period of service may be relevant to our ongoing reviews".

Update: 12:07GMT

From His Majesty The King:

I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office. What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation. Let me state clearly: the law must take its course. As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter. Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all. Charles R.

    • bampop@lemmy.worldEnglish
      16·
      2 days ago

      It’s a pretty huge step to arrest a member of the royal family. They even did it on his birthday, which is just the icing on the cake. In principle he doesn’t deserve to be treated differently from any other pedo rapist, but in practice, I don’t think the police would be doing this unless they really mean business. It would be too risky for the careers of everyone involved, unless they had a rock solid case and no choice but to proceed with it. Better stock up on popcorn before it sells out.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
          5·
          2 days ago

          Yep it’s about giving secret gov data to Epstein. So while the peado accusations will likely be investigated as a result. Based on motive gathering.

          ATM no new evidence of actual SA with minors has been shown in the files.

          Just pics of him kneeling over a fully clothed shortish female of indeterminate age.

      • Flax@feddit.ukOPEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        From what I recall, they’d most likely have probably needed to ask The King for permission to do so, who would have handed him over.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
          6·
          2 days ago

          The kings authority to refuse is not recognised.

          If a king or past queen were to be accused. It is technically impossible. As our whole criminal justice system is based on the king Vs the defendent/accused.

          But that dose not apply to other royal family members. Other then the purely technical idea that the kings name used against a relative is sorta rude without authority.

          But parliament has the full Auth to ignore his opinion. And as we saw under Cromwell. If the king was accused of a crime high enough. Parliament itself can try him. But it’s far from uncomplicated,

          Other then the king. The only people fully free of the justice system. Are MPs when acting in parliament itself. This is done purely to prevent a majority party making opposition illegal. And even then it only applies to in parliament actions.

          IE up till a few days ago. MPs could support PA in the house of commons. But doing so in public would have still be a crime. As dumb as that sounds.

          That said. Legal and technical Vs the actual actions of people in a position with the prejudices involved. Are hardly equal.

          • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
            2·
            2 days ago

            If a king or past queen were to be accused. It is technically impossible. As our whole criminal justice system is based on the king Vs the defendent/accused.

            It’s not “The King vs…”. It’s “The Crown vs…”. It might seem a pedantic point, but the crown is a concept similar to “the state”, and distinct from any monarch.

            A case being “The Crown vs. HRH King Charles III” is perfectly feasible. The monarch being subject to law is a concept that goes back over 800 years.

            Other then the king. The only people fully free of the justice system. Are MPs when acting in parliament itself.

            They are not free of the whole justice system. They have limited parliamentary privileges mainly related to what they can say without consequences, but they couldn’t murder their opponents.

            • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
              1·
              1 day ago

              A case being “The Crown vs. HRH King Charles III” is perfectly feasible. The monarch being subject to law is a concept that goes back over 800 years.

              Except the concept has not. At no point in that history. Has any UK king or queen ever been tried by anything other then parliament itself.

              And the one time parliament did it. It was done in parliament exactly because the constituency of the crown being different from the current monarch is not well defined. It’s only separation definition is in the right for ownership and duty to be passed.

              Other then the king. The only people fully free of the justice system. Are MPs when acting in parliament itself.

              They are not free of the whole justice system. They have limited parliamentary privileges mainly related to what they can say without consequences, but they couldn’t murder their opponents.

              Actually no that is not how the sovereignty of parliament in defined.

              Yes actions are only free of judicial jurisdiction when acting in parlimentry session. But those actions are in no way related to speech alone.

              While no an MP could not murder someone during parliamentary session.

              The normal justice system would not be responsible for protecting that person. Parliament will. This is exactly why the tower of London was originally considered the be the kings and then parliaments prison. And not the judiciary.

              This is why parliament has a chief Marshall to enforce it’s authority. And why the tower of London has it’s own guards independent of the UK police and military.

              While this all seems to be just of historic interest. And honestly the orders (people involved) are no longer armed or trained in a way that would be official to actually enforce the law. Not to mention the tower is no longer in a position to provide a reasonable or effective prison.

              The legal structure has very much not been replaced in any way.

              And if (cos I am biased after all.)

              N Farrrage was to suddenly jump up and strangle J corbyn during PMs questions.

              It would be an odd situation. Likely in 2026 it would involve parliament and the Chief marshall asking the met to actually help out. And quickly passing laws to support it. It would not be automatic.

          • Flax@feddit.ukOPEnglish
            3·
            2 days ago

            The trial done by Cromwell wasn’t really legal. And Cromwell isn’t really the best example of democracy. It was basically a coup. It’s also legal for MPs to disclose classified information in parliament.

            I think they probably would have asked the King or possibly the prime minister, especially because they entered his property to make the arrest. It would have been courtesy. Although the King stated a while ago he is co-operating, and even if he did say no, it would be an absolute PR disaster, so really he wouldn’t have had any choice… Like with most things as a consititional monarch.

            It’s just the idea he likely was asked by the Police and he handed his brother over.

            Although honestly I would have 100% done the same thing, whether I was a king or not.

            EDIT: The King was not informed in advance of the arrest, the BBC understands

            https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr0vj13ezjo

            Guess I was completely wrong, lol

            • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
              2·
              2 days ago

              While Cromwell’s far from a great example of democracy.

              He is the example of parliament creating a law that made killing a king illegal. And the very creation of our current constitutional monarchy. His actions basically created most of the constitution changes the nation now works on.

              Hence why the example was made.

              You are correct in the fact that telling secrets in parliament is technically legal. It is worth noting that parliament has the power to enforce rules upon itself. Technically to the point made by Cromwell.

              IE in the event and MP was to announce secrets in parliament. Without gov approval and more so now it is televised. (This was not the case in my youth. When recording parliament was illegal for that very reason.)

              Parliament would technically be able to have the MP imprisoned. Although as of now parliament has no where to store them. It was the tower of London in the past.

              But yep it would have to be parliament that enforced such rules. And doing so would require a majority. Hence why bojo tried to close parliament and got prevented.

              • Flax@feddit.ukOPEnglish
                1·
                1 day ago

                I don’t think a trial by parliament is legal under international law?

                • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
                  1·
                  1 day ago

                  International law dose not exist. It is just a collection of treaties signed by different nations that they agree to. IE it is entirely contract law.

                  And given how little the UK has cared about such agreements. IE openly committing genocide. Against the Geneva convention treaty. Arresting protesters and abusing disabled people against the ECHR treaties.

                  There is absolutely no way parliament is going to consider any of them to outright override UKparlimentry sovereignty.

                  And when you remember our constitution literally applies the historical authority of the king. Being passed to parliament. Any agreement we sign. Is very much only down to the current majorities willingness to follow.

                  A point very important to remember given current polling for the next election.

    • Honytawk@feddit.nlEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      At least something is done about it, unlike other countries (not to name names)

  • MrNesser@lemmy.worldEnglish
    16·
    2 days ago

    He’s the sacrificial lamb, the powers that be will let the public rage against this while quietly shoving the rest of the Epstein revelations under the rug.

    • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      I suspect he’s more likely the one that will turn on the others to save himself.

    • Flax@feddit.ukOPEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if they just picked some high status moron to be their fall guy.

      • Tomato666@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        6·
        2 days ago

        I’d like to hope he’s the first of a long line of people arrested.

        Next up should be Mandleson who has done the same as him with his government emails

        • Flax@feddit.ukOPEnglish
          3·
          1 day ago

          I reckon Mandelson might have done worse. I feel like Andrew was just a pawn/fall guy in this whole thing. “Haha, we have dirt on the Queen’s son” type situation

  • ModCen@feddit.ukEnglish
    4·
    2 days ago

    When I saw this news my reaction was to say “lol”

    He’s a bit of a silly billy isn’t he