The case of Mr AM-W is now sub judice, so further comment from us in the UK is perhaps inappropriate...
For the above reasons, no one needs to answer this directly, but I am wondering...
If MW was allegedly passing around state documents that the recipients weren't supposed to see, how did he himself come into possession of these documents in the first place?
As a general rule(not talking about MW specifically), would someone near the top of the line of succession be privy to classified info?
An interesting point is that as King (and presumably in other jurisdictions where he is also Head of State) Charles cannot be prosecuted.
There is a constitutional difference between the King and the Crown, but as I understand it these are not so clear that the Crown (being the prosecution authority or his majesty's government) could prosecute or investigate the King.
This has nothing to do with the King's brother, of course.
The case of Mr AM-W is now sub judice, so further comment from us in the UK is perhaps inappropriate...
For the above reasons, no one needs to answer this directly, but I am wondering...
If MW was allegedly passing around state documents that the recipients weren't supposed to see, how did he himself come into possession of these documents in the first place?
As a general rule(not talking about MW specifically), would someone near the top of the line of succession be privy to classified info?
Just reading about it some more on the BBC...
Apparently the dossier about Afghanistan investment was given to him by government officials, as part of his job as a trade envoy, but he wasn't supposed to show them to anyone else. Which kinda makes me wonder what he WAS supposed to do with them.
<snip> Apparently the dossier about Afghanistan investment was given to him by government officials, as part of his job as a trade envoy, but he wasn't supposed to show them to anyone else. Which kinda makes me wonder what he WAS supposed to do with them.
“You’re involved in trade/commercial negotiations. This is something you need to know in that context. This information is not to be shared with others.”
<snip> Apparently the dossier about Afghanistan investment was given to him by government officials, as part of his job as a trade envoy, but he wasn't supposed to show them to anyone else. Which kinda makes me wonder what he WAS supposed to do with them.
“You’re involved in trade/commercial negotiations. This is something you need to know in that context. This information is not to be shared with others.”
Okay. My impression was that this job was basically trying to get people to invest in the UK or UK-related enterprises(essentially a salesperson), and I was assuming the info would only really be useful for demonstrating to potential investors why such-and-such is a good investment. But if he was doing actual trade negotiations, that's a different story.
I have no information and would not share it even if I had, but I have heard that British police do not have to tell an arrested person exactly what immediately what they are arrested for or put to them all the evidence at once.
However if the person is under arrest and being interviewed under caution they must have satisfied the prosecutor from the CPS (crown prosecution service) that there is something to put to them.
Second to get a conviction the standards of evidence have to be pretty high. Meaning there is additional evidence that the police already have or are looking for.
Third it is entirely possible for someone to be arrested and interviewed without the case ultimately going to trial. For example the CPS may decide that there is insufficient evidence to get a conviction.
Which means that we cannot infer anything about anything from today's events other than the police and prosecutors think there's something to investigate further.
It’s pretty clear from the Epstein files that Andrew shared certain trade documents with him (and possibly others). If those documents were officially designated at a level of secrecy that precludes their being shared in that way then there will be a record of that as well. Assuming they were so designated (and that Andrew was aware of that), it seems a fairly open-and-shut case of misconduct in a public office to me.
It’s pretty clear from the Epstein files that Andrew shared certain trade documents with him (and possibly others). If those documents were officially designated at a level of secrecy that precludes their being shared in that way then there will be a record of that as well. Assuming they were so designated (and that Andrew was aware of that), it seems a fairly open-and-shut case of misconduct in a public office to me.
Which is presumably why the police are now acting - they would not do so without sufficient evidence.
"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."
Not much else he could say.
The late queen would have been devastated.
No doubt she would, but questions are being asked as to how much she (along with Charles and William) knew, years ago, and it has been said that she was far too lenient towards Andrew. Obviously, she can't be asked, but the same presumably can't be said for Charles and William.
It’s pretty clear from the Epstein files that Andrew shared certain trade documents with him (and possibly others). If those documents were officially designated at a level of secrecy that precludes their being shared in that way then there will be a record of that as well. Assuming they were so designated (and that Andrew was aware of that), it seems a fairly open-and-shut case of misconduct in a public office to me.
There's a difference between knowing something from information in the public domain and being able to prove it to the required legal standard.
An interesting point is that as King (and presumably in other jurisdictions where he is also Head of State) Charles cannot be prosecuted.
He can, even discounting the fate of his namesake, very quickly cease to be king if parliament has a pressing desire for it to be so. The thing about the British constitution is that it runs on precedent and customs as strong as law right up to the point where it doesn't any longer and a new precedent is required. James VII & II learned this lesson, eventually.
From the UK Guardian's coverage of the A M-W affair today:
The last royal arrest was in 1647 during the English civil war, when Charles I was detained by forces aligned with parliament. He was convicted of high treason and executed on 30 January 1649.
I suspect parliament will end up putting a bill through removing Andrew from the line of succession now. I guess it’s purely symbolic, but on the other hand - if there was a really unfortunate train crash or three he is technically able to become king.
Not for long, even if his name isn't Charles. Although I suspect if it came to the point he would be 'persuaded' to abdicate. There's a precedent for that, too.
A sad day for Charles, and the damage this will do to the institution of which he is head, given that (as widely reported at the time) he advised his mother and people in the government of the day not to makke the appointment as Trade Representative in the first place.
Comments
For the above reasons, no one needs to answer this directly, but I am wondering...
If MW was allegedly passing around state documents that the recipients weren't supposed to see, how did he himself come into possession of these documents in the first place?
As a general rule(not talking about MW specifically), would someone near the top of the line of succession be privy to classified info?
There is a constitutional difference between the King and the Crown, but as I understand it these are not so clear that the Crown (being the prosecution authority or his majesty's government) could prosecute or investigate the King.
This has nothing to do with the King's brother, of course.
Just reading about it some more on the BBC...
Apparently the dossier about Afghanistan investment was given to him by government officials, as part of his job as a trade envoy, but he wasn't supposed to show them to anyone else. Which kinda makes me wonder what he WAS supposed to do with them.
Okay. My impression was that this job was basically trying to get people to invest in the UK or UK-related enterprises(essentially a salesperson), and I was assuming the info would only really be useful for demonstrating to potential investors why such-and-such is a good investment. But if he was doing actual trade negotiations, that's a different story.
However if the person is under arrest and being interviewed under caution they must have satisfied the prosecutor from the CPS (crown prosecution service) that there is something to put to them.
Second to get a conviction the standards of evidence have to be pretty high. Meaning there is additional evidence that the police already have or are looking for.
Third it is entirely possible for someone to be arrested and interviewed without the case ultimately going to trial. For example the CPS may decide that there is insufficient evidence to get a conviction.
Which means that we cannot infer anything about anything from today's events other than the police and prosecutors think there's something to investigate further.
Which is presumably why the police are now acting - they would not do so without sufficient evidence.
No doubt she would, but questions are being asked as to how much she (along with Charles and William) knew, years ago, and it has been said that she was far too lenient towards Andrew. Obviously, she can't be asked, but the same presumably can't be said for Charles and William.
There's a difference between knowing something from information in the public domain and being able to prove it to the required legal standard.
He can, even discounting the fate of his namesake, very quickly cease to be king if parliament has a pressing desire for it to be so. The thing about the British constitution is that it runs on precedent and customs as strong as law right up to the point where it doesn't any longer and a new precedent is required. James VII & II learned this lesson, eventually.
The last royal arrest was in 1647 during the English civil war, when Charles I was detained by forces aligned with parliament. He was convicted of high treason and executed on 30 January 1649.