Despite all the jollity and hilarity at the fall from grace of anNot yet, but from police statement today ...
entitled, privileged, evasive toff, has he actually committed any
criminal offence that can be established?
Norman Wells wrote:
Despite all the jollity and hilarity at the fall from grace of anNot yet, but from police statement today ...
entitled, privileged, evasive toff, has he actually committed any
criminal offence that can be established?
"We have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk [...]
"We will not be naming the arrested man"
Norman Wells wrote:
Despite all the jollity and hilarity at the fall from grace of anNot yet, but from police statement today ...
entitled, privileged, evasive toff, has he actually committed any
criminal offence that can be established?
"We have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk [...]
"We will not be naming the arrested man"
On 2/19/26 10:54, Andy Burns wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Despite all the jollity and hilarity at the fall from grace of anNot yet, but from police statement today ...
entitled, privileged, evasive toff, has he actually committed any
criminal offence that can be established?
"We have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk [...]
"We will not be naming the arrested man"
Why would they arrest him? Is he a flight risk? A risk to the public?
I would have assumed misconduct in a public office could have been
handled by an invitation to a police interview accompanied by a lawyer.
They haven't arrested Mandelson, have they?
On 2026-02-19, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/26 10:54, Andy Burns wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Despite all the jollity and hilarity at the fall from grace of anNot yet, but from police statement today ...
entitled, privileged, evasive toff, has he actually committed any
criminal offence that can be established?
"We have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk [...]
"We will not be naming the arrested man"
Why would they arrest him? Is he a flight risk? A risk to the public?
I imagine because it gives them the legal power to search his houses.
The police are not big on sticking to the law regarding when they can
or cannot arrest people.
On 2/19/26 11:18, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-19, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/26 10:54, Andy Burns wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Despite all the jollity and hilarity at the fall from grace of anNot yet, but from police statement today ...
entitled, privileged, evasive toff, has he actually committed any
criminal offence that can be established?
"We have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk [...] >>>> "We will not be naming the arrested man"
Why would they arrest him? Is he a flight risk? A risk to the public?
I imagine because it gives them the legal power to search his houses.
The police are not big on sticking to the law regarding when they can
or cannot arrest people.
I don't understand that, AIUI, they searched Mandleson's house without arresting him. Cliff Richard wasn't arrested.
It seems to me that arrest is used inappropriately as a punishment.
Norman Wells wrote:
Despite all the jollity and hilarity at the fall from grace of an
entitled, privileged, evasive toff, has he actually committed any
criminal offence that can be established?
Not yet, but from police statement today ...
"We have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk [...]
"We will not be naming the arrested man"
On 2/19/26 10:54, Andy Burns wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Despite all the jollity and hilarity at the fall from grace of anNot yet, but from police statement today ...
entitled, privileged, evasive toff, has he actually committed any
criminal offence that can be established?
"We have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk [...]
"We will not be naming the arrested man"
Why would they arrest him? Is he a flight risk? A risk to the public?
I would have assumed misconduct in a public office could have been
handled by an invitation to a police interview accompanied by a lawyer.
They haven't arrested Mandelson, have they?
This feels like theatre, quite squalid, like the Cliff Richard raid.
On 2026-02-19, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Despite all the jollity and hilarity at the fall from grace of an
entitled, privileged, evasive toff, has he actually committed any
criminal offence that can be established?
Not yet, but from police statement today ...
"We have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk [...]
"We will not be naming the arrested man"
The police might not be naming him, but the front page of BBC News
currently has as its major headline:
"Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested and in custody on suspicion of
misconduct in public office"
On 19/02/2026 11:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The police might not be naming him, but the front page of BBC News
currently has as its major headline:
"Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested and in custody on suspicion of
misconduct in public office"
It does seem to me more like a bit of street theatre by Thames Valley
police rather than any serious attempt to bring him to justice.
Or having sex with ladies over the age of consent?
On 19/02/2026 10:54, Andy Burns wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
Anyone can of course be arrested for anything. It's not necessarily indicative of guilt.
On 19/02/2026 11:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Some of the emails and sensitive UK reports he apparently shared with
Epstein might qualify if the email chain can be proven to be genuine.
That may be difficult so long after the event.
Not yet, but from police statement today ...
"We have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk [...]
"We will not be naming the arrested man"
On 19/02/2026 10:54, Andy Burns wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Despite all the jollity and hilarity at the fall from grace of an
entitled, privileged, evasive toff, has he actually committed any
criminal offence that can be established?
Not yet, but from police statement today ...
"We have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk [...]
"We will not be naming the arrested man"
Anyone can of course be arrested for anything.-a It's not necessarily indicative of guilt.
Whatever you think of Andrew (I hope I haven't given the big secret of
the arrest away!) it's actually been an unedifying witch-hunt from start
to finish.
When I wrote the above, it was in October last year when all the
suspicions against him were of sex with underage ladies, for which it
turned out, despite all the investigations and massive mud-slinging innuendo, there was no substantial evidence at all.-a As a result, those determined to bring him down for whatever reason have since been
scrabbling around for any other potential naughtiness, and have
currently alighted on misconduct in public office.-a Maybe that can be substantiated or maybe it can't, I don't know, and I certainly don't
know how serious or non-serious the allegations are.-a But if that fails,
it wouldn't surprise me if pencil theft wasn't alleged.-a 'They' seem determined to nail him for something ... anything.
On 2026-02-19, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Despite all the jollity and hilarity at the fall from grace of anNot yet, but from police statement today ...
entitled, privileged, evasive toff, has he actually committed any
criminal offence that can be established?
"We have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk [...]
"We will not be naming the arrested man"
The police might not be naming him, but the front page of BBC News
currently has as its major headline:
"Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested and in custody on suspicion of
misconduct in public office"
You clearly don't accept that being friends with a convicted felon is
itself criminal then?
Or having sex with ladies over the age of consent?
Or being in 'photographs'?
Or telling fibs to the BBC?
Or being a privileged, entitled oaf?
I don't know under what power they searched Mandelson's house.
I also don't know why they've arrested Andrew and not Mandelson.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:57:11 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
You clearly don't accept that being friends with a convicted felon is
itself criminal then?
Or having sex with ladies over the age of consent?
Or being in 'photographs'?
Or telling fibs to the BBC?
Or being a privileged, entitled oaf?
He hasn't been arrested for any of that.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:57:11 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
Or having sex with ladies over the age of consent?
I thought that AOC was less clear when it comes to trafficking ?
On 2/19/26 10:54, Andy Burns wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:Why would they arrest him? Is he a flight risk? A risk to the public?
Despite all the jollity and hilarity at the fall from grace of anNot yet, but from police statement today ...
entitled, privileged, evasive toff, has he actually committed any
criminal offence that can be established?
"We have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk [...]
"We will not be naming the arrested man"
I would have assumed misconduct in a public office could have been
handled by an invitation to a police interview accompanied by a lawyer.
They haven't arrested Mandelson, have they?
This feels like theatre, quite squalid, like the Cliff Richard raid.
When I wrote the above, it was in October last year when all the
suspicions against him were of sex with underage ladies, for which it
turned out, despite all the investigations and massive mud-slinging >innuendo, there was no substantial evidence at all. As a result, those >determined to bring him down for whatever reason have since been
scrabbling around for any other potential naughtiness, and have
currently alighted on misconduct in public office. Maybe that can be >substantiated or maybe it can't, I don't know, and I certainly don't
know how serious or non-serious the allegations are. But if that fails,
it wouldn't surprise me if pencil theft wasn't alleged. 'They' seem >determined to nail him for something ... anything.
The King said, "the law must take its course." I think I detect a certain amount of sibling rivalry, due to Andrew being their mother's favourite.
On 20/02/2026 12:28, Jethro wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 10:38:33 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/02/2026 16:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If it can be shown that he was leaking confidential UK government
reports to a third party then he deserves what he gets.
ISTR "misconduct in public office" has a very high maximum sentence of
life imprisonment. Who was last convicted for this particular offence,
what did they do, and what was their sentence?
It also seems to me gratuitous to do it on his birthday. Given that he
has permanent police protection he seems an unlikely flight risk!
I think the integrity of his protection team is very much in doubt. It's
hard not to form a belief that they were well aware they were aiding
their charge in unlawful activities.
(Of course they may have raised their concerns and be told to look the
other way. In which case culpability moves upwards)
On the contrary, it is very hard to form a belief that the police
protection team were aware of any confidential Treasury briefings that Andrew might have been disclosing to Epstein or to other wealthy friends.
The arrest and the investigations will have nothing whatsoever to do
with Andrew's use of prostitutes, which activity cannot amount to
misconduct in public office.
On 2026-02-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:28, Jethro wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 10:38:33 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:On the contrary, it is very hard to form a belief that the police
On 19/02/2026 16:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If it can be shown that he was leaking confidential UK government
reports to a third party then he deserves what he gets.
ISTR "misconduct in public office" has a very high maximum sentence
of life imprisonment. Who was last convicted for this particular
offence,
what did they do, and what was their sentence?
It also seems to me gratuitous to do it on his birthday. Given that
he has permanent police protection he seems an unlikely flight risk!
I think the integrity of his protection team is very much in doubt.
It's hard not to form a belief that they were well aware they were
aiding their charge in unlawful activities.
(Of course they may have raised their concerns and be told to look the
other way. In which case culpability moves upwards)
protection team were aware of any confidential Treasury briefings that
Andrew might have been disclosing to Epstein or to other wealthy
friends.
The arrest and the investigations will have nothing whatsoever to do
with Andrew's use of prostitutes, which activity cannot amount to
misconduct in public office.
And yet, former members of his police protection team *are* being investigated:
The Metropolitan Police is carrying out "initial inquiries" into
allegations relating to close protection officers formerly assigned
to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
It comes after an unnamed former senior Met protection officer told
LBC that members of the Royalty and Specialist Protection (RaSP) may
have "wilfully turned a blind eye" during visits to a private island
owned by Jeffery Epstein.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy57ry1vne0o
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 14:58:32 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:28, Jethro wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 10:38:33 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:On the contrary, it is very hard to form a belief that the police
On 19/02/2026 16:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If it can be shown that he was leaking confidential UK government
reports to a third party then he deserves what he gets.
ISTR "misconduct in public office" has a very high maximum sentence
of life imprisonment. Who was last convicted for this particular
offence,
what did they do, and what was their sentence?
It also seems to me gratuitous to do it on his birthday. Given that
he has permanent police protection he seems an unlikely flight risk!
I think the integrity of his protection team is very much in doubt.
It's hard not to form a belief that they were well aware they were
aiding their charge in unlawful activities.
(Of course they may have raised their concerns and be told to look the >>>> other way. In which case culpability moves upwards)
protection team were aware of any confidential Treasury briefings that
Andrew might have been disclosing to Epstein or to other wealthy
friends.
The arrest and the investigations will have nothing whatsoever to do
with Andrew's use of prostitutes, which activity cannot amount to
misconduct in public office.
And yet, former members of his police protection team *are* being
investigated:
The Metropolitan Police is carrying out "initial inquiries" into
allegations relating to close protection officers formerly assigned
to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
It comes after an unnamed former senior Met protection officer told
LBC that members of the Royalty and Specialist Protection (RaSP) may
have "wilfully turned a blind eye" during visits to a private island
owned by Jeffery Epstein.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy57ry1vne0o
I suspect that Todal and I do not share the same view on life.
Mine is once you have identified a fault in one component in a system,
then all others cannot be considered to be functional as a matter of reduction.
As a whole the police have exhibited flaws and faults many times. Hence
they have lost the benefit of the doubt.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 10:38:33 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/02/2026 16:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If it can be shown that he was leaking confidential UK government
reports to a third party then he deserves what he gets.
ISTR "misconduct in public office" has a very high maximum sentence of
life imprisonment. Who was last convicted for this particular offence,
what did they do, and what was their sentence?
It also seems to me gratuitous to do it on his birthday. Given that he
has permanent police protection he seems an unlikely flight risk!
I think the integrity of his protection team is very much in doubt. It's hard not to form a belief that they were well aware they were aiding
their charge in unlawful activities.
(Of course they may have raised their concerns and be told to look the
other way. In which case culpability moves upwards)
Elon Musk and Donald Trump will probably be using market-sensitive information but I daresay they will be forgiven by the American public because when a billionnaire increases his wealth it's a sign of his
power and influence and he is to be envied rather than condemned.
On 20/02/2026 in message <mvqnpbFo0e6U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
Misconduct in Public Office is a serious offence. More serious, in fact, >>> than shagging an underage teenager.
There was a very interesting piece on the law relating to Misconduct in
Public Office on the World at One on BBC R4 yesterday (Thursday 19th), in
which former Old Bailey judge Wendy Joseph KC expounds on the issue in a
very clear manner. Unsurprisingly, it is a more complex subject than the
media has portrayed up to now.
She was really good with her explanation, very clear. When she was asked about a jury trial she managed to get a dig in at Lammy as well, "If Mr Lammy has left us any juries" :-)
On 19/02/2026 20:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
Misconduct in Public Office is a serious offence. More serious, in fact,
than shagging an underage teenager.
Not necessarily.
I don't think taking a pencil from the stationery cabinet is
automatically more serious than sex with a 13-year old.
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 in message <mvqnpbFo0e6U1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
Misconduct in Public Office is a serious offence. More serious, in fact, >>>> than shagging an underage teenager.
There was a very interesting piece on the law relating to Misconduct in
Public Office on the World at One on BBC R4 yesterday (Thursday 19th), in >>> which former Old Bailey judge Wendy Joseph KC expounds on the issue in a >>> very clear manner. Unsurprisingly, it is a more complex subject than the >>> media has portrayed up to now.
She was really good with her explanation, very clear. When she was asked
about a jury trial she managed to get a dig in at Lammy as well, "If Mr
Lammy has left us any juries" :-)
LOL
The lady judge was at pains to point out that there are quite a number of >hurdles to clear for a successful prosecution.
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was appointed by
his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mean that in some way he was not
in fact in a *public* office? It would mean a prosecution would fail at the >first hurdle. The good lady went on to mention quite a few more. Possibly >interesting legal times lie ahead.
On 19/02/2026 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:57:11 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
You clearly don't accept that being friends with a convicted felon is
itself criminal then?
Or having sex with ladies over the age of consent?
Or being in 'photographs'?
Or telling fibs to the BBC?
Or being a privileged, entitled oaf?
He hasn't been arrested for any of that.
Some would say he has been, in truth, regardless of the official line.
On 20/02/2026 10:54 am, Pancho wrote:
On 2/19/26 20:03, JNugent wrote:
Hence the later civil cases?Not really the same at all. Cliff was never arrested - because there
were no grounds for reasonable suspicion that he had committed an
offence. If there had been such grounds, it is beyond dispute that he
*would* have been arrested. But there weren't. So he wasn't.
As Norman has pointed out, they shouldn't have searched his home without
suspicion. They certainly shouldn't have invited the BBC.
Perhaps they've learned a lesson or two since that.
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:
The point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he was
applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably on behalf
of a foreign government, such as Israel.
More likely, finding ways of increasing his wealth by using
market-sensitive briefings that he should never have been shown.
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was appointed by
his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mean that in some way he was not
in fact in a *public* office? It would mean a prosecution would fail at the first hurdle.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:56:47 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:
The point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he was
applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably on behalf >>> of a foreign government, such as Israel.
More likely, finding ways of increasing his wealth by using
market-sensitive briefings that he should never have been shown.
Indeed.
I suspect that Misconduct in Public Office, of the type for which Peter Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince are being investigated, is more prevalent than the prosecution statistics would give cause to believe. Whether it's at the global, multimillionaire level of high finance or a
local councillor telling his mate about commercial contracts over a beer,
I'm sure a lot of people in public office tend to be of the opinion that "confidential" can be stretched to include their friends and family among those entitled to know. I've seen it happen. Often, it's de minimis because the recipient of the confidential information never makes any gain as a result of it. But sometimes, they do benefit. And get away with it. Because there's never any reason to suspect.
The potential offences for which Peter Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince would never have come to light if it were not for the fact that Jeffrey Epstein was a serial sexual offender. Once he had been prosecuted for, and convicted of, sexual offences, that opened the way for his personal correspondence to come under scrutiny. And that scrutiny, as well as revealing more of his personal sexual infelicities, also revealed that he had exploited his connections with those in possession of sensitive confidential information to enhance his wealth.
Without that scrutiny, there would have been no reason to suspect Mandelson or TAFKAP of misconduct. And without Epstein's predilection for the
unfledged feminine attributes, there would have been no scrutiny of his correspondence.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:56:47 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:
The point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he was
applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably on behalf >>> of a foreign government, such as Israel.
More likely, finding ways of increasing his wealth by using >>market-sensitive briefings that he should never have been shown.
Indeed.
I suspect that Misconduct in Public Office, of the type for which Peter Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince are being investigated, is more prevalent than the prosecution statistics would give cause to believe. Whether it's at the global, multimillionaire level of high finance or a
local councillor telling his mate about commercial contracts over a beer,
I'm sure a lot of people in public office tend to be of the opinion that "confidential" can be stretched to include their friends and family among those entitled to know. I've seen it happen. Often, it's de minimis because the recipient of the confidential information never makes any gain as a result of it. But sometimes, they do benefit. And get away with it. Because there's never any reason to suspect.
On 20/02/2026 22:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:56:47 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:
The point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he was
applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably on behalf >>>> of a foreign government, such as Israel.
More likely, finding ways of increasing his wealth by using
market-sensitive briefings that he should never have been shown.
Indeed.
I suspect that Misconduct in Public Office, of the type for which Peter
Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince are being investigated, is >> more prevalent than the prosecution statistics would give cause to believe. >> Whether it's at the global, multimillionaire level of high finance or a
local councillor telling his mate about commercial contracts over a beer,
I'm sure a lot of people in public office tend to be of the opinion that
"confidential" can be stretched to include their friends and family among
those entitled to know. I've seen it happen. Often, it's de minimis because >> the recipient of the confidential information never makes any gain as a
result of it. But sometimes, they do benefit. And get away with it. Because >> there's never any reason to suspect.
The potential offences for which Peter Mandelson and the Andrew formerly
known as Prince would never have come to light if it were not for the fact >> that Jeffrey Epstein was a serial sexual offender. Once he had been
prosecuted for, and convicted of, sexual offences, that opened the way for >> his personal correspondence to come under scrutiny. And that scrutiny, as
well as revealing more of his personal sexual infelicities, also revealed
that he had exploited his connections with those in possession of sensitive >> confidential information to enhance his wealth.
Without that scrutiny, there would have been no reason to suspect Mandelson >> or TAFKAP of misconduct. And without Epstein's predilection for the
unfledged feminine attributes, there would have been no scrutiny of his
correspondence.
One question.
Is the existence of email(s) which purport to have been sent between
(e.g.) Epstein and Mandelson sufficient evidence to mount a case?
These have all been 'handled' by Trump's DOJ which seems to be somewhat
less than a beacon of probity and even-handed justice.
On 20 Feb 2026 19:39:08 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was appointed
by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mean that in some way he
was not in fact in a *public* office? It would mean a prosecution would >>fail at the first hurdle. The good lady went on to mention quite a few >>more. Possibly interesting legal times lie ahead.
I don't think the circumstances of his appointment would present any
hurdle.
As the CPS guidelines on the offence make clear, the definition of
"public office" is drawn quite widely. It's the "misconduct" which is generally the sticking point.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 07:56:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 20:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
Misconduct in Public Office is a serious offence. More serious, in fact, >>> than shagging an underage teenager.
Not necessarily.
I don't think taking a pencil from the stationery cabinet is
automatically more serious than sex with a 13-year old.
Taking a pencil from the stationery cabinet would not amount to misconduct
in public office.
Mark
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:30:23 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:57:11 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
You clearly don't accept that being friends with a convicted felon is
itself criminal then?
Or having sex with ladies over the age of consent?
Or being in 'photographs'?
Or telling fibs to the BBC?
Or being a privileged, entitled oaf?
He hasn't been arrested for any of that.
Some would say he has been, in truth, regardless of the official line.
Anybody who would say that is an idiot. I'm only interested in discussing reality.
Mark
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:23:14 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:54 am, Pancho wrote:
On 2/19/26 20:03, JNugent wrote:
Hence the later civil cases?Not really the same at all. Cliff was never arrested - because there
were no grounds for reasonable suspicion that he had committed an
offence. If there had been such grounds, it is beyond dispute that he
*would* have been arrested. But there weren't. So he wasn't.
As Norman has pointed out, they shouldn't have searched his home without >>> suspicion. They certainly shouldn't have invited the BBC.
Perhaps they've learned a lesson or two since that.
It's generally recognised now, even by the police, that the Cliff episode
was a serious mistake. But you also have to bear in mind that this was at
the height of Operation Midland, when the police were so desperate to make
up for their failure to investigate Jimmy Savile while he was still alive that they'd let the pendulum swing to the other extreme and gave credence to practically any allegation against someone famous, no matter how
implausible. Cliff wan't a victim of the serial liar Carl Beech, but the allegations against him fell into the same category.
However, the fallout of Operation Midland, combined with a long hard look at the failures of the Savile era, have led to a lot of soul searching in the police, and as a consequence there are now a much more robust set of guidelines for dealing with high profile cases involving people in the
public eye.
I'm not saying that the police always get it right. But I'm a lot more confident of their judgement in these kind of cases now than I would have been ten years ago. And actions taken in a case involving royalty will
almost certainly have been signed off at the very highest level.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:56:47 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:
The point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he was
applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably on behalf >>> of a foreign government, such as Israel.
More likely, finding ways of increasing his wealth by using
market-sensitive briefings that he should never have been shown.
Indeed.
I suspect that Misconduct in Public Office, of the type for which Peter Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince are being investigated, is more prevalent than the prosecution statistics would give cause to believe. Whether it's at the global, multimillionaire level of high finance or a
local councillor telling his mate about commercial contracts over a beer,
I'm sure a lot of people in public office tend to be of the opinion that "confidential" can be stretched to include their friends and family among those entitled to know. I've seen it happen. Often, it's de minimis because the recipient of the confidential information never makes any gain as a result of it. But sometimes, they do benefit. And get away with it. Because there's never any reason to suspect.
The potential offences for which Peter Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince would never have come to light if it were not for the fact that Jeffrey Epstein was a serial sexual offender. Once he had been prosecuted for, and convicted of, sexual offences, that opened the way for his personal correspondence to come under scrutiny. And that scrutiny, as well as revealing more of his personal sexual infelicities, also revealed that he had exploited his connections with those in possession of sensitive confidential information to enhance his wealth.
Without that scrutiny, there would have been no reason to suspect Mandelson or TAFKAP of misconduct. And without Epstein's predilection for the
unfledged feminine attributes, there would have been no scrutiny of his correspondence.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mvrrisFj9uU1@mid.individual.net...
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was appointed by
his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mean that in some way he was not >> in fact in a *public* office? It would mean a prosecution would fail at the >> first hurdle.
All Govt Ministers are appointed by the Crown. And so that's nothing special.
However if the reports are true then he's clearly bang to rights.
Every time he took a trip abroad as a trade envoy, the officials
accompanyng him had to compile a detailed report. Probably
including meetings where he wasn't even present. So things
could be followed up.
He will have been given copies of all of these reports. Some of which
it appears he passed directly on to Epstein.
Which regardless of whether or not they contained sensitive information
will have been strictly against the rules.
Presumably he'll be put on probation or something. Or maybe clearing
up litter.
On 20/02/2026 22:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:56:47 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:
The point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he was
applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably on
behalf of a foreign government, such as Israel.
More likely, finding ways of increasing his wealth by using
market-sensitive briefings that he should never have been shown.
Indeed.
I suspect that Misconduct in Public Office, of the type for which Peter
Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince are being
investigated, is more prevalent than the prosecution statistics would
give cause to believe. Whether it's at the global, multimillionaire
level of high finance or a local councillor telling his mate about
commercial contracts over a beer, I'm sure a lot of people in public
office tend to be of the opinion that "confidential" can be stretched
to include their friends and family among those entitled to know. I've
seen it happen. Often, it's de minimis because the recipient of the
confidential information never makes any gain as a result of it. But
sometimes, they do benefit. And get away with it. Because there's never
any reason to suspect.
Is there any suggestion or evidence that anyone did in fact benefit from
what Andrew is alleged to have divulged in the few hours, as I
understand it, before it was public knowledge anyway?
Is it a criminal offence to have disreputable friends?
On 20/02/2026 23:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mvrrisFj9uU1@mid.individual.net...
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was appointed by >>> his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mean that in some way he was not >>> in fact in a *public* office? It would mean a prosecution would fail at the >>> first hurdle.
All Govt Ministers are appointed by the Crown. And so that's nothing special.
However if the reports are true then he's clearly bang to rights.
Every time he took a trip abroad as a trade envoy, the officials
accompanyng him had to compile a detailed report. Probably
including meetings where he wasn't even present. So things
could be followed up.
He will have been given copies of all of these reports. Some of which
it appears he passed directly on to Epstein.
Which regardless of whether or not they contained sensitive information
will have been strictly against the rules.
Presumably he'll be put on probation or something. Or maybe clearing
up litter.
That will depend on the seriousness of any offence for which he is convicted. If any.
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has not been charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the public domain apart from some emails he sent, possibly divulging information a bit prematurely to no established effect whatsoever.
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery cupboard regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost seriousness.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 22:25:54 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 20 Feb 2026 19:39:08 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was appointed
by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mean that in some way he
was not in fact in a *public* office? It would mean a prosecution would >>>fail at the first hurdle. The good lady went on to mention quite a few >>>more. Possibly interesting legal times lie ahead.
I don't think the circumstances of his appointment would present any
hurdle.
As the CPS guidelines on the offence make clear, the definition of
"public office" is drawn quite widely. It's the "misconduct" which is
generally the sticking point.
IIRC some of the *journalists* involved in the News of the World were arrested (though not IIRC charged) for misconduct in a public office, even though they had never worked for any public sector organisation in their lives. That was sufficient for most people to recognise the offence as one
of the "OK so we can't get him on anything else, let's use this to make
his life a misery" type.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:44:21 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/02/2026 22:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:56:47 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:
The point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he was >>>>> applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably on
behalf of a foreign government, such as Israel.
More likely, finding ways of increasing his wealth by using
market-sensitive briefings that he should never have been shown.
Indeed.
I suspect that Misconduct in Public Office, of the type for which Peter
Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince are being
investigated, is more prevalent than the prosecution statistics would
give cause to believe. Whether it's at the global, multimillionaire
level of high finance or a local councillor telling his mate about
commercial contracts over a beer, I'm sure a lot of people in public
office tend to be of the opinion that "confidential" can be stretched
to include their friends and family among those entitled to know. I've
seen it happen. Often, it's de minimis because the recipient of the
confidential information never makes any gain as a result of it. But
sometimes, they do benefit. And get away with it. Because there's never
any reason to suspect.
Is there any suggestion or evidence that anyone did in fact benefit from
what Andrew is alleged to have divulged in the few hours, as I
understand it, before it was public knowledge anyway?
AIUI it's a lon established principle of English law that doesn't have to
be a benefit from an action for it it be a crime.
Is it a criminal offence to have disreputable friends?
It can be.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mvtakjF7jvkU5@mid.individual.net...
On 20/02/2026 23:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mvrrisFj9uU1@mid.individual.net...
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was appointed by >>>> his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mean that in some way he was not >>>> in fact in a *public* office? It would mean a prosecution would fail at the
first hurdle.
All Govt Ministers are appointed by the Crown. And so that's nothing special.
However if the reports are true then he's clearly bang to rights.
Every time he took a trip abroad as a trade envoy, the officials
accompanyng him had to compile a detailed report. Probably
including meetings where he wasn't even present. So things
could be followed up.
He will have been given copies of all of these reports. Some of which
it appears he passed directly on to Epstein.
Which regardless of whether or not they contained sensitive information
will have been strictly against the rules.
Presumably he'll be put on probation or something. Or maybe clearing
up litter.
That will depend on the seriousness of any offence for which he is convicted.
If any.
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has not been >> charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the public domain apart
from some emails he sent, possibly divulging information a bit prematurely to
no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports, compiled at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt and Taxpayer, to a
private US Citizen; to that person's possible advantage. And that is totally regardless of what actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as flagrant an
example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible to imagine.
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery cupboard
regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost
seriousness.
No it couldn't.
Unlike in the case of the other allegations, in this instance he really does appear to be stuffed,
On 20/02/2026 22:17, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 07:56:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 19/02/2026 20:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
Misconduct in Public Office is a serious offence. More serious, in fact, >>>> than shagging an underage teenager.
Not necessarily.
I don't think taking a pencil from the stationery cabinet is
automatically more serious than sex with a 13-year old.
Taking a pencil from the stationery cabinet would not amount to misconduct >> in public office.
It would, however, be a definite criminal offence rather than just
rumour and innuendo.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 22:25:54 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 20 Feb 2026 19:39:08 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was appointed
by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mean that in some way he
was not in fact in a *public* office? It would mean a prosecution would >>>fail at the first hurdle. The good lady went on to mention quite a few >>>more. Possibly interesting legal times lie ahead.
I don't think the circumstances of his appointment would present any
hurdle.
As the CPS guidelines on the offence make clear, the definition of
"public office" is drawn quite widely. It's the "misconduct" which is
generally the sticking point.
IIRC some of the *journalists* involved in the News of the World were >arrested (though not IIRC charged) for misconduct in a public office, even >though they had never worked for any public sector organisation in their >lives.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >news:mvtakjF7jvkU5@mid.individual.net...
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has not been >> charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the public domain apart
from some emails he sent, possibly divulging information a bit prematurely to
no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports, compiled >at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt and Taxpayer, to a >private US Citizen; to that person's possible advantage. And that is totally >regardless of what actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time >Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as flagrant an
example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible to imagine.
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery cupboard
regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost
seriousness.
No it couldn't.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 01:06:44 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-02-20, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I suspect that Misconduct in Public Office, of the type for which Peter
Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince are being investigated, is
more prevalent than the prosecution statistics would give cause to believe. >>> Whether it's at the global, multimillionaire level of high finance or a
local councillor telling his mate about commercial contracts over a beer, >>> I'm sure a lot of people in public office tend to be of the opinion that >>> "confidential" can be stretched to include their friends and family among >>> those entitled to know. I've seen it happen. Often, it's de minimis because >>> the recipient of the confidential information never makes any gain as a
result of it. But sometimes, they do benefit. And get away with it. Because >>> there's never any reason to suspect.
I think there is *often* reason to suspect. Surely far more significant
is the difficulty in proving the suspicion correct. Unless the guilty
parties make unforced errors (or, as in the current case, commit more
than one crime at once) they're highly unlikely to get caught.
The problem is that suspicion can be, and in many cases is, unfounded. Particularly in the realms of politics, government and diplomacy, where many people mistake their own lack of understanding for evidence of wrongdoing or where people allow their political partisanship to influence their
assessment of others.
And given that the documents on which those reports are based are
publicly available, I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that it was
a serious breach of trust.
On 21/02/2026 09:49, billy bookcase wrote:
He [TAFKAP] was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports, compiled
at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt and Taxpayer, to a
private US Citizen; to that person's possible advantage. And that is totally >> regardless of what actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time >> Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as flagrant an
example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible to imagine.
Care to explain where and how the Official Secrets Act comes into play
in connection with what has been alleged? Which Section do you have in mind?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:38:12 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 22:17, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 07:56:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 19/02/2026 20:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
Misconduct in Public Office is a serious offence. More serious, in fact, >>>>> than shagging an underage teenager.
Not necessarily.
I don't think taking a pencil from the stationery cabinet is
automatically more serious than sex with a 13-year old.
Taking a pencil from the stationery cabinet would not amount to misconduct >>> in public office.
It would, however, be a definite criminal offence rather than just
rumour and innuendo.
Yes, but it's a completely different offence to the one that Andrew is being investigated for. And the offence he is being investigated for has nothing
to do with innuendo.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 09:49:11 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mvtakjF7jvkU5@mid.individual.net...
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has not been >>> charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the public domain apart
from some emails he sent, possibly divulging information a bit prematurely to
no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports, compiled >> at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt and Taxpayer, to a
private US Citizen; to that person's possible advantage. And that is totally >> regardless of what actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time >> Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as flagrant an
example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible to imagine.
On the face of it, yes. But Misconduct in Public Office is a notoriously difficult offence to prosecute. So I would not, at this moment, be willing
to go out on a limb and predict a conviction (or guilty plea).
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery cupboard
regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost
seriousness.
No it couldn't.
Well, no, it couldn't; if the media reports are accurate then he was guilty of a very serious breach of trust.
On 20/02/2026 21:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:30:23 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 19/02/2026 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:57:11 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
You clearly don't accept that being friends with a convicted felon is >>>>> itself criminal then?
Or having sex with ladies over the age of consent?
Or being in 'photographs'?
Or telling fibs to the BBC?
Or being a privileged, entitled oaf?
He hasn't been arrested for any of that.
Some would say he has been, in truth, regardless of the official line.
Anybody who would say that is an idiot. I'm only interested in discussing
reality.
Well, they're now saying seriously that he should be removed from his >position in the line of succession.
On 20/02/2026 21:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:23:14 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:54 am, Pancho wrote:
On 2/19/26 20:03, JNugent wrote:
Hence the later civil cases?Not really the same at all. Cliff was never arrested - because there >>>>> were no grounds for reasonable suspicion that he had committed an
offence. If there had been such grounds, it is beyond dispute that he >>>>> *would* have been arrested. But there weren't. So he wasn't.
As Norman has pointed out, they shouldn't have searched his home without >>>> suspicion. They certainly shouldn't have invited the BBC.
Perhaps they've learned a lesson or two since that.
It's generally recognised now, even by the police, that the Cliff episode
was a serious mistake. But you also have to bear in mind that this was at
the height of Operation Midland, when the police were so desperate to make >> up for their failure to investigate Jimmy Savile while he was still alive
that they'd let the pendulum swing to the other extreme and gave credence to >> practically any allegation against someone famous, no matter how
implausible. Cliff wan't a victim of the serial liar Carl Beech, but the
allegations against him fell into the same category.
However, the fallout of Operation Midland, combined with a long hard look at >> the failures of the Savile era, have led to a lot of soul searching in the >> police, and as a consequence there are now a much more robust set of
guidelines for dealing with high profile cases involving people in the
public eye.
It still seems a very similar sort of witch-hunt against Andrew.
On 20/02/2026 22:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
Without that scrutiny, there would have been no reason to suspect Mandelson >> or TAFKAP of misconduct. And without Epstein's predilection for the
unfledged feminine attributes, there would have been no scrutiny of his
correspondence.
One question.
Is the existence of email(s) which purport to have been sent between
(e.g.) Epstein and Mandelson sufficient evidence to mount a case?
These have all been 'handled' by Trump's DOJ which seems to be somewhat
less than a beacon of probity and even-handed justice.
I don't suppose I'm the only person who is thoroughly fed up withThe point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he
the drip-drip of revelations concerning the rich and powerful who
happen to be mentioned in the Epstein files, [...].
was applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably
on behalf of a foreign government, such as Israel.
Obviously, democracy is vulnerable to corrupt influence. Corruption
is not unusual or exceptional, but common behaviour. We should make
a lot of effort to expose and prevent it. More effort than I think
we do currently. We currently have a problem with inequality of
wealth and power. We need to rebalance this in order to optimise
incentives for people to contribute to society.
But what has really struck me is how much of this "news" consistsYes, email is insecure, but in practice, for most of us, it is
of e-mails. I have been using e-mail for the best part of fifty
years now, and one of the things we learned /very/ early on was
that e-mails are not accessible merely to recipients. [...]
probably quite secure.
The post card analogy is inappropriate.
Intercepting an email is easy for the email host, such as Google,
ProtonMail, etc, or Government, but quite difficult for anyone in
between.
I think the point about the Epstein class is entitlement. They are
allowed to break the rules.
I suspect there are far more important revelations in the archive,
still hidden. Prince Andrew and Mandleson are just minnows to be
sacrificed to please the mob. People with more influence in the USA
are still protected.
On 21/02/2026 09:46, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:44:21 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/02/2026 22:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:56:47 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:
The point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he
was applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably >>>>>> on behalf of a foreign government, such as Israel.
More likely, finding ways of increasing his wealth by using
market-sensitive briefings that he should never have been shown.
Indeed.
I suspect that Misconduct in Public Office, of the type for which
Peter Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince are being
investigated, is more prevalent than the prosecution statistics would
give cause to believe. Whether it's at the global, multimillionaire
level of high finance or a local councillor telling his mate about
commercial contracts over a beer, I'm sure a lot of people in public
office tend to be of the opinion that "confidential" can be stretched
to include their friends and family among those entitled to know.
I've seen it happen. Often, it's de minimis because the recipient of
the confidential information never makes any gain as a result of it.
But sometimes, they do benefit. And get away with it. Because there's
never any reason to suspect.
Is there any suggestion or evidence that anyone did in fact benefit
from what Andrew is alleged to have divulged in the few hours, as I
understand it, before it was public knowledge anyway?
AIUI it's a lon established principle of English law that doesn't have
to be a benefit from an action for it it be a crime.
And yet, Mr Goodge describes it is often de minimis because the
recipient of it never makes any gain as a result of it.
Anyway, is it not also a long established principle of English law that
a person is innocent until proven guilty? Why have you forgotten that?
Is it a criminal offence to have disreputable friends?
It can be.
No, it can't.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 09:49:11 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>news:mvtakjF7jvkU5@mid.individual.net...
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has not been >>> charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the public domain
apart
from some emails he sent, possibly divulging information a bit prematurely >>> to
no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports, compiled >>at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt and Taxpayer, to a
private US Citizen; to that person's possible advantage. And that is totally >>regardless of what actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time >>Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as flagrant >>an
example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible to imagine.
On the face of it, yes. But Misconduct in Public Office is a notoriously difficult offence to prosecute. So I would not, at this moment, be willing
to go out on a limb and predict a conviction (or guilty plea).
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery
cupboard
regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost
seriousness.
No it couldn't.
Well, no, it couldn't; if the media reports are accurate then he was guilty of a very serious breach of trust. And given that the documents on which those reports are based are publicly available, I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that it was a serious breach of trust. The real question is whether Misconduct in Public Office is the appropriate offence to allege,
and if so, whether the CPS will be able to make it stick.
On 21/02/2026 09:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mvtakjF7jvkU5@mid.individual.net...
On 20/02/2026 23:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mvrrisFj9uU1@mid.individual.net...
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was appointed by >>>>> his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mean that in some way he was not
in fact in a *public* office? It would mean a prosecution would fail at >>>>> the
first hurdle.
All Govt Ministers are appointed by the Crown. And so that's nothing
special.
However if the reports are true then he's clearly bang to rights.
Every time he took a trip abroad as a trade envoy, the officials
accompanyng him had to compile a detailed report. Probably
including meetings where he wasn't even present. So things
could be followed up.
He will have been given copies of all of these reports. Some of which
it appears he passed directly on to Epstein.
Which regardless of whether or not they contained sensitive information >>>> will have been strictly against the rules.
Presumably he'll be put on probation or something. Or maybe clearing
up litter.
That will depend on the seriousness of any offence for which he is
convicted.
If any.
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has not been >>> charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the public domain
apart
from some emails he sent, possibly divulging information a bit prematurely >>> to
no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports, compiled >> at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt and Taxpayer, to >> a
private US Citizen; to that person's possible advantage. And that is totally >> regardless of what actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time >> Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as flagrant >> an
example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible to imagine.
Care to explain where and how the Official Secrets Act comes into play in connection with what has been alleged? Which Section do you have in mind?
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery
cupboard
regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost
seriousness.
No it couldn't.
You can't possibly know that.
Unlike in the case of the other allegations, in this instance he really does >> appear to be stuffed,
But you don't know that he's guilty of anything, nor how serious or trivial it
may be if he is.
Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Do you have privileged access to what actually happened?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 09:49:11 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mvtakjF7jvkU5@mid.individual.net...
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has not been >>> charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the public domain apart
from some emails he sent, possibly divulging information a bit prematurely to
no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports, compiled >> at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt and Taxpayer, to a
private US Citizen; to that person's possible advantage. And that is totally >> regardless of what actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time >> Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as flagrant an
example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible to imagine.
On the face of it, yes. But Misconduct in Public Office is a notoriously difficult offence to prosecute. So I would not, at this moment, be willing
to go out on a limb and predict a conviction (or guilty plea).
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery cupboard
regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost
seriousness.
No it couldn't.
Well, no, it couldn't; if the media reports are accurate then he was guilty of a very serious breach of trust. And given that the documents on which those reports are based are publicly available, I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that it was a serious breach of trust. The real question is whether Misconduct in Public Office is the appropriate offence to allege,
and if so, whether the CPS will be able to make it stick.
Mark
On 2026-02-20, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 14:58:32 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:28, Jethro wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 10:38:33 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:On the contrary, it is very hard to form a belief that the police
On 19/02/2026 16:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:I think the integrity of his protection team is very much in doubt. >>>>> It's hard not to form a belief that they were well aware they were
[quoted text muted]
If it can be shown that he was leaking confidential UK government
reports to a third party then he deserves what he gets.
ISTR "misconduct in public office" has a very high maximum sentence >>>>>> of life imprisonment. Who was last convicted for this particular
offence,
what did they do, and what was their sentence?
It also seems to me gratuitous to do it on his birthday. Given that >>>>>> he has permanent police protection he seems an unlikely flight risk! >>>>>
aiding their charge in unlawful activities.
(Of course they may have raised their concerns and be told to look the >>>>> other way. In which case culpability moves upwards)
protection team were aware of any confidential Treasury briefings that >>>> Andrew might have been disclosing to Epstein or to other wealthy
friends.
The arrest and the investigations will have nothing whatsoever to do
with Andrew's use of prostitutes, which activity cannot amount to
misconduct in public office.
And yet, former members of his police protection team *are* being
investigated:
The Metropolitan Police is carrying out "initial inquiries" into
allegations relating to close protection officers formerly assigned >>> to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
It comes after an unnamed former senior Met protection officer told >>> LBC that members of the Royalty and Specialist Protection (RaSP) may >>> have "wilfully turned a blind eye" during visits to a private island >>> owned by Jeffery Epstein.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy57ry1vne0o
I suspect that Todal and I do not share the same view on life.
Mine is once you have identified a fault in one component in a system,
then all others cannot be considered to be functional as a matter of
reduction.
As a whole the police have exhibited flaws and faults many times. Hence
they have lost the benefit of the doubt.
I've suggested here before that all police should be issued with
body-worn cameras, and police witness evidence should be treated
as basically inadmissible unless corroborated by video.
On 2026-02-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:28, Jethro wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 10:38:33 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/02/2026 16:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If it can be shown that he was leaking confidential UK government
reports to a third party then he deserves what he gets.
ISTR "misconduct in public office" has a very high maximum sentence of >>>> life imprisonment. Who was last convicted for this particular offence, >>>> what did they do, and what was their sentence?
It also seems to me gratuitous to do it on his birthday. Given that he >>>> has permanent police protection he seems an unlikely flight risk!
I think the integrity of his protection team is very much in doubt. It's >>> hard not to form a belief that they were well aware they were aiding
their charge in unlawful activities.
(Of course they may have raised their concerns and be told to look the
other way. In which case culpability moves upwards)
On the contrary, it is very hard to form a belief that the police
protection team were aware of any confidential Treasury briefings that
Andrew might have been disclosing to Epstein or to other wealthy friends.
The arrest and the investigations will have nothing whatsoever to do
with Andrew's use of prostitutes, which activity cannot amount to
misconduct in public office.
And yet, former members of his police protection team *are* being investigated:
The Metropolitan Police is carrying out "initial inquiries" into
allegations relating to close protection officers formerly assigned
to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
It comes after an unnamed former senior Met protection officer told
LBC that members of the Royalty and Specialist Protection (RaSP) may
have "wilfully turned a blind eye" during visits to a private island
owned by Jeffery Epstein.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy57ry1vne0o
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:23:14 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:54 am, Pancho wrote:
On 2/19/26 20:03, JNugent wrote:
Hence the later civil cases?Not really the same at all. Cliff was never arrested - because there
were no grounds for reasonable suspicion that he had committed an
offence. If there had been such grounds, it is beyond dispute that he
*would* have been arrested. But there weren't. So he wasn't.
As Norman has pointed out, they shouldn't have searched his home without >>> suspicion. They certainly shouldn't have invited the BBC.
Perhaps they've learned a lesson or two since that.
It's generally recognised now, even by the police, that the Cliff episode
was a serious mistake.
the height of Operation Midland, when the police were so desperate to make
up for their failure to investigate Jimmy Savile while he was still alive that they'd let the pendulum swing to the other extreme and gave credence to practically any allegation against someone famous, no matter how
implausible. Cliff wan't a victim of the serial liar Carl Beech, but the allegations against him fell into the same category.
However, the fallout of Operation Midland, combined with a long hard look at the failures of the Savile era, have led to a lot of soul searching in the police, and as a consequence there are now a much more robust set of guidelines for dealing with high profile cases involving people in the
public eye.
I'm not saying that the police always get it right. But I'm a lot more confident of their judgement in these kind of cases now than I would have been ten years ago. And actions taken in a case involving royalty will
almost certainly have been signed off at the very highest level.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[rCa]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
The OSA will certainly cover material that has been rCyprotectively markedrCO,
and thererCOs quite a few of those designations. ItrCOs highly likely that the material that passed through TAFKAPrCOs hands bore a protective
marking.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:11:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 21:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:30:23 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:57:11 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
You clearly don't accept that being friends with a convicted felon >>>>>> is itself criminal then?
Or having sex with ladies over the age of consent?
Or being in 'photographs'?
Or telling fibs to the BBC?
Or being a privileged, entitled oaf?
He hasn't been arrested for any of that.
Some would say he has been, in truth, regardless of the official
line.
Anybody who would say that is an idiot. I'm only interested in
discussing reality.
Well, they're now saying seriously that he should be removed from his >>position in the line of succession.
Again, it depends who you mean by "they". The government's position -
which is the only one that matters - is that they will consider
legislating to remove him from the line of sucession once the outcome of
the police investigation is known. As far as I am aware, nobody in any position of authority, or with any sense, is calling for that
legislation to be rushed through prior to the conclusion of the investigation. And the opinions of the xiterati and tabloid media are,
again, irrelevent to any rational discussion.
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 09:49:11 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>Consider the possibility that he believed he was entitled to reveal any
wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mvtakjF7jvkU5@mid.individual.net...
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has
not been charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the
public domain apart from some emails he sent, possibly divulging
information a bit prematurely to no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports,
compiled at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt
and Taxpayer, to a private US Citizen; to that person's possible
advantage. And that is totally regardless of what actual use was made
of that information; i.e. at the time Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as
flagrant an example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible
to imagine.
On the face of it, yes. But Misconduct in Public Office is a
notoriously difficult offence to prosecute. So I would not, at this
moment, be willing to go out on a limb and predict a conviction (or
guilty plea).
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery
cupboard
regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost
seriousness.
No it couldn't.
Well, no, it couldn't; if the media reports are accurate then he was
guilty of a very serious breach of trust. And given that the documents
on which those reports are based are publicly available, I don't think
anyone can reasonably deny that it was a serious breach of trust. The
real question is whether Misconduct in Public Office is the appropriate
offence to allege, and if so, whether the CPS will be able to make it
stick.
Mark
of the documents in his possession to whomsoever he chose, because he
had not been properly prepared or briefed and those who were supposed to guide him in his duties were intimidated by his arrogant behaviour and preferred not to confront him.
I disagree with Jethro because I think in fact we all do share the "same
view on life".
But I think there is a scattergun approach to the public's view of
Prince Andrew. The public condemns him for his arrogance, his sense of entitlement, his sexual promiscuity. None of which are unlawful in themselves.
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 09:49:11 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mvtakjF7jvkU5@mid.individual.net...
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has not been
charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the public domain >>>> apart
from some emails he sent, possibly divulging information a bit prematurely >>>> to
no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports, compiled
at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt and Taxpayer, to
a
private US Citizen; to that person's possible advantage. And that is totally
regardless of what actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time
Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as flagrant
an
example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible to imagine.
On the face of it, yes. But Misconduct in Public Office is a notoriously
difficult offence to prosecute. So I would not, at this moment, be willing >> to go out on a limb and predict a conviction (or guilty plea).
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery
cupboard
regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost
seriousness.
No it couldn't.
Well, no, it couldn't; if the media reports are accurate then he was guilty >> of a very serious breach of trust.
If the previous media reports were accurate then he was guilty too of having sex with underage girls.
Regardless of the fact that no evidence existed.
Consider the possibility that he believed he was entitled to reveal any of the
documents in his possession to whomsoever he chose, because he had not been properly prepared or briefed and those who were supposed to guide him in his duties were intimidated by his arrogant behaviour and preferred not to confront him.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 09:33:21 +0000, The Todal wrote:
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 09:49:11 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>Consider the possibility that he believed he was entitled to reveal any
wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mvtakjF7jvkU5@mid.individual.net...
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has
not been charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the
public domain apart from some emails he sent, possibly divulging
information a bit prematurely to no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports,
compiled at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt
and Taxpayer, to a private US Citizen; to that person's possible
advantage. And that is totally regardless of what actual use was made
of that information; i.e. at the time Andrew wasn't to know either way >>>>
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as
flagrant an example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible
to imagine.
On the face of it, yes. But Misconduct in Public Office is a
notoriously difficult offence to prosecute. So I would not, at this
moment, be willing to go out on a limb and predict a conviction (or
guilty plea).
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery >>>>> cupboard
regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost
seriousness.
No it couldn't.
Well, no, it couldn't; if the media reports are accurate then he was
guilty of a very serious breach of trust. And given that the documents
on which those reports are based are publicly available, I don't think
anyone can reasonably deny that it was a serious breach of trust. The
real question is whether Misconduct in Public Office is the appropriate
offence to allege, and if so, whether the CPS will be able to make it
stick.
Mark
of the documents in his possession to whomsoever he chose, because he
had not been properly prepared or briefed and those who were supposed to
guide him in his duties were intimidated by his arrogant behaviour and
preferred not to confront him.
Why ? Ignorance of the law is no defence.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:04:55 +0000, Spike wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[rCa]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
The OSA will certainly cover material that has been rCyprotectively
markedrCO,
and thererCOs quite a few of those designations. ItrCOs highly likely that >> the material that passed through TAFKAPrCOs hands bore a protective
marking.
Isn't there a catcgh-all in the OSA that means it applies a "reasonable person" test to the material ? So that even if you found a sheaf of sensitive but unmarked documents on a train, you could still end up in
jail if you reveal them to the press ?
We are all covered by the OSA.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:49, billy bookcase wrote:
[rCa]
He [TAFKAP] was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports, compiled
at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt and Taxpayer, to a
private US Citizen; to that person's possible advantage. And that is totally
regardless of what actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time
Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as flagrant an
example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible to imagine.
Care to explain where and how the Official Secrets Act comes into play
in connection with what has been alleged? Which Section do you have in
mind?
The OSA will certainly cover material that has been rCyprotectively markedrCO,
and thererCOs quite a few of those designations. ItrCOs highly likely that the
material that passed through TAFKAPrCOs hands bore a protective marking.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message news:pimjpklh3n7ar043bjprnqsuaa1c1v6bel@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 09:49:11 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mvtakjF7jvkU5@mid.individual.net...
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has not been
charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the public domain >>>> apart
from some emails he sent, possibly divulging information a bit prematurely >>>> to
no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports, compiled
at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt and Taxpayer, to a
private US Citizen; to that person's possible advantage. And that is totally
regardless of what actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time
Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as flagrant
an
example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible to imagine.
On the face of it, yes. But Misconduct in Public Office is a notoriously
difficult offence to prosecute. So I would not, at this moment, be willing >> to go out on a limb and predict a conviction (or guilty plea).
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery
cupboard
regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost
seriousness.
No it couldn't.
Well, no, it couldn't; if the media reports are accurate then he was guilty >> of a very serious breach of trust. And given that the documents on which
those reports are based are publicly available, I don't think anyone can
reasonably deny that it was a serious breach of trust. The real question is >> whether Misconduct in Public Office is the appropriate offence to allege,
and if so, whether the CPS will be able to make it stick.
quote:
The elements of the offence were summarised in Attorney General's
Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868.
The offence is committed when: a public officer acting as such
wilfully neglects to perform their duty and/or wilfully misconducts themselves to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's
trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification
:unquote
https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/misconduct-public-office
IOW had the British Public been aware of the fact that as an
officially appointed Trade Envoy for the UK, Andrew had been
sharing confidential reports with an American Friend of his,
who also just so happened to be a convicted sex offender,
this would not have amounted to an abuse of the public's trust
in him ?
Really ?
Would you really be prepared to argue that, in open court ?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:11:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 21:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:30:23 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 19/02/2026 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:57:11 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
You clearly don't accept that being friends with a convicted felon is >>>>>> itself criminal then?
Or having sex with ladies over the age of consent?
Or being in 'photographs'?
Or telling fibs to the BBC?
Or being a privileged, entitled oaf?
He hasn't been arrested for any of that.
Some would say he has been, in truth, regardless of the official line.
Anybody who would say that is an idiot. I'm only interested in discussing >>> reality.
Well, they're now saying seriously that he should be removed from his
position in the line of succession.
Again, it depends who you mean by "they". The government's position - which is the only one that matters - is that they will consider legislating to remove him from the line of sucession once the outcome of the police investigation is known. As far as I am aware, nobody in any position of authority, or with any sense, is calling for that legislation to be rushed through prior to the conclusion of the investigation. And the opinions of
the xiterati and tabloid media are, again, irrelevent to any rational discussion.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:16:12 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 21:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:23:14 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:54 am, Pancho wrote:
On 2/19/26 20:03, JNugent wrote:
Hence the later civil cases?Not really the same at all. Cliff was never arrested - because there >>>>>> were no grounds for reasonable suspicion that he had committed an
offence. If there had been such grounds, it is beyond dispute that he >>>>>> *would* have been arrested. But there weren't. So he wasn't.
As Norman has pointed out, they shouldn't have searched his home without >>>>> suspicion. They certainly shouldn't have invited the BBC.
Perhaps they've learned a lesson or two since that.
It's generally recognised now, even by the police, that the Cliff episode >>> was a serious mistake. But you also have to bear in mind that this was at >>> the height of Operation Midland, when the police were so desperate to make >>> up for their failure to investigate Jimmy Savile while he was still alive >>> that they'd let the pendulum swing to the other extreme and gave credence to
practically any allegation against someone famous, no matter how
implausible. Cliff wan't a victim of the serial liar Carl Beech, but the >>> allegations against him fell into the same category.
However, the fallout of Operation Midland, combined with a long hard look at
the failures of the Savile era, have led to a lot of soul searching in the >>> police, and as a consequence there are now a much more robust set of
guidelines for dealing with high profile cases involving people in the
public eye.
It still seems a very similar sort of witch-hunt against Andrew.
Andrew is being investigated for potentially serious fiscal misdemeanours. Not sexual indiscretions.
So it's completely different to the Cliff scenario
and the Operation Midland cases.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is
insufficiently informed to have a useful opinion on the Andrew case.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 15:22:46 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:46, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:44:21 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/02/2026 22:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:56:47 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:
The point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he >>>>>>> was applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably >>>>>>> on behalf of a foreign government, such as Israel.
More likely, finding ways of increasing his wealth by using
market-sensitive briefings that he should never have been shown.
Indeed.
I suspect that Misconduct in Public Office, of the type for which
Peter Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince are being
investigated, is more prevalent than the prosecution statistics would >>>>> give cause to believe. Whether it's at the global, multimillionaire
level of high finance or a local councillor telling his mate about
commercial contracts over a beer, I'm sure a lot of people in public >>>>> office tend to be of the opinion that "confidential" can be stretched >>>>> to include their friends and family among those entitled to know.
I've seen it happen. Often, it's de minimis because the recipient of >>>>> the confidential information never makes any gain as a result of it. >>>>> But sometimes, they do benefit. And get away with it. Because there's >>>>> never any reason to suspect.
Is there any suggestion or evidence that anyone did in fact benefit
from what Andrew is alleged to have divulged in the few hours, as I
understand it, before it was public knowledge anyway?
AIUI it's a lon established principle of English law that doesn't have
to be a benefit from an action for it it be a crime.
And yet, Mr Goodge describes it is often de minimis because the
recipient of it never makes any gain as a result of it.
Anyway, is it not also a long established principle of English law that
a person is innocent until proven guilty? Why have you forgotten that?
So it would seem sensible to have a procedure for determinging guilt
then.
Is it a criminal offence to have disreputable friends?
It can be.
No, it can't.
It can be, and I will leave as your homework to identify the situations
in which it might be the case. Rather than me supplying them to have the goalposts changed.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mvu1baFbm1oU2@mid.individual.net...
On 21/02/2026 09:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mvtakjF7jvkU5@mid.individual.net...
On 20/02/2026 23:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mvrrisFj9uU1@mid.individual.net...
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was appointed by
his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mean that in some way he was not
in fact in a *public* office? It would mean a prosecution would fail at >>>>>> the
first hurdle.
All Govt Ministers are appointed by the Crown. And so that's nothing >>>>> special.
However if the reports are true then he's clearly bang to rights.
Every time he took a trip abroad as a trade envoy, the officials
accompanyng him had to compile a detailed report. Probably
including meetings where he wasn't even present. So things
could be followed up.
He will have been given copies of all of these reports. Some of which >>>>> it appears he passed directly on to Epstein.
Which regardless of whether or not they contained sensitive information >>>>> will have been strictly against the rules.
Presumably he'll be put on probation or something. Or maybe clearing >>>>> up litter.
That will depend on the seriousness of any offence for which he is
convicted.
If any.
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has not been
charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the public domain >>>> apart
from some emails he sent, possibly divulging information a bit prematurely >>>> to
no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports, compiled
at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt and Taxpayer, to
a
private US Citizen; to that person's possible advantage. And that is totally
regardless of what actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time
Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as flagrant
an
example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible to imagine.
Care to explain where and how the Official Secrets Act comes into play in
connection with what has been alleged? Which Section do you have in mind?
Now let's see. Trade negotiations with foreign countries
So how would Section 3. "International Relations", suit ?
Now that wasn't too difficult, was it ?
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery >>>> cupboard
regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost
seriousness.
No it couldn't.
You can't possibly know that.
Unlike in the case of the other allegations, in this instance he really does
appear to be stuffed,
But you don't know that he's guilty of anything, nor how serious or trivial it
may be if he is.
Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Do you have privileged >> access to what actually happened?
If only his former Royal Highness could read your kind words, no doubt he would treasure them as offering him at least some consolation, in this
his hour of greatest need.*
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mvunh5Ff91fU2@mid.individual.net...
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, no, it couldn't; if the media reports are accurate then he was guilty >>> of a very serious breach of trust.
If the previous media reports were accurate then he was guilty too of having >> sex with underage girls.
Regardless of the fact that no evidence existed.
You are still completely missing, the *one essential point*.
Details of these *confidential reports* were found among
*Jeffrey Epstein's* emails.
Had that not been the case, then as with Mandelson, *nobody would
have known anything about them.
Given the evident friendship between the two men along with any accompanying matter, its simply inconceivable to suppose that Andrew was not the
source.
The sexual allegations are completely different. As in that instance its clear that Estonia seems to have gone out of his way to place Andrew. possibly among others into what *could be subsequently interpreted*
as highly compromising situations,
Whereas in this instance, unless you're seriously suggesting that Epstein
had a mole in the DoT, feeding him confidential reports, which he could subsequently attribute to Andrew, in emails he never expected anyone
to ever read, then you simply don't have a case
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
You are still completely missing, the *one essential point*.
Details of these *confidential reports* were found among
*Jeffrey Epstein's* emails.
On 20/02/2026 18:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-20, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I suspect that Todal and I do not share the same view on life.
Mine is once you have identified a fault in one component in a system,
then all others cannot be considered to be functional as a matter of
reduction.
As a whole the police have exhibited flaws and faults many times. Hence
they have lost the benefit of the doubt.
I've suggested here before that all police should be issued with
body-worn cameras, and police witness evidence should be treated
as basically inadmissible unless corroborated by video.
I think they do have body-worn cameras when carrying out their duties, surely?
But the plan to remove him from the line of succession seems like a
spiteful act of revenge to appease "public demand" and protect the image
of the Royal Family. It is unnecessary, it achieves nothing useful, it
is a distraction from the real problems faced by the nation.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
You are still completely missing, the *one essential point*.
Details of these *confidential reports* were found among
*Jeffrey Epstein's* emails.
The point that seems to be being missed is that there are 'confidential' reports, and there are reports that have been protectively marked 'CONFIDENTIAL' (possibly with a caveat of 'TRADE' or 'INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS'). (Other markings and caveats are doubtless available).
The former of these are not protected in themselves, but the latter
certainly are
Does anyone know, rather than offering speculation, if any of the documents in the so-called Epstein Files relating to this matter fall under the
latter? That is, Epstein actually had copies of UK protectively-marked documents?
Anything less could have arisen from guesswork, idle gossip, reading the right financial news, dining club chatter over the port, or whatever, from people's private lives.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:16:12 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 21:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:23:14 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:54 am, Pancho wrote:
On 2/19/26 20:03, JNugent wrote:
Hence the later civil cases?Not really the same at all. Cliff was never arrested - because there >>>>>> were no grounds for reasonable suspicion that he had committed an
offence. If there had been such grounds, it is beyond dispute that he >>>>>> *would* have been arrested. But there weren't. So he wasn't.
As Norman has pointed out, they shouldn't have searched his home without >>>>> suspicion. They certainly shouldn't have invited the BBC.
Perhaps they've learned a lesson or two since that.
It's generally recognised now, even by the police, that the Cliff episode >>> was a serious mistake. But you also have to bear in mind that this was at >>> the height of Operation Midland, when the police were so desperate to make >>> up for their failure to investigate Jimmy Savile while he was still alive >>> that they'd let the pendulum swing to the other extreme and gave credence to
practically any allegation against someone famous, no matter how
implausible. Cliff wan't a victim of the serial liar Carl Beech, but the >>> allegations against him fell into the same category.
However, the fallout of Operation Midland, combined with a long hard look at
the failures of the Savile era, have led to a lot of soul searching in the >>> police, and as a consequence there are now a much more robust set of
guidelines for dealing with high profile cases involving people in the
public eye.
It still seems a very similar sort of witch-hunt against Andrew.
Andrew is being investigated for potentially serious fiscal misdemeanours. Not sexual indiscretions.
So it's completely different to the Cliff scenario
and the Operation Midland cases. Anyone who thinks otherwise is insufficiently informed to have a useful opinion on the Andrew case.
Mark
On 21/02/2026 09:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 23:30, billy bookcase wrote:"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:...
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was
appointed by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mea
that in some way he >>>>> was not in fact in a *public* office?
It would mean a prosecution would fail at the first hurdle.
All Govt Ministers are appointed by the Crown. And so that's nothing
special.
However if the reports are true then he's clearly bang to rights.
Every time he took a trip abroad as a trade envoy, the officials
accompanyng him had to compile a detailed report. Probably
including meetings where he wasn't even present. So things
could be followed up.
He will have been given copies of all of these reports. Some of which
it appears he passed directly on to Epstein.
Which regardless of whether or not they contained sensitive information >>>> will have been strictly against the rules.
Presumably he'll be put on probation or something. Or maybe clearing
up litter.
That will depend on the seriousness of any offence for which he is
convicted.
If any.
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything.-a He has
not been charged with anything.-a There is no known evidence in the
public domain apart from some emails he sent, possibly divulging
information a bit prematurely to no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports,
compiled at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt and
Tand axpayer, to a private US Citizen; to that person's possible
advantage. And that is totally regardless of what actual use was made
of that information; i.e. at the time Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true,-a is not only in direct-a breach of the OSA, but is as
flagrant an example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible to imagine.
Care to explain where and how the Official Secrets Act comes into play
in connection with what has been alleged?-a Which Section do you have in mind?
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery
cupboard regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of
the utmost seriousness.
No it couldn't.
You can't possibly know that.
Unlike in the case of the other allegations, in this instance he
really does appear to be stuffed,
But you don't know that he's guilty of anything, nor how serious or
trivial it may be if he is.
Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?-a Do you have privileged access to what actually happened?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:04:55 +0000, Spike wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[rCa]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
The OSA will certainly cover material that has been rCyprotectively
markedrCO,
and thererCOs quite a few of those designations. ItrCOs highly likely that >> the material that passed through TAFKAPrCOs hands bore a protective
marking.
Isn't there a catcgh-all in the OSA that means it applies a "reasonable person" test to the material ?
On 2026-02-22, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 18:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-20, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I suspect that Todal and I do not share the same view on life.
Mine is once you have identified a fault in one component in a
system, then all others cannot be considered to be functional as a
matter of reduction.
As a whole the police have exhibited flaws and faults many times.
Hence they have lost the benefit of the doubt.
I've suggested here before that all police should be issued with
body-worn cameras, and police witness evidence should be treated as
basically inadmissible unless corroborated by video.
I think they do have body-worn cameras when carrying out their duties,
surely?
I'm not sure all officers working for all forces wear them at all times.
And they're certainly not recording all the time, even if they're being
worn. But my point was more about the way courts should treat police
evidence that isn't supported by video.
On 22/02/2026 09:00 am, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:04:55 +0000, Spike wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[rCa]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
The OSA will certainly cover material that has been rCyprotectively
markedrCO,
and thererCOs quite a few of those designations. ItrCOs highly likely that >>> the material that passed through TAFKAPrCOs hands bore a protective
marking.
Isn't there a catcgh-all in the OSA that means it applies a "reasonable
person" test to the material ?
No.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:38:12 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 22:17, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 07:56:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 19/02/2026 20:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
Misconduct in Public Office is a serious offence. More serious, in fact, >>>>> than shagging an underage teenager.
Not necessarily.
I don't think taking a pencil from the stationery cabinet is
automatically more serious than sex with a 13-year old.
Taking a pencil from the stationery cabinet would not amount to misconduct >>> in public office.
It would, however, be a definite criminal offence rather than just
rumour and innuendo.
Yes, but it's a completely different offence to the one that Andrew is being investigated for. And the offence he is being investigated for has nothing
to do with innuendo.
I don't think the great British public had much if any trust in him anyway.-a The truth is he should never have been appointed in the first place.
Now, 82% of the notionally trusting public think he should be forcibly removed from the line of succession despite the fact that he has never
been convicted of or even charged with anything, and is therefore
entitled to be treated as innocent.-a Can they themselves be trusted?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 09:33:21 +0000, The Todal wrote:
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 09:49:11 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>Consider the possibility that he believed he was entitled to reveal any
wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mvtakjF7jvkU5@mid.individual.net...
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything. He has
not been charged with anything. There is no known evidence in the
public domain apart from some emails he sent, possibly divulging
information a bit prematurely to no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports,
compiled at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt
and Taxpayer, to a private US Citizen; to that person's possible
advantage. And that is totally regardless of what actual use was made
of that information; i.e. at the time Andrew wasn't to know either way >>>>
Which if true, is not only in direct breach of the OSA, but is as
flagrant an example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible
to imagine.
On the face of it, yes. But Misconduct in Public Office is a
notoriously difficult offence to prosecute. So I would not, at this
moment, be willing to go out on a limb and predict a conviction (or
guilty plea).
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery >>>>> cupboard
regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of the utmost
seriousness.
No it couldn't.
Well, no, it couldn't; if the media reports are accurate then he was
guilty of a very serious breach of trust. And given that the documents
on which those reports are based are publicly available, I don't think
anyone can reasonably deny that it was a serious breach of trust. The
real question is whether Misconduct in Public Office is the appropriate
offence to allege, and if so, whether the CPS will be able to make it
stick.
Mark
of the documents in his possession to whomsoever he chose, because he
had not been properly prepared or briefed and those who were supposed to
guide him in his duties were intimidated by his arrogant behaviour and
preferred not to confront him.
Why ? Ignorance of the law is no defence.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 15:50:20 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
Again, it depends who you mean by "they". The government's position -
which is the only one that matters - is that they will consider
legislating to remove him from the line of sucession once the outcome of
the police investigation is known. As far as I am aware, nobody in any
position of authority, or with any sense, is calling for that
legislation to be rushed through prior to the conclusion of the
investigation. And the opinions of the xiterati and tabloid media are,
again, irrelevent to any rational discussion.
Hang on.
We are saddled witha Monarchy because they are appointed by God almighty. Which means the succession should be inviolate.
If it turns out (or we are reminded) that in reality the Monarch is
simply another political appointment, then the arguments against republicanism do rather fall away.
Friendship with a known sex offender and lying to Emily Maitlis? Hardly hanging offences, though worthy of condemnation.
Divulging confidential Treasury briefings to Epstein might be the very
worst of the potential allegations.
But the plan to remove him from the line of succession seems like a
spiteful act of revenge to appease "public demand" and protect the image
of the Royal Family.
It is unnecessary, it achieves nothing useful, it
is a distraction from the real problems faced by the nation.
On 21/02/2026 17:04, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 15:22:46 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:46, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:44:21 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/02/2026 22:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:56:47 +0000, The Todal
<the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:
The point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he >>>>>>>> was applying inappropriate influence on public officials,
probably on behalf of a foreign government, such as Israel.
More likely, finding ways of increasing his wealth by using
market-sensitive briefings that he should never have been shown.
Indeed.
I suspect that Misconduct in Public Office, of the type for which
Peter Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince are being
investigated, is more prevalent than the prosecution statistics
would give cause to believe. Whether it's at the global,
multimillionaire level of high finance or a local councillor
telling his mate about commercial contracts over a beer, I'm sure a >>>>>> lot of people in public office tend to be of the opinion that
"confidential" can be stretched to include their friends and family >>>>>> among those entitled to know. I've seen it happen. Often, it's de
minimis because the recipient of the confidential information never >>>>>> makes any gain as a result of it. But sometimes, they do benefit.
And get away with it. Because there's never any reason to suspect.
Is there any suggestion or evidence that anyone did in fact benefit
from what Andrew is alleged to have divulged in the few hours, as I
understand it, before it was public knowledge anyway?
AIUI it's a lon established principle of English law that doesn't
have to be a benefit from an action for it it be a crime.
And yet, Mr Goodge describes it is often de minimis because the
recipient of it never makes any gain as a result of it.
Anyway, is it not also a long established principle of English law
that a person is innocent until proven guilty? Why have you forgotten
that?
So it would seem sensible to have a procedure for determinging guilt
then.
Of course it is, and we do.
Until then, is he entitled to be treated as innocent, or not?
Is it a criminal offence to have disreputable friends?
It can be.
No, it can't.
It can be, and I will leave as your homework to identify the situations
in which it might be the case. Rather than me supplying them to have
the goalposts changed.
No, it's your point and therefore for you to establish. If you can,
which I think you can't.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 15:50:20 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:11:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 21:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:30:23 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:57:11 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>> wrote:
You clearly don't accept that being friends with a convicted felon >>>>>>> is itself criminal then?
Or having sex with ladies over the age of consent?
Or being in 'photographs'?
Or telling fibs to the BBC?
Or being a privileged, entitled oaf?
He hasn't been arrested for any of that.
Some would say he has been, in truth, regardless of the official
line.
Anybody who would say that is an idiot. I'm only interested in
discussing reality.
Well, they're now saying seriously that he should be removed from his >>>position in the line of succession.
Again, it depends who you mean by "they". The government's position -
which is the only one that matters - is that they will consider
legislating to remove him from the line of sucession once the outcome of
the police investigation is known. As far as I am aware, nobody in any
position of authority, or with any sense, is calling for that
legislation to be rushed through prior to the conclusion of the
investigation. And the opinions of the xiterati and tabloid media are,
again, irrelevent to any rational discussion.
Hang on.
We are saddled witha Monarchy because they are appointed by God almighty. >Which means the succession should be inviolate.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 10:32:22 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2026 17:04, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 15:22:46 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:46, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:44:21 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/02/2026 22:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:56:47 +0000, The TodalIs there any suggestion or evidence that anyone did in fact benefit >>>>>> from what Andrew is alleged to have divulged in the few hours, as I >>>>>> understand it, before it was public knowledge anyway?
<the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:Indeed.
The point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he >>>>>>>>> was applying inappropriate influence on public officials,
probably on behalf of a foreign government, such as Israel.
More likely, finding ways of increasing his wealth by using
market-sensitive briefings that he should never have been shown. >>>>>>>
I suspect that Misconduct in Public Office, of the type for which >>>>>>> Peter Mandelson and the Andrew formerly known as Prince are being >>>>>>> investigated, is more prevalent than the prosecution statistics
would give cause to believe. Whether it's at the global,
multimillionaire level of high finance or a local councillor
telling his mate about commercial contracts over a beer, I'm sure a >>>>>>> lot of people in public office tend to be of the opinion that
"confidential" can be stretched to include their friends and family >>>>>>> among those entitled to know. I've seen it happen. Often, it's de >>>>>>> minimis because the recipient of the confidential information never >>>>>>> makes any gain as a result of it. But sometimes, they do benefit. >>>>>>> And get away with it. Because there's never any reason to suspect. >>>>>>
AIUI it's a lon established principle of English law that doesn't
have to be a benefit from an action for it it be a crime.
And yet, Mr Goodge describes it is often de minimis because the
recipient of it never makes any gain as a result of it.
Anyway, is it not also a long established principle of English law
that a person is innocent until proven guilty? Why have you forgotten >>>> that?
So it would seem sensible to have a procedure for determinging guilt
then.
Of course it is, and we do.
Until then, is he entitled to be treated as innocent, or not?
Is it a criminal offence to have disreputable friends?
It can be.
No, it can't.
It can be, and I will leave as your homework to identify the situations
in which it might be the case. Rather than me supplying them to have
the goalposts changed.
No, it's your point and therefore for you to establish. If you can,
which I think you can't.
Courts have often created bail conditions that require the subject not to associate with various named (and unnamed, I believe) individuals under
pain of imprisonment.
So there are circumstances in which the state can criminalise
associations.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n009kfFn8c9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
You are still completely missing, the *one essential point*.
Details of these *confidential reports* were found among
*Jeffrey Epstein's* emails.
The point that seems to be being missed is that there are 'confidential'
reports, and there are reports that have been protectively marked
'CONFIDENTIAL' (possibly with a caveat of 'TRADE' or 'INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS'). (Other markings and caveats are doubtless available).
The former of these are not protected in themselves, but the latter
certainly are
Does anyone know, rather than offering speculation, if any of the documents >> in the so-called Epstein Files relating to this matter fall under the
latter? That is, Epstein actually had copies of UK protectively-marked
documents?
quote:
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy
in 2010 and 2011,* according to material in the latest release of files
in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam
and confidential details ofinvestment opportunities.
Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over sensitive, commercial, or political information about their official visits.
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
Anything less could have arisen from guesswork, idle gossip, reading the
right financial news, dining club chatter over the port, or whatever, from >> people's private lives.
In other circumstances it might well have done.
But
Only in this case, it clearly didn't.
* which is both after Epstein's conviction in 2008 and Andrew's claiming--
in his TV interview, to have broken off relations with him in 2010
On 21/02/2026 03:29 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 23:30, billy bookcase wrote:"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:...
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was
appointed by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mea
that in some way he >>>>> was not in fact in a *public* office?
It would mean a prosecution would fail at the first hurdle.
All Govt Ministers are appointed by the Crown. And so that's
nothing special.
So are all civil servants. And the Act covers contractors as well.
However if the reports are true then he's clearly bang to rights.
Every time he took a trip abroad as a trade envoy, the officials
accompanyng him had to compile a detailed report. Probably
including meetings where he wasn't even present. So things
could be followed up.
He will have been given copies of all of these reports. Some of which >>>>> it appears he passed directly on to Epstein.
Which regardless of whether or not they contained sensitive
information
will have been strictly against the rules.
Presumably he'll be put on probation or something. Or maybe clearing >>>>> up litter.
That will depend on the seriousness of any offence for which he is
convicted.
If any.
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything.-a He has
not been charged with anything.-a There is no known evidence in the
public domain apart from some emails he sent, possibly divulging
information a bit prematurely to no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports,
compiled at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt
and Tand axpayer, to a private US Citizen; to that person's possible
advantage. And that is totally regardless of what actual use was made
of that information; i.e. at the time Andrew wasn't to know either way
Which if true,-a is not only in direct-a breach of the OSA, but is as
flagrant an example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible
to imagine.
Care to explain where and how the Official Secrets Act comes into play
in connection with what has been alleged?-a Which Section do you have
in mind?
Official Secrets Act 1989:
QUOTE:
(1) A person who is or has beenrCo
(a) a member of the security and intelligence services; or
(b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection,
is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or other article relating to security or
intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as a member of any of those services or in the course of his
work while the notification is or was in force.
(2) The reference in subsection (1) above to disclosing information
relating to security or intelligence includes a reference to making any statement which purports to be a disclosure of such information or is intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such a disclosure.
(3) A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor
is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been in his possession by
virtue of his position as such but otherwise than as mentioned in
subsection (1) above.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above a disclosure is damaging ifrCo
(a) it causes damage to the work of, or of any part of, the security and intelligence services; or
(b)it is of information or a document or other article which is such
that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to cause such damage or which falls within a class or description of information, documents or articles the unauthorised disclosure of which would be likely to have
that effect.
There is more to Section 1, including various defences.
It could be as insignificant as taking a pencil from the stationery
cupboard regardless of who superciliously bleats it's a matter of
the utmost seriousness.
No it couldn't.
You can't possibly know that.
Unlike in the case of the other allegations, in this instance he
really does appear to be stuffed,
But you don't know that he's guilty of anything, nor how serious or
trivial it may be if he is.
Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?-a Do you have
privileged access to what actually happened?
Whatever happened to sub judice?
On 22/02/2026 10:48 am, Norman Wells wrote:
[ .. ]
I don't think the great British public had much if any trust in him
anyway. The truth is he should never have been appointed in the first
place.
Now, 82% of the notionally trusting public think he should be forcibly
removed from the line of succession despite the fact that he has never
been convicted of or even charged with anything, and is therefore
entitled to be treated as innocent. Can they themselves be trusted?
The reports of the government's intention to pass legislation to remove someone (anyone) from the line of royal succession is troubling, I suggest.
If they can do it at once, they can do it to anyone and as many times as
they like, perhaps in order to obtain the succession of a monarch they
would prefer politically.
The government (and Parliament) should stay out of issues concerning the
line of succession (and in that I include the relatively recent
interference with the rules of primogeniture).
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n009kfFn8c9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
You are still completely missing, the *one essential point*.
Details of these *confidential reports* were found among
*Jeffrey Epstein's* emails.
The point that seems to be being missed is that there are 'confidential' >>> reports, and there are reports that have been protectively marked
'CONFIDENTIAL' (possibly with a caveat of 'TRADE' or 'INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS'). (Other markings and caveats are doubtless available).
The former of these are not protected in themselves, but the latter
certainly are
Does anyone know, rather than offering speculation, if any of the documents >>> in the so-called Epstein Files relating to this matter fall under the
latter? That is, Epstein actually had copies of UK protectively-marked
documents?
quote:
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential
information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy
in 2010 and 2011,* according to material in the latest release of files
in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former
prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam
and confidential details ofinvestment opportunities.
Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over
sensitive, commercial, or political information about their official visits. >>
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
So, the BBC either neatly missed out say what the official classification was, or didnrCOt know it.
So what have you got that shows paperwork bearing the classification of CONFIDENTIAL (with or without caveats)?
Anything less could have arisen from guesswork, idle gossip, reading the >>> right financial news, dining club chatter over the port, or whatever, from >>> people's private lives.
In other circumstances it might well have done.
But
Only in this case, it clearly didn't.
Sorry, that isnrCOt clear at all from what you have quoted.
* which is both after Epstein's conviction in 2008 and Andrew's claiming
in his TV interview, to have broken off relations with him in 2010
On 22 Feb 2026 at 19:10:11 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n009kfFn8c9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
You are still completely missing, the *one essential point*.
Details of these *confidential reports* were found among
*Jeffrey Epstein's* emails.
The point that seems to be being missed is that there are 'confidential' >>>> reports, and there are reports that have been protectively marked
'CONFIDENTIAL' (possibly with a caveat of 'TRADE' or 'INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS'). (Other markings and caveats are doubtless available).
The former of these are not protected in themselves, but the latter
certainly are
Does anyone know, rather than offering speculation, if any of the documents
in the so-called Epstein Files relating to this matter fall under the
latter? That is, Epstein actually had copies of UK protectively-marked >>>> documents?
quote:
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential >>> information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy
in 2010 and 2011,* according to material in the latest release of files
in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former >>> prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam
and confidential details ofinvestment opportunities.
Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over >>> sensitive, commercial, or political information about their official visits.
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
So, the BBC either neatly missed out say what the official classification
was, or didnrCOt know it.
So what have you got that shows paperwork bearing the classification of
CONFIDENTIAL (with or without caveats)?
Anything less could have arisen from guesswork, idle gossip, reading the >>>> right financial news, dining club chatter over the port, or whatever, from >>>> people's private lives.
In other circumstances it might well have done.
But
Only in this case, it clearly didn't.
Sorry, that isnrCOt clear at all from what you have quoted.
* which is both after Epstein's conviction in 2008 and Andrew's claiming >>> in his TV interview, to have broken off relations with him in 2010
If misconduct in public office (rather than an OSA offence) is being considered I am not sure whether the classification of the documents is particularly relevant.
On 22/02/2026 17:31, JNugent wrote:
On 21/02/2026 03:29 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 23:30, billy bookcase wrote:"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:...
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was
appointed by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mea
that in some way he >>>>> was not in fact in a *public* office?
It would mean a prosecution would fail at the first hurdle.
All Govt Ministers are appointed by the Crown. And so that's
nothing special.
So are all civil servants. And the Act covers contractors as well.
However if the reports are true then he's clearly bang to rights.
Every time he took a trip abroad as a trade envoy, the officials
accompanyng him had to compile a detailed report. Probably
including meetings where he wasn't even present. So things
could be followed up.
He will have been given copies of all of these reports. Some of which >>>>>> it appears he passed directly on to Epstein.
Which regardless of whether or not they contained sensitive
information
will have been strictly against the rules.
Presumably he'll be put on probation or something. Or maybe clearing >>>>>> up litter.
That will depend on the seriousness of any offence for which he is
convicted.
If any.
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything.-a He has >>>>> not been charged with anything.-a There is no known evidence in the
public domain apart from some emails he sent, possibly divulging
information a bit prematurely to no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports,
compiled at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK Govt
and Tand axpayer, to a private US Citizen; to that person's possible
advantage. And that is totally regardless of what actual use was made
of that information; i.e. at the time Andrew wasn't to know either way >>>> Which if true,-a is not only in direct-a breach of the OSA, but is as >>>> flagrant an example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its possible
to imagine.
Care to explain where and how the Official Secrets Act comes into
play in connection with what has been alleged?-a Which Section do you
have in mind?
Official Secrets Act 1989:
QUOTE:
(1) A person who is or has beenrCo
(a) a member of the security and intelligence services; or
(b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this
subsection,
is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any
information, document or other article relating to security or
intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his
position as a member of any of those services or in the course of his
work while the notification is or was in force.
(2) The reference in subsection (1) above to disclosing information
relating to security or intelligence includes a reference to making
any statement which purports to be a disclosure of such information or
is intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such
a disclosure.
(3) A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government
contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he
makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other
article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been in
his possession by virtue of his position as such but otherwise than as
mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above a disclosure is damaging ifrCo >>
(a) it causes damage to the work of, or of any part of, the security
and intelligence services; or
(b)it is of information or a document or other article which is such
that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to cause such damage
or which falls within a class or description of information, documents
or articles the unauthorised disclosure of which would be likely to
have that effect.
There is more to Section 1, including various defences.
Well, thank you for quoting what seems to be irrelevant.
The relevant words are 'relating to security or intelligence'.
And they don't seem to apply.
Whatever happened to sub judice?
There is no case to be sub anything at the moment.
Now you.-a Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?-a Or don't you think it matters?
On 22 Feb 2026 at 17:41:30 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:48 am, Norman Wells wrote:
[ .. ]
I don't think the great British public had much if any trust in him
anyway. The truth is he should never have been appointed in the first
place.
Now, 82% of the notionally trusting public think he should be forcibly
removed from the line of succession despite the fact that he has never
been convicted of or even charged with anything, and is therefore
entitled to be treated as innocent. Can they themselves be trusted?
The reports of the government's intention to pass legislation to remove
someone (anyone) from the line of royal succession is troubling, I suggest. >>
If they can do it at once, they can do it to anyone and as many times as
they like, perhaps in order to obtain the succession of a monarch they
would prefer politically.
The government (and Parliament) should stay out of issues concerning the
line of succession (and in that I include the relatively recent
interference with the rules of primogeniture).
Quite so; we would have been so much better off with a Nazi-loving king in 1939.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
If misconduct in public office (rather than an OSA offence) is being
considered I am not sure whether the classification of the documents is
particularly relevant.
The point is that there has been much bandied about in this thread about rCyconfidential documentsrCO, the information in which might well have resulted
from postprandial exchanges in some dining club or other, and which is a neither here-nor-there matter, documents the contents of which might refer
to information in protected documents, and documents that are protectively marked, e.g. rCyCONFIDENTIALrCO.
Perhaps contributors might help by mentioning which type of documents they are referring to, rather than placing their trust in airy-fairy media reporting of rCyconfidential documentsrCO.
On 22 Feb 2026 at 19:10:11 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n009kfFn8c9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
You are still completely missing, the *one essential point*.
Details of these *confidential reports* were found among
*Jeffrey Epstein's* emails.
The point that seems to be being missed is that there are 'confidential' >>>> reports, and there are reports that have been protectively marked
'CONFIDENTIAL' (possibly with a caveat of 'TRADE' or 'INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS'). (Other markings and caveats are doubtless available).
The former of these are not protected in themselves, but the latter
certainly are
Does anyone know, rather than offering speculation, if any of the documents
in the so-called Epstein Files relating to this matter fall under the
latter? That is, Epstein actually had copies of UK protectively-marked >>>> documents?
quote:
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential >>> information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy
in 2010 and 2011,* according to material in the latest release of files
in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former >>> prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam
and confidential details ofinvestment opportunities.
Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over >>> sensitive, commercial, or political information about their official visits.
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
So, the BBC either neatly missed out say what the official classification
was, or didnrCOt know it.
So what have you got that shows paperwork bearing the classification of
CONFIDENTIAL (with or without caveats)?
Anything less could have arisen from guesswork, idle gossip, reading the >>>> right financial news, dining club chatter over the port, or whatever, from >>>> people's private lives.
In other circumstances it might well have done.
But
Only in this case, it clearly didn't.
Sorry, that isnrCOt clear at all from what you have quoted.
* which is both after Epstein's conviction in 2008 and Andrew's claiming >>> in his TV interview, to have broken off relations with him in 2010
If misconduct in public office (rather than an OSA offence) is being considered I am not sure whether the classification of the documents is particularly relevant.
On 22/02/2026 07:00 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/02/2026 17:31, JNugent wrote:
On 21/02/2026 03:29 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 23:30, billy bookcase wrote:"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:...
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was
appointed by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mea
that in some way he >>>>> was not in fact in a *public* office? >>>>>>>> It would mean a prosecution would fail at the first hurdle.
All Govt Ministers are appointed by the Crown. And so that's
nothing special.
So are all civil servants. And the Act covers contractors as well.
However if the reports are true then he's clearly bang to rights.
Every time he took a trip abroad as a trade envoy, the officials >>>>>>> accompanyng him had to compile a detailed report. Probably
including meetings where he wasn't even present. So things
could be followed up.
He will have been given copies of all of these reports. Some of >>>>>>> which
it appears he passed directly on to Epstein.
Which regardless of whether or not they contained sensitive
information
will have been strictly against the rules.
Presumably he'll be put on probation or something. Or maybe clearing >>>>>>> up litter.
That will depend on the seriousness of any offence for which he is >>>>>> convicted.
If any.
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything.-a He has >>>>>> not been charged with anything.-a There is no known evidence in the >>>>>> public domain apart from some emails he sent, possibly divulging
information a bit prematurely to no established effect whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT Reports, >>>>> compiled at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, the UK
Govt and Tand axpayer, to a private US Citizen; to that person's
possible
advantage. And that is totally regardless of what actual use was made >>>>> of that information; i.e. at the time Andrew wasn't to know either way >>>>> Which if true,-a is not only in direct-a breach of the OSA, but is as >>>>> flagrant an example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its
possible to imagine.
Care to explain where and how the Official Secrets Act comes into
play in connection with what has been alleged?-a Which Section do you >>>> have in mind?
Official Secrets Act 1989:
QUOTE:
(1) A person who is or has beenrCo
(a) a member of the security and intelligence services; or
(b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this
subsection,
is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any
information, document or other article relating to security or
intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his
position as a member of any of those services or in the course of his
work while the notification is or was in force.
(2) The reference in subsection (1) above to disclosing information
relating to security or intelligence includes a reference to making
any statement which purports to be a disclosure of such information
or is intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being
such a disclosure.
(3) A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government
contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he
makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other
article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been in
his possession by virtue of his position as such but otherwise than
as mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above a disclosure is damaging
ifrCo
(a) it causes damage to the work of, or of any part of, the security
and intelligence services; or
(b)it is of information or a document or other article which is such
that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to cause such damage
or which falls within a class or description of information,
documents or articles the unauthorised disclosure of which would be
likely to have that effect.
There is more to Section 1, including various defences.
Well, thank you for quoting what seems to be irrelevant.
The relevant words are 'relating to security or intelligence'.
And of course, they are followed by the word "or"... and then by another provision.
And they don't seem to apply.
Have another look.
[snip]
Whatever happened to sub judice?
There is no case to be sub anything at the moment.
That's a fair point. But given the media frenzy, it can on ly be a
matter of a relatively short time.
Now you.-a Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?-a Or
don't you think it matters?
I am absolutely not in favour of the current feeding frenzy.
But the Official Secrets Act has meaning - and teeth.
On 22/02/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 22/02/2026 07:00 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/02/2026 17:31, JNugent wrote:
On 21/02/2026 03:29 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 23:30, billy bookcase wrote:"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:...
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was >>>>>>>>> appointed by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mea
that in some way he >>>>> was not in fact in a *public* office? >>>>>>>>> It would mean a prosecution would fail at the first hurdle.
All Govt Ministers are appointed by the Crown. And so that's
nothing special.
So are all civil servants. And the Act covers contractors as well.
However if the reports are true then he's clearly bang to rights.
Every time he took a trip abroad as a trade envoy, the officials >>>>>>>> accompanyng him had to compile a detailed report. Probably
including meetings where he wasn't even present. So things
could be followed up.
He will have been given copies of all of these reports. Some of >>>>>>>> which it appears he passed directly on to Epstein.
Which regardless of whether or not they contained sensitive
information will have been strictly against the rules.
Presumably he'll be put on probation or something. Or maybe
clearing up litter.
That will depend on the seriousness of any offence for which he >>>>>>> is convicted. If any.
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything.-a He >>>>>>> has not been charged with anything.-a There is no known evidence >>>>>>> in the public domain apart from some emails he sent, possibly
divulging information a bit prematurely to no established effect >>>>>>> whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT
Reports, compiled at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, >>>>>> the UK Govt and Tand axpayer, to a private US Citizen; to that
person's possible advantage. And that is totally regardless of what >>>>>> actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time Andrew
wasn't to know either way
Which if true,-a is not only in direct-a breach of the OSA, but is >>>>>> as flagrant an example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its
possible to imagine.
Care to explain where and how the Official Secrets Act comes into
play in connection with what has been alleged?-a Which Section do
you have in mind?
Official Secrets Act 1989:
QUOTE:
(1) A person who is or has beenrCo
(a) a member of the security and intelligence services; or
(b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this
subsection,
is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any
information, document or other article relating to security or
intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his
position as a member of any of those services or in the course of
his work while the notification is or was in force.
(2) The reference in subsection (1) above to disclosing information
relating to security or intelligence includes a reference to making
any statement which purports to be a disclosure of such information
or is intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being
such a disclosure.
(3) A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government
contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he
makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other
article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been in
his possession by virtue of his position as such but otherwise than
as mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above a disclosure is
damaging ifrCo
(a) it causes damage to the work of, or of any part of, the security
and intelligence services; or
(b) it is of information or a document or other article which is such >>>> that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to cause such
damage or which falls within a class or description of information,
documents or articles the unauthorised disclosure of which would be
likely to have that effect.
There is more to Section 1, including various defences.
Well, thank you for quoting what seems to be irrelevant.
The relevant words are 'relating to security or intelligence'.
And of course, they are followed by the word "or"... and then by
another provision.
No they aren't.-a Everything you've quoted has to be to do with security
or intelligence or it doesn't apply.
And they don't seem to apply.
Have another look.
[snip]
Whatever happened to sub judice?
There is no case to be sub anything at the moment.
That's a fair point. But given the media frenzy, it can only be a
matter of a relatively short time.
Now you.-a Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?-a Or
don't you think it matters?
I am absolutely not in favour of the current feeding frenzy.
But the Official Secrets Act has meaning - and teeth.
No-one but you has alleged it applies.
He hasn't been accused of any
offence under it, he hasn't been arrested for any offence under it, and
he hasn't been charged under it.
Now, do you think 'innocent until proven guilty' matters, or not?-a You
seem not to have answered.
On 2026-02-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
If misconduct in public office (rather than an OSA offence) is being
considered I am not sure whether the classification of the documents is
particularly relevant.
The point is that there has been much bandied about in this thread about
rCyconfidential documentsrCO, the information in which might well have resulted
from postprandial exchanges in some dining club or other, and which is a
neither here-nor-there matter, documents the contents of which might refer >> to information in protected documents, and documents that are protectively >> marked, e.g. rCyCONFIDENTIALrCO.
It's worth noting that the UK no longer has a protective marking of "CONFIDENTIAL", it having been replaced with "OFFICIAL" in April 2014.
But the Andrew/Epstein documents being reported on seem to date to
before 2014 so that classification would still have existed for at
least some of them.
Perhaps contributors might help by mentioning which type of documents they >> are referring to, rather than placing their trust in airy-fairy media
reporting of rCyconfidential documentsrCO.
I imagine they are referring to documents that are confidential.
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:
[I wrote:]
I don't suppose I'm the only person who is thoroughly fed up with theThe point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he
drip-drip of revelations concerning the rich and powerful who
happen to be mentioned in the Epstein files, [...].
was applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably
on behalf of a foreign government, such as Israel.
-a-a-a-aNo doubt.-a But is that suspicion /so/ important that it has
to dominate the news week after week, month after month?-a Is it more important than [for eg] wars in Ukraine or the Middle East?
-a Than the
cost of living/housing/energy?-a Than climate change?-a It is no doubt
worth a Panorama or a Newscast, but how much more than that can be justified?-a TAFKAP and Lord Mandelson have already been hounded out
of office and into disgrace;-a when will "we" be satisfied?-a When they
have both been tarred and feathered?-a [FTAOD, I'm not a supporter of
either of them, but I hope I have some sense of proportion.]
Obviously, democracy is vulnerable to corrupt influence. Corruption
is not unusual or exceptional, but common behaviour. We should make
a lot of effort to expose and prevent it. More effort than I think
we do currently. We currently have a problem with inequality of
wealth and power. We need to rebalance this in order to optimise
incentives for people to contribute to society.
-a-a-a-aIt's a point of view;-a but not one I feel disposed to debate
here, even if the mods allow it.-a "Uk.p.m" is that-away -->.
But what has really struck me is how much of this "news" consists ofYes, email is insecure, but in practice, for most of us, it is
e-mails.-a I have been using e-mail for the best part of fifty
years now, and one of the things we learned /very/ early on was
that e-mails are not accessible merely to recipients. [...]
probably quite secure.
-a-a-a-a"Quite secure" means "open to anyone with the means and the interest".
If you come to the attention of such an "anyone", you
are stuffed.-a The moral is "Don't send potentially embarrassing
e-mails", even if the potential is decades away.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a The post card analogy is inappropriate.
-a-a-a-aIt was perfectly appropriate in the 1980s,
when e-mails were
typically stored "in clear" in several places "en route", including
on the departmental computer.-a I maintain that it's still a decent-
enough analogy today, as TAFKAP and LordM have been discovering. ...
Intercepting an email is easy for the email host, such as Google,
ProtonMail, etc, or Government, but quite difficult for anyone in
between.
-a-a-a-a... As the difficulty has increased, so has the compute power
that can be thrown at it.-a In-betweeners include spies and criminals anywhere world-wide and at any time in the future [given that we have
no credible way of destroying all copies of relevant files, given the existence of back-ups, archives, clouds and so on].-a Compare the old
days, when all that was necessary was a bonfire of a few papers.
I think the point about the Epstein class is entitlement. They are
allowed to break the rules.
-a-a-a-aOnly until they are found out -- which is the rule for all of
us.-a Further, the more "entitled" people are, the greater the fall,
and the greater the public indignation.
I suspect there are far more important revelations in the archive,
still hidden. Prince Andrew and Mandleson are just minnows to be
sacrificed to please the mob. People with more influence in the USA
are still protected.
-a-a-a-aSacrificing minnows is only a temporary palliative.-a Once the corner is lifted, it can't be stuck back down.-a Even dictators get
caught out eventually;-a it just may take several decades.
On 23/02/2026 07:44 am, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/02/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 22/02/2026 07:00 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/02/2026 17:31, JNugent wrote:
On 21/02/2026 03:29 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2026 09:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 23:30, billy bookcase wrote:"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:...
The one I found most interesting was the fact that AFKAP was >>>>>>>>>> appointed by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Does this mea >>>>>>>>>> that in some way he >>>>> was not in fact in a *public* office? >>>>>>>>>> It would mean a prosecution would fail at the first hurdle.
All Govt Ministers are appointed by the Crown. And so that's >>>>>>>>> nothing special.
So are all civil servants. And the Act covers contractors as well.
However if the reports are true then he's clearly bang to rights.
Every time he took a trip abroad as a trade envoy, the officials >>>>>>>>> accompanyng him had to compile a detailed report. Probably
including meetings where he wasn't even present. So things
could be followed up.
He will have been given copies of all of these reports. Some of >>>>>>>>> which it appears he passed directly on to Epstein.
Which regardless of whether or not they contained sensitive >>>>>>>>> information will have been strictly against the rules.
Presumably he'll be put on probation or something. Or maybe >>>>>>>>> clearing up litter.
That will depend on the seriousness of any offence for which he >>>>>>>> is convicted. If any.
For the time being, he has not been convicted of anything.-a He >>>>>>>> has not been charged with anything.-a There is no known evidence >>>>>>>> in the public domain apart from some emails he sent, possibly
divulging information a bit prematurely to no established effect >>>>>>>> whatsoever.
He was allegedly divulging the content of confidential DoT
Reports, compiled at the expense of, and for the sole benefit of, >>>>>>> the UK Govt and Tand axpayer, to a private US Citizen; to that
person's possible advantage. And that is totally regardless of what >>>>>>> actual use was made of that information; i.e. at the time Andrew >>>>>>> wasn't to know either way
Which if true,-a is not only in direct-a breach of the OSA, but is >>>>>>> as flagrant an example of Misconduct in A Public Office as its
possible to imagine.
Care to explain where and how the Official Secrets Act comes into >>>>>> play in connection with what has been alleged?-a Which Section do >>>>>> you have in mind?
Official Secrets Act 1989:
QUOTE:
(1) A person who is or has beenrCo
(a) a member of the security and intelligence services; or
(b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this
subsection,
is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses
any information, document or other article relating to security or
intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of
his position as a member of any of those services or in the course
of his work while the notification is or was in force.
(2) The reference in subsection (1) above to disclosing information >>>>> relating to security or intelligence includes a reference to making >>>>> any statement which purports to be a disclosure of such information >>>>> or is intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as
being such a disclosure.
(3) A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government
contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he
makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other
article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been
in his possession by virtue of his position as such but otherwise
than as mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above a disclosure is
damaging ifrCo
(a) it causes damage to the work of, or of any part of, the
security and intelligence services; or
(b) it is of information or a document or other article which is
such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to cause such >>>>> damage or which falls within a class or description of information, >>>>> documents or articles the unauthorised disclosure of which would be >>>>> likely to have that effect.
There is more to Section 1, including various defences.
Well, thank you for quoting what seems to be irrelevant.
The relevant words are 'relating to security or intelligence'.
And of course, they are followed by the word "or"... and then by
another provision.
No they aren't.-a Everything you've quoted has to be to do with
security or intelligence or it doesn't apply.
Define "security" and "intelligence".
And they don't seem to apply.
Have another look.
[snip]
Whatever happened to sub judice?
There is no case to be sub anything at the moment.
That's a fair point. But given the media frenzy, it can only be a
matter of a relatively short time.
Now you.-a Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?-a Or
don't you think it matters?
I am absolutely not in favour of the current feeding frenzy.
But the Official Secrets Act has meaning - and teeth.
No-one but you has alleged it applies.
Others have *certainly* cited it"!
He hasn't been accused of any offence under it, he hasn't been
arrested for any offence under it, and he hasn't been charged under it.
Now, do you think 'innocent until proven guilty' matters, or not?-a You
seem not to have answered.
I have agreed with the motto "innocent until proven guilty", which
carries the implication that once an investigation starts, it's only a matter of time and form before there is a guilty verdict.
It SHOULD be "innocent *unless* proven guilty".
I hope that that is clear enough.
On 23/02/2026 00:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
If misconduct in public office (rather than an OSA offence) is being
considered I am not sure whether the classification of the documents is >>>> particularly relevant.
The point is that there has been much bandied about in this thread about >>> rCyconfidential documentsrCO, the information in which might well have resulted
from postprandial exchanges in some dining club or other, and which is a >>> neither here-nor-there matter, documents the contents of which might refer >>> to information in protected documents, and documents that are protectively >>> marked, e.g. rCyCONFIDENTIALrCO.
It's worth noting that the UK no longer has a protective marking of
"CONFIDENTIAL", it having been replaced with "OFFICIAL" in April 2014.
But the Andrew/Epstein documents being reported on seem to date to
before 2014 so that classification would still have existed for at
least some of them.
Perhaps contributors might help by mentioning which type of documents they >>> are referring to, rather than placing their trust in airy-fairy media
reporting of rCyconfidential documentsrCO.
I imagine they are referring to documents that are confidential.
Latest news: Andrew claimed the cost of "massages" and a civil servant thought it was extravagant and shouldn't be allowed, but was overruled
by a more senior civil servant.
There is no reason to believe that the massages were anything other than normal, respectable massages. But it looks as if Andrew wanted to claim
for the luxuries in life that probably should not have been paid for by
the public purse.
What does this tell us? That Andrew was extravagant and unreasonable? Or that our sycophantic civil servants didn't want to fall out with a royal prince and preferred to capitulate to his every whim. Maybe there
should be a proper audit of expenses claims from all those who are or
were in a similar position to Andrew. How often do other members of the royal family claim expenses? Who oversees their claims?
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n009kfFn8c9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
You are still completely missing, the *one essential point*.
Details of these *confidential reports* were found among
*Jeffrey Epstein's* emails.
The point that seems to be being missed is that there are 'confidential' >>> reports, and there are reports that have been protectively marked
'CONFIDENTIAL' (possibly with a caveat of 'TRADE' or 'INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS'). (Other markings and caveats are doubtless available).
The former of these are not protected in themselves, but the latter
certainly are
Does anyone know, rather than offering speculation, if any of the documents >>> in the so-called Epstein Files relating to this matter fall under the
latter? That is, Epstein actually had copies of UK protectively-marked
documents?
quote:
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential
information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy
in 2010 and 2011,* according to material in the latest release of files
in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former
prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam
and confidential details ofinvestment opportunities.
Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over
sensitive, commercial, or political information about their official visits. >>
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
So, the BBC either neatly missed out say what the official classification was, or didn't know it.
So what have you got that shows paperwork bearing the classification of CONFIDENTIAL (with or without caveats)?
Latest news: Andrew claimed the cost of "massages" and a civil servant thought
it was extravagant and shouldn't be allowed, but was overruled by a more senior civil servant.
When I worked in banks they took insider trading, market manipulation,
money laundering very seriously. I know someone who was prosecuted, I
visited their home. It wasn't just a case of you've lost your job, so
that's OK. There are quite rightly strict laws to discourage corruption.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n012kjFrbhbU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n009kfFn8c9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
You are still completely missing, the *one essential point*.
Details of these *confidential reports* were found among
*Jeffrey Epstein's* emails.
The point that seems to be being missed is that there are 'confidential' >>>> reports, and there are reports that have been protectively marked
'CONFIDENTIAL' (possibly with a caveat of 'TRADE' or 'INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS'). (Other markings and caveats are doubtless available).
The former of these are not protected in themselves, but the latter
certainly are
Does anyone know, rather than offering speculation, if any of the documents
in the so-called Epstein Files relating to this matter fall under the
latter? That is, Epstein actually had copies of UK protectively-marked >>>> documents?
quote:
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential >>> information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy
in 2010 and 2011,* according to material in the latest release of files
in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former >>> prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam
and confidential details ofinvestment opportunities.
Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over >>> sensitive, commercial, or political information about their official visits.
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
So, the BBC either neatly missed out say what the official classification
was, or didn't know it.
So what have you got that shows paperwork bearing the classification of
CONFIDENTIAL (with or without caveats)?
Given the clear duty of confdentiality owed by trade envoys, as specified
in the official guidance referred to above, clearly all such designations
are totally irrelevant
Whether these are in capital letters, in red ink, and with or without caveats,
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n012kjFrbhbU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n009kfFn8c9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote
On 21/02/2026 16:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
You are still completely missing, the *one essential point*.
Details of these *confidential reports* were found among
*Jeffrey Epstein's* emails.
The point that seems to be being missed is that there are 'confidential' >>>>> reports, and there are reports that have been protectively marked
'CONFIDENTIAL' (possibly with a caveat of 'TRADE' or 'INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS'). (Other markings and caveats are doubtless available).
The former of these are not protected in themselves, but the latter
certainly are
Does anyone know, rather than offering speculation, if any of the
documents
in the so-called Epstein Files relating to this matter fall under the >>>>> latter? That is, Epstein actually had copies of UK protectively-marked >>>>> documents?
quote:
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential >>>> information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy >>>> in 2010 and 2011,* according to material in the latest release of files >>>> in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former >>>> prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam >>>> and confidential details ofinvestment opportunities.
Under official guidance, trade envoys have a duty of confidentiality over >>>> sensitive, commercial, or political information about their official
visits.
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
So, the BBC either neatly missed out say what the official classification >>> was, or didn't know it.
So what have you got that shows paperwork bearing the classification of
CONFIDENTIAL (with or without caveats)?
Given the clear duty of confdentiality owed by trade envoys, as specified
in the official guidance referred to above, clearly all such designations
are totally irrelevant
Whether these are in capital letters, in red ink, and with or without
caveats,
I fully commend to you the radio interview of Wendy Joseph KC, already mentioned several times in this thread, before it times out from BBC
Sounds. It really does set out in clear terms what is needed for a
successful prosecution of MiPO. And, perhaps as important, what events etc wouldn't support it.
You seem to fail to grasp that there are levels of confidentiality, and
only some are relevant to a charge.
On 23/02/2026 00:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-02-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
If misconduct in public office (rather than an OSA offence) is being
considered I am not sure whether the classification of the documents is >>>> particularly relevant.
The point is that there has been much bandied about in this thread about >>> rCyconfidential documentsrCO, the information in which might well have
resulted
from postprandial exchanges in some dining club or other, and which is a >>> neither here-nor-there matter, documents the contents of which might
refer
to information in protected documents, and documents that are
protectively
marked, e.g. rCyCONFIDENTIALrCO.
It's worth noting that the UK no longer has a protective marking of
"CONFIDENTIAL", it having been replaced with "OFFICIAL" in April 2014.
But the Andrew/Epstein documents being reported on seem to date to
before 2014 so that classification would still have existed for at
least some of them.
Perhaps contributors might help by mentioning which type of documents
they
are referring to, rather than placing their trust in airy-fairy media
reporting of rCyconfidential documentsrCO.
I imagine they are referring to documents that are confidential.
Latest news: Andrew claimed the cost of "massages" and a civil servant thought it was extravagant and shouldn't be allowed, but was overruled
by a more senior civil servant.
There is no reason to believe that the massages were anything other than normal, respectable massages. But it looks as if Andrew wanted to claim
for the luxuries in life that probably should not have been paid for by
the public purse.
What does this tell us? That Andrew was extravagant and unreasonable? Or that our sycophantic civil servants didn't want to fall out with a royal prince and preferred to capitulate to his every whim.-a Maybe there
should be a proper audit of expenses claims from all those who are or
were in a similar position to Andrew. How often do other members of the royal family claim expenses? Who oversees their claims?
Latest news: Andrew claimed the cost of "massages" and a civil servant thought it was extravagant and shouldn't be allowed, but was overruled
by a more senior civil servant.
There is no reason to believe that the massages were anything other than normal, respectable massages. But it looks as if Andrew wanted to claim
for the luxuries in life that probably should not have been paid for by
the public purse.
What does this tell us? That Andrew was extravagant and unreasonable? Or that our sycophantic civil servants didn't want to fall out with a royal prince and preferred to capitulate to his every whim.-a Maybe there
should be a proper audit of expenses claims from all those who are or
were in a similar position to Andrew. How often do other members of the royal family claim expenses? Who oversees their claims?
On 21/02/2026 15:58, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:38:12 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 20/02/2026 22:17, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 07:56:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 19/02/2026 20:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
Misconduct in Public Office is a serious offence. More serious, in fact, >>>>>> than shagging an underage teenager.
Not necessarily.
I don't think taking a pencil from the stationery cabinet is
automatically more serious than sex with a 13-year old.
Taking a pencil from the stationery cabinet would not amount to misconduct >>>> in public office.
It would, however, be a definite criminal offence rather than just
rumour and innuendo.
Yes, but it's a completely different offence to the one that Andrew is being >> investigated for. And the offence he is being investigated for has nothing >> to do with innuendo.
It's a bit premature to conclude anything when you don't know the facts
and haven't heard any argument, though, don't you think?
On 21/02/2026 16:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
The problem is that suspicion can be, and in many cases is, unfounded.
Particularly in the realms of politics, government and diplomacy, where many >> people mistake their own lack of understanding for evidence of wrongdoing or >> where people allow their political partisanship to influence their
assessment of others.
Seems that is exactly what is going on with Andrew, where sheer
prejudice rather than anything substantial has led many to assume his
guilt and justify his loss of privileges and effective internal exile.
The fact remains, however, that he has not even been charged with
anything let alone convicted. It's a witch-hunt, and those who are >indulging in it should really take a bit of time to consider how nasty
that in fact is.
On 23 Feb 2026 at 10:58:38 GMT, Pancho wrote:
When I worked in banks they took insider trading, market manipulation,
money laundering very seriously. I know someone who was prosecuted, I
visited their home. It wasn't just a case of you've lost your job, so
that's OK. There are quite rightly strict laws to discourage corruption.
Am I right in thinking only a handful of people - essentially scapegoats - faced any criminal charges for the 2008 financial crisis? And that the law probably (to cover crypto or whatever other loopholes exist) hasn't changed to
a significant extent since?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 21:44:29 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 16:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
The problem is that suspicion can be, and in many cases is, unfounded.
Particularly in the realms of politics, government and diplomacy, where many
people mistake their own lack of understanding for evidence of wrongdoing or
where people allow their political partisanship to influence their
assessment of others.
Seems that is exactly what is going on with Andrew, where sheer
prejudice rather than anything substantial has led many to assume his
guilt and justify his loss of privileges and effective internal exile.
Except that the police consider it important enough to investigate. It clearly isn't just uninformed people getting suspicious about nothing.
The fact remains, however, that he has not even been charged with
anything let alone convicted. It's a witch-hunt, and those who are
indulging in it should really take a bit of time to consider how nasty
that in fact is.
Do you really not have any idea of how long this kind of investigation typically takes?
On 23/02/2026 07:44 am, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/02/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 22/02/2026 07:00 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/02/2026 17:31, JNugent wrote:
There is more to Section 1, including various defences.
Well, thank you for quoting what seems to be irrelevant.
The relevant words are 'relating to security or intelligence'.
And of course, they are followed by the word "or"... and then by
another provision.
No they aren't.-a Everything you've quoted has to be to do with
security or intelligence or it doesn't apply.
Define "security" and "intelligence".
And they don't seem to apply.
Have another look.
[snip]
Whatever happened to sub judice?
There is no case to be sub anything at the moment.
That's a fair point. But given the media frenzy, it can only be a
matter of a relatively short time.
Now you.-a Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?-a Or
don't you think it matters?
I am absolutely not in favour of the current feeding frenzy.
But the Official Secrets Act has meaning - and teeth.
No-one but you has alleged it applies.
Others have *certainly* cited it"!
He hasn't been accused of any offence under it, he hasn't been
arrested for any offence under it, and he hasn't been charged under it.
Now, do you think 'innocent until proven guilty' matters, or not?-a You
seem not to have answered.
I have [never] agreed with the motto "innocent until proven guilty", which carries the implication that once an investigation starts, it's only a matter of time and form before there is a guilty verdict.
It SHOULD be "innocent *unless* proven guilty".
I hope that that is clear enough.
On 2026-02-23, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Given the clear duty of confdentiality owed by trade envoys, as specified >>> in the official guidance referred to above, clearly all such designations >>> are totally irrelevant
Whether these are in capital letters, in red ink, and with or without
caveats,
I fully commend to you the radio interview of Wendy Joseph KC, already
mentioned several times in this thread, before it times out from BBC
Sounds. It really does set out in clear terms what is needed for a
successful prosecution of MiPO. And, perhaps as important, what events etc >> wouldn't support it.
You seem to fail to grasp that there are levels of confidentiality, and
only some are relevant to a charge.
Just for you, I went and listened to that interview, and she says
nothing whatsoever about "levels of confidentiality". I don't think
she even says the word "confidential".
You're certainly wrong that official security classifications have
anything to do with Misconduct in Public Office.
On 23 Feb 2026 at 10:58:38 GMT, Pancho wrote:
When I worked in banks they took insider trading, market manipulation,
money laundering very seriously. I know someone who was prosecuted, I
visited their home. It wasn't just a case of you've lost your job, so
that's OK. There are quite rightly strict laws to discourage corruption.
Am I right in thinking only a handful of people - essentially scapegoats - faced any criminal charges for the 2008 financial crisis? And that the law probably (to cover crypto or whatever other loopholes exist) hasn't changed to
a significant extent since?
Not really that strict or too discouraging then.
On 2026-02-23, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Given the clear duty of confdentiality owed by trade envoys, as specified >>> in the official guidance referred to above, clearly all such designations >>> are totally irrelevant
Whether these are in capital letters, in red ink, and with or without
caveats,
I fully commend to you the radio interview of Wendy Joseph KC, already
mentioned several times in this thread, before it times out from BBC
Sounds. It really does set out in clear terms what is needed for a
successful prosecution of MiPO. And, perhaps as important, what events etc >> wouldnrCOt support it.
You seem to fail to grasp that there are levels of confidentiality, and
only some are relevant to a charge.
Just for you, I went and listened to that interview, and she says
nothing whatsoever about "levels of confidentiality". I don't think
she even says the word "confidential".
You're certainly wrong that official security classifications have--
anything to do with Misconduct in Public Office.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-02-23, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Given the clear duty of confdentiality owed by trade envoys, as specified >>>> in the official guidance referred to above, clearly all such designations >>>> are totally irrelevant
Whether these are in capital letters, in red ink, and with or without
caveats,
I fully commend to you the radio interview of Wendy Joseph KC, already
mentioned several times in this thread, before it times out from BBC
Sounds. It really does set out in clear terms what is needed for a
successful prosecution of MiPO. And, perhaps as important, what events etc >>> wouldnrCOt support it.
You seem to fail to grasp that there are levels of confidentiality, and
only some are relevant to a charge.
Just for you, I went and listened to that interview, and she says
nothing whatsoever about "levels of confidentiality". I don't think
she even says the word "confidential".
What I said on the matter of the good lady was that the BBC article rCLrCareally does set out in clear terms what is needed for a successful prosecution of MiPO. And, perhaps as important, what events etc wouldnrCOt support itrCY.
Separately, rCythe mediarCO is, and members of this group are, banging on about
rCyconfidential papersrCO, about which I seem to have difficulty putting across
that thererCOs more than one type of rCyconfidentialrCO, whether appropriate to a
charge of MiPO or otherwise.
On 2/21/26 16:56, Andy Walker wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:41, Pancho wrote:
[I wrote:]
I don't suppose I'm the only person who is thoroughly fed up withThe point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he
the drip-drip of revelations concerning the rich and powerful who
happen to be mentioned in the Epstein files, [...].
was applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably
on behalf of a foreign government, such as Israel.
-a-a-a-a-aNo doubt.-a But is that suspicion /so/ important that it has
to dominate the news week after week, month after month?-a Is it more
important than [for eg] wars in Ukraine or the Middle East?
Yes, because our (UK,EU,USA) involvement in those wars does not appear
to be justifiable in terms of national benefit. Cost of living has been impacted by high fuel costs due to sanctions on Russia. The current US threatening of Iran is fraught with danger. There seems to be no
reasonable explanation for US aggression against Iran apart from inappropriate influence upon politicians.
The Epstein files give us a rare glimpse into things that are hidden.
Andrew is largely a distraction, but Mandelson was at the heart of the
UK government. Expecting a million pound a year job from JP Morgan shows
how influence may be applied.
I think a lot of bad government is caused by inappropriate lobbying, we
need to action to discourage it.
-a Than the
cost of living/housing/energy?-a Than climate change?-a It is no doubt
worth a Panorama or a Newscast, but how much more than that can be
justified?-a TAFKAP and Lord Mandelson have already been hounded out
of office and into disgrace;-a when will "we" be satisfied?-a When they
have both been tarred and feathered?-a [FTAOD, I'm not a supporter of
either of them, but I hope I have some sense of proportion.]
When I worked in banks they took insider trading, market manipulation,
money laundering very seriously. I know someone who was prosecuted, I visited their home. It wasn't just a case of you've lost your job, so
that's OK. There are quite rightly strict laws to discourage corruption.
Obviously, democracy is vulnerable to corrupt influence. Corruption
is not unusual or exceptional, but common behaviour. We should make
a lot of effort to expose and prevent it. More effort than I think
we do currently. We currently have a problem with inequality of
wealth and power. We need to rebalance this in order to optimise
incentives for people to contribute to society.
-a-a-a-a-aIt's a point of view;-a but not one I feel disposed to debate
here, even if the mods allow it.-a "Uk.p.m" is that-away -->.
But that is the core of why people are interested in Epstein. The legal system needs to control politicians, limit corruption. The lack of legal control of Trump is a cautionary tale for the UK. This isn't political conspiracy theory. The world rules based order is in tatters, Mark
Carney admits it was always a fiction. This is legal related and ukpm
has too few subscribers.
But what has really struck me is how much of this "news" consists ofYes, email is insecure, but in practice, for most of us, it is
e-mails.-a I have been using e-mail for the best part of fifty
years now, and one of the things we learned /very/ early on was
that e-mails are not accessible merely to recipients. [...]
probably quite secure.
-a-a-a-a-a"Quite secure" means "open to anyone with the means and the
interest".
Not like a postcard. With SSL email is like a letter in an envelope.
If you come to the attention of such an "anyone", you
are stuffed.-a The moral is "Don't send potentially embarrassing
e-mails", even if the potential is decades away.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a The post card analogy is inappropriate.
-a-a-a-a-aIt was perfectly appropriate in the 1980s,
Things have moved on. I'm not sure that I even had email in the 80s,
Lotus Notes, maybe.
when e-mails were
typically stored "in clear" in several places "en route", including
on the departmental computer.-a I maintain that it's still a decent-
enough analogy today, as TAFKAP and LordM have been discovering. ...
Intercepting an email is easy for the email host, such as Google,
ProtonMail, etc, or Government, but quite difficult for anyone in
between.
-a-a-a-a-a... As the difficulty has increased, so has the compute power
that can be thrown at it.-a In-betweeners include spies and criminals
anywhere world-wide and at any time in the future [given that we have
no credible way of destroying all copies of relevant files, given the
existence of back-ups, archives, clouds and so on].-a Compare the old
days, when all that was necessary was a bonfire of a few papers.
I think the point about the Epstein class is entitlement. They are
allowed to break the rules.
-a-a-a-a-aOnly until they are found out -- which is the rule for all of
us.-a Further, the more "entitled" people are, the greater the fall,
and the greater the public indignation.
But it is not the rule for all of us. At work, in a bank, I was forced
to listen to endless compliance videos, with subsequent exams to prove I
had understood. I was not allowed to accept gifts. That isn't because I
was important. These are the rules that little people do have to follow.
I suspect there are far more important revelations in the archive,
still hidden. Prince Andrew and Mandleson are just minnows to be
sacrificed to please the mob. People with more influence in the USA
are still protected.
-a-a-a-a-aSacrificing minnows is only a temporary palliative.-a Once the
corner is lifted, it can't be stuck back down.-a Even dictators get
caught out eventually;-a it just may take several decades.
I dunno. Obviously, the real person of interest is Trump. Andrew is just
a brilliant diversion. Several decades and Trump will care as much about being found out as Jimmy Savile did. But the real issue is not about
finding people out, it is about limiting and preventing future
inappropriate influence on politicians.
The moment Epstein is over, politicians will deny inappropriate
influence exists, or say it may have happened 10 years ago, but things
are better now.
On 23/02/2026 10:41, JNugent wrote:
On 23/02/2026 07:44 am, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/02/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 22/02/2026 07:00 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/02/2026 17:31, JNugent wrote:
Re the Official Secrets Act:
There is more to Section 1, including various defences.
Well, thank you for quoting what seems to be irrelevant.
The relevant words are 'relating to security or intelligence'.
And of course, they are followed by the word "or"... and then by
another provision.
No they aren't.-a Everything you've quoted has to be to do with
security or intelligence or it doesn't apply.
Define "security" and "intelligence".
What on earth is wrong with the definition in Section 1(9), which exists
to do precisely that and does nothing else?
Whatever happened to sub judice?
There is no case to be sub anything at the moment.
That's a fair point. But given the media frenzy, it can only be a
matter of a relatively short time.
Now you.-a Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?-a Or >>>>> don't you think it matters?
I am absolutely not in favour of the current feeding frenzy.
But the Official Secrets Act has meaning - and teeth.
No-one but you has alleged it applies.
Others have *certainly* cited it"!
I haven't seen any.-a You haven't identified any.-a What are we to draw
from that?
He hasn't been accused of any offence under it, he hasn't beenarrested for any offence under it, and he hasn't been charged under it.
Now, do you think 'innocent until proven guilty' matters, or not?
You seem not to have answered.
I have [never] agreed with the motto "innocent until proven guilty",
which carries the implication that once an investigation starts, it's
only a matter of time and form before there is a guilty verdict.
No it doesn't.-a It's a matter of English.
It SHOULD be "innocent *unless* proven guilty".
But it isn't.
I hope that that is clear enough.
What is abundantly clear is that you don't agree with the very basic and fundamental principle 'innocent until proven guilty'.
On 23/02/2026 10:58, Pancho wrote:
The moment Epstein is over, politicians will deny inappropriate
influence exists, or say it may have happened 10 years ago, but things
are better now.
"Lessons have been learned"
i.e. we don't put this stuff in emails now.
On 23/02/2026 03:02 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:41, JNugent wrote:
On 23/02/2026 07:44 am, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/02/2026 23:12, JNugent wrote:
On 22/02/2026 07:00 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/02/2026 17:31, JNugent wrote:
Re the Official Secrets Act:
There is more to Section 1, including various defences.
Well, thank you for quoting what seems to be irrelevant.
The relevant words are 'relating to security or intelligence'.
And of course, they are followed by the word "or"... and then by
another provision.
No they aren't.-a Everything you've quoted has to be to do with
security or intelligence or it doesn't apply.
Define "security" and "intelligence".
What on earth is wrong with the definition in Section 1(9), which
exists to do precisely that and does nothing else?
Yes, you are right.
The more appropriate part of the Act is Section 3.
QUOTE:
3 International relations.
(1) A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor
*is guilty* of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a
damaging disclosure of rCo
(a) *any* information, document or other article relating to
international relations; or
(b) any confidential information, document or other article which was obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or an international organisation,
being information or a document or article which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as a Crown servant or government contractor.Which it doesn't ...
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a disclosure is damaging if:
(a) it endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad;
or
(b) it is of information or of a document or article which is such that
its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects.
(3) In the case of information or a document or article within
subsection (1)(b) aboverCo
(a) the fact that it is confidential, or
(b) its nature or contents
may be sufficient to establish for the purposes of subsection (2)(b)
above that the information, document or article is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of the effects there mentioned.
ENDQUOTE
That one fits.
On 21/02/2026 15:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:16:12 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 20/02/2026 21:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:23:14 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 20/02/2026 10:54 am, Pancho wrote:
On 2/19/26 20:03, JNugent wrote:
Hence the later civil cases?Not really the same at all. Cliff was never arrested - because there >>>>>>> were no grounds for reasonable suspicion that he had committed an >>>>>>> offence. If there had been such grounds, it is beyond dispute that he >>>>>>> *would* have been arrested. But there weren't. So he wasn't.
As Norman has pointed out, they shouldn't have searched his home without >>>>>> suspicion. They certainly shouldn't have invited the BBC.
Perhaps they've learned a lesson or two since that.
It's generally recognised now, even by the police, that the Cliff episode >>>> was a serious mistake. But you also have to bear in mind that this was at >>>> the height of Operation Midland, when the police were so desperate to make >>>> up for their failure to investigate Jimmy Savile while he was still alive >>>> that they'd let the pendulum swing to the other extreme and gave credence to
practically any allegation against someone famous, no matter how
implausible. Cliff wan't a victim of the serial liar Carl Beech, but the >>>> allegations against him fell into the same category.
However, the fallout of Operation Midland, combined with a long hard look at
the failures of the Savile era, have led to a lot of soul searching in the >>>> police, and as a consequence there are now a much more robust set of
guidelines for dealing with high profile cases involving people in the >>>> public eye.
It still seems a very similar sort of witch-hunt against Andrew.
Andrew is being investigated for potentially serious fiscal misdemeanours. >> Not sexual indiscretions.
Anything will do now that the primary accusations have been found to
have no basis then. What next? Being rude to someone?
So it's completely different to the Cliff scenario
and the Operation Midland cases.
He still had the police trample all over his house on a fishing mission
for something, anything, they can sling. What's the difference?
Anyone who thinks otherwise is
insufficiently informed to have a useful opinion on the Andrew case.
And you are? How exactly?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 15:50:20 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:11:36 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 21:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:30:23 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 12:57:11 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>> wrote:
You clearly don't accept that being friends with a convicted felon >>>>>>> is itself criminal then?
Or having sex with ladies over the age of consent?
Or being in 'photographs'?
Or telling fibs to the BBC?
Or being a privileged, entitled oaf?
He hasn't been arrested for any of that.
Some would say he has been, in truth, regardless of the official
line.
Anybody who would say that is an idiot. I'm only interested in
discussing reality.
Well, they're now saying seriously that he should be removed from his >>>position in the line of succession.
Again, it depends who you mean by "they". The government's position -
which is the only one that matters - is that they will consider
legislating to remove him from the line of sucession once the outcome of
the police investigation is known. As far as I am aware, nobody in any
position of authority, or with any sense, is calling for that
legislation to be rushed through prior to the conclusion of the
investigation. And the opinions of the xiterati and tabloid media are,
again, irrelevent to any rational discussion.
Hang on.
We are saddled witha Monarchy because they are appointed by God almighty. >Which means the succession should be inviolate.
If it turns out (or we are reminded) that in reality the Monarch is
simply another political appointment, then the arguments against >republicanism do rather fall away.
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your countryOf course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's established to have done.
as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier?
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:58, Pancho wrote:
[rCa]
The moment Epstein is over, politicians will deny inappropriate
influence exists, or say it may have happened 10 years ago, but things
are better now.
"Lessons have been learned"
i.e. we don't put this stuff in emails now.
One is led to wonder just how much e-mail wiping (rather than mere
deleting) and document shredding has been going on throughout the world of the elites since the emergence of the rCyEpstein FilesrCy, and to what extent the words used in such communications are now carefully considered before being actioned.
The burner-phone market has doubtless boomed as well.
It bogles my mind that a modern society aspiring to meritocracy still
lets its head of country be selected by birth. Whatever offences he
may or may not have committed, it's clear that he is an insufferable
prick who would have been king except for the good luck of his brother
not suffering a fatal accident or terminal illness when younger.
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your countryOf course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's established to have done.
as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier?
My dispute is with those who assume the answer based on their own
personal prejudices when there is no evidence at all (in the case of the sexual allegations) or no established proof (in the case of the
misconduct allegations). I abhor witch-hunts. I believe in the
principle of innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that anyone, whoever he is and regardless of whether he's a witch, is entitled to put
his side of the story and receive a fair hearing. I also believe that
no punishment should be meted out without fair trial.
The Andrew affair has shown the worst side of human nature. No-one
seems concerned that he has been turfed out of his home, had his titles forcibly removed, has had so much mud thrown at him that I'm surprised
any of Norfolk is left, and has had the main (sexual) charges against
him dropped with not even a hint of an apology. 82% of the public
apparently think he should be removed from the line of succession. What
for exactly?
If it were anyone else, they would have a really good case for
defamation and/or unfair dismissal, and very valid complaints under
Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fair Trial
and No Punishment Without Law).
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
The Andrew affair has shown the worst side of human nature. No-one
seems concerned that he has been turfed out of his home, had his titles
forcibly removed, has had so much mud thrown at him that I'm surprised
any of Norfolk is left, and has had the main (sexual) charges against
him dropped with not even a hint of an apology. 82% of the public
apparently think he should be removed from the line of succession. What
for exactly?
If it were anyone else, they would have a really good case for
defamation and/or unfair dismissal, and very valid complaints under
Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fair Trial
and No Punishment Without Law).
Although using prostitutes is not illegal it probably should be.
It may well
rank as misconduct for many employment purposes and be grounds for disciplinary action.
And is certainly abhorrent as far as many of us are
concerned. This is not unconnected with the fact that most prostitutes are trafficked or coerced, often from a young age.
And the fact that in this case
it is not Pakistani men exploiting them does not make it in any sense better.
On 2/21/26 16:56, Andy Walker wrote:[...]
Yes, because our (UK,EU,USA) involvement in those wars does notThe point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion thatNo doubt. But is that suspicion /so/ important that it has to
he was applying inappropriate influence on public officials,
probably on behalf of a foreign government, such as Israel.
dominate the news week after week, month after month? Is it more
important than [for eg] wars in Ukraine or the Middle East?
appear to be justifiable in terms of national benefit. [,,,]
The Epstein files give us a rare glimpse into things that are
hidden. Andrew is largely a distraction, but Mandelson was at the
heart of the UK government. Expecting a million pound a year job
from JP Morgan shows how influence may be applied.
I think a lot of bad government is caused by inappropriate lobbying,
we need to action to discourage it.
Not like a postcard. With SSL email is like a letter in an envelope.Yes, email is insecure, but in practice, for most of us, it is"Quite secure" means "open to anyone with the means and the
probably quite secure.
interest".
Although using prostitutes is not illegal it probably should be. It may
well rank as misconduct for many employment purposes and be grounds for disciplinary action.
And is certainly abhorrent as far as many of us are
concerned.
This is not unconnected with the fact that most prostitutes
are trafficked or coerced, often from a young age.
On 23/02/2026 10:58, Pancho wrote:
On 2/21/26 16:56, Andy Walker wrote:[...]
Yes, because our (UK,EU,USA) involvement in those wars does not appearThe point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion that he wasNo doubt. But is that suspicion /so/ important that it has to
applying inappropriate influence on public officials, probably on
behalf of a foreign government, such as Israel.
dominate the news week after week, month after month? Is it more
important than [for eg] wars in Ukraine or the Middle East?
to be justifiable in terms of national benefit. [,,,]
You say "yes", but you seem to be arguing for "no". Surely
events that involve deaths and injuries for hundreds of thousands of
people and many billions of pounds of expense are more important than "revelations" about the possibly-criminal behaviour of a small number of prominenti? That's not to say that the behaviour should not be headline
news for a few days; but headline news for week after week after
tedious week? "Police have spent yet another day searching [wherever]".
Gosh, how interesting. Not.
On 24 Feb 2026 at 19:02:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your countryOf course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's
as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier?
established to have done.
My dispute is with those who assume the answer based on their own
personal prejudices when there is no evidence at all (in the case of the
sexual allegations) or no established proof (in the case of the
misconduct allegations). I abhor witch-hunts. I believe in the
principle of innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that anyone,
whoever he is and regardless of whether he's a witch, is entitled to put
his side of the story and receive a fair hearing. I also believe that
no punishment should be meted out without fair trial.
The Andrew affair has shown the worst side of human nature. No-one
seems concerned that he has been turfed out of his home, had his titles
forcibly removed, has had so much mud thrown at him that I'm surprised
any of Norfolk is left, and has had the main (sexual) charges against
him dropped with not even a hint of an apology. 82% of the public
apparently think he should be removed from the line of succession. What
for exactly?
If it were anyone else, they would have a really good case for
defamation and/or unfair dismissal, and very valid complaints under
Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fair Trial
and No Punishment Without Law).
Although using prostitutes is not illegal it probably should be. It may well rank as misconduct for many employment purposes and be grounds for disciplinary action. And is certainly abhorrent as far as many of us are concerned. This is not unconnected with the fact that most prostitutes are trafficked or coerced, often from a young age. And the fact that in this case it is not Pakistani men exploiting them does not make it in any sense better.
On 24 Feb 2026 at 19:02:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your countryOf course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's
as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier?
established to have done.
My dispute is with those who assume the answer based on their own
personal prejudices when there is no evidence at all (in the case of the
sexual allegations) or no established proof (in the case of the
misconduct allegations). I abhor witch-hunts. I believe in the
principle of innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that anyone,
whoever he is and regardless of whether he's a witch, is entitled to put
his side of the story and receive a fair hearing. I also believe that
no punishment should be meted out without fair trial.
The Andrew affair has shown the worst side of human nature. No-one
seems concerned that he has been turfed out of his home, had his titles
forcibly removed, has had so much mud thrown at him that I'm surprised
any of Norfolk is left, and has had the main (sexual) charges against
him dropped with not even a hint of an apology. 82% of the public
apparently think he should be removed from the line of succession. What
for exactly?
If it were anyone else, they would have a really good case for
defamation and/or unfair dismissal, and very valid complaints under
Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fair Trial
and No Punishment Without Law).
Although using prostitutes is not illegal it probably should be.
It may well
rank as misconduct for many employment purposes and be grounds for disciplinary action.
And is certainly abhorrent as far as many of us are
concerned.
This is not unconnected with the fact that most prostitutes are
trafficked or coerced, often from a young age. And the fact that in this case it is not Pakistani men exploiting them does not make it in any sense better.
On 24/02/2026 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2026 at 19:02:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your countryOf course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's
as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier?
established to have done.
My dispute is with those who assume the answer based on their own
personal prejudices when there is no evidence at all (in the case of the >>> sexual allegations) or no established proof (in the case of the
misconduct allegations).-a I abhor witch-hunts.-a I believe in the
principle of innocent until proven guilty.-a I also believe that anyone, >>> whoever he is and regardless of whether he's a witch, is entitled to put >>> his side of the story and receive a fair hearing.-a I also believe that
no punishment should be meted out without fair trial.
The Andrew affair has shown the worst side of human nature.-a No-one
seems concerned that he has been turfed out of his home, had his titles
forcibly removed, has had so much mud thrown at him that I'm surprised
any of Norfolk is left, and has had the main (sexual) charges against
him dropped with not even a hint of an apology.-a 82% of the public
apparently think he should be removed from the line of succession.-a What >>> for exactly?
If it were anyone else, they would have a really good case for
defamation and/or unfair dismissal, and very valid complaints under
Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fair Trial
and No Punishment Without Law).
Although using prostitutes is not illegal it probably should be.
As you rightly say, it's not illegal.
But it's not the oldest profession in the world for nothing.-a It exists
and will continue regardless of the law.-a You can't legislate commerce away.
It may well
rank as misconduct for many employment purposes and be grounds for
disciplinary action.
Really?-a Do you have any examples of employment contracts with any such clauses please?
Anyway, how do you suppose it could be defined (to exclude acceptable behaviour), discovered and policed?
And is certainly abhorrent as far as many of us are
concerned.
Doesn't seem to have stopped it, does it?
This is not unconnected with the fact that most prostitutes are
trafficked or coerced, often from a young age. And the fact that in
this case
it is not Pakistani men exploiting them does not make it in any sense
better.
In what case?-a If you're talking about Andrew, just what are you alleging?
On 25/02/2026 08:43, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2026 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2026 at 19:02:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your country >>>>> as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier? >>>> Of course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he'sestablished to have done.
My dispute is with those who assume the answer based on their own
personal prejudices when there is no evidence at all (in the case of
the
sexual allegations) or no established proof (in the case of the
misconduct allegations).-a I abhor witch-hunts.-a I believe in the
principle of innocent until proven guilty.-a I also believe that anyone, >>>> whoever he is and regardless of whether he's a witch, is entitled to
put
his side of the story and receive a fair hearing.-a I also believe that >>>> no punishment should be meted out without fair trial.
The Andrew affair has shown the worst side of human nature.-a No-one
seems concerned that he has been turfed out of his home, had his titles >>>> forcibly removed, has had so much mud thrown at him that I'm surprised >>>> any of Norfolk is left, and has had the main (sexual) charges against
him dropped with not even a hint of an apology.-a 82% of the public
apparently think he should be removed from the line of succession.
What
for exactly?
If it were anyone else, they would have a really good case for
defamation and/or unfair dismissal, and very valid complaints under
Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fair Trial >>>> and No Punishment Without Law).
Although using prostitutes is not illegal it probably should be.
As you rightly say, it's not illegal.
But it's not the oldest profession in the world for nothing.-a It
exists and will continue regardless of the law.-a You can't legislate
commerce away.
It may well
rank as misconduct for many employment purposes and be grounds for
disciplinary action.
Really?-a Do you have any examples of employment contracts with any
such clauses please?
Anyway, how do you suppose it could be defined (to exclude acceptable
behaviour), discovered and policed?
And is certainly abhorrent as far as many of us are
concerned.
Doesn't seem to have stopped it, does it?
This is not unconnected with the fact that most prostitutes are
trafficked or coerced, often from a young age. And the fact that in
this case
it is not Pakistani men exploiting them does not make it in any sense
better.
In what case?-a If you're talking about Andrew, just what are you
alleging?
To quote from the English Collective of Prostitutes:-a "Most sex workers
are mothers trying to do the best for their children. We campaign
against austerity cuts and for housing and other survival resources so
that any of us can leave prostitution if and when we want".
If we read the diaries of Samuel Pepys or James Boswell, we see frequent references to them using prostitutes. Obviously this tends to be
airbrushed out of history when we learn about them at school. The
prevalence of prostitution today is not widely known. There are probably many women using prostitution to pay their rent or pay their way as students. Obviously many would not want this to be known by their families.
I suppose by writing in this way I may give the impression that I myself
use prostitutes
- but I don't use their services nor do I know where I
might find them locally.
On 24/02/2026 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2026 at 19:02:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your countryOf course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's
as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier?
established to have done.
My dispute is with those who assume the answer based on their own
personal prejudices when there is no evidence at all (in the case of the >>> sexual allegations) or no established proof (in the case of the
misconduct allegations). I abhor witch-hunts. I believe in the
principle of innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that anyone,
whoever he is and regardless of whether he's a witch, is entitled to put >>> his side of the story and receive a fair hearing. I also believe that
no punishment should be meted out without fair trial.
The Andrew affair has shown the worst side of human nature. No-one
seems concerned that he has been turfed out of his home, had his titles
forcibly removed, has had so much mud thrown at him that I'm surprised
any of Norfolk is left, and has had the main (sexual) charges against
him dropped with not even a hint of an apology. 82% of the public
apparently think he should be removed from the line of succession. What >>> for exactly?
If it were anyone else, they would have a really good case for
defamation and/or unfair dismissal, and very valid complaints under
Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fair Trial
and No Punishment Without Law).
Although using prostitutes is not illegal it probably should be. It may well >> rank as misconduct for many employment purposes and be grounds for
disciplinary action. And is certainly abhorrent as far as many of us are
concerned. This is not unconnected with the fact that most prostitutes are >> trafficked or coerced, often from a young age. And the fact that in this case
it is not Pakistani men exploiting them does not make it in any sense better.
I can't see a persuasive argument for making the use of prostitutes
illegal, or grounds for disciplinary action in a workplace. Nor do I
find it abhorrent. And I am sure that most prostitutes are not
trafficked or coerced - it has been a reliable way for women to earn
money when no better work is available, ie no work that is as well paid.
It is important to find a way of protecting sex workers who are in fact coerced and deprived of their earnings by others. That can best be done
by acknowledging and respecting the existence of sex workers.
This may be the relevant campaigning group or at least the one with the
most public profile: https://prostitutescollective.net/
quote
The English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) is a grassroots organisation
of sex workers and supporters campaigning for the decriminalisation of prostitution, for sex workersrCO rights and safety, and for resources to enable people to get out of prostitution if they want to. Our network includes sex workers working on the street and in premises.
Our rights information was written by sex workers with the help of
committed legal professionals, and explains the prostitution laws in
simple terms. It aims to ensure that sex workers, no matter where we
work, know the law, how to protect ourselves from arrest, how to defend ourselves if charged, and where to get help. By informing the public
about these unjust and devious laws, which have been passed in their
name, we hope that the guide will build support for the
decriminalisation of prostitution.
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your countryOf course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's >established to have done.
as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier?
My dispute is with those who assume the answer based on their own
personal prejudices when there is no evidence at all (in the case of the >sexual allegations) or no established proof (in the case of the
misconduct allegations). I abhor witch-hunts. I believe in the
principle of innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that anyone, >whoever he is and regardless of whether he's a witch, is entitled to put
his side of the story and receive a fair hearing. I also believe that
no punishment should be meted out without fair trial.
The Andrew affair has shown the worst side of human nature. No-one
seems concerned that he has been turfed out of his home, had his titles >forcibly removed, has had so much mud thrown at him that I'm surprised
any of Norfolk is left, and has had the main (sexual) charges against
him dropped with not even a hint of an apology. 82% of the public >apparently think he should be removed from the line of succession. What
for exactly?
If it were anyone else, they would have a really good case for
defamation and/or unfair dismissal, and very valid complaints under
Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fair Trial
and No Punishment Without Law).
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:veqrpkp868hl6o1jgcs2i7b9hs7d8db60a@4ax.com...
It bogles my mind that a modern society aspiring to meritocracy still
lets its head of country be selected by birth. Whatever offences he
may or may not have committed, it's clear that he is an insufferable
prick who would have been king except for the good luck of his brother
not suffering a fatal accident or terminal illness when younger.
I must admit that when I first read that paragraph, encompassing the
prospect of Andrew as King, all my arguments in favour of a
consitutional monarch looked like flyiong straight out of the
window.
However.
You charcterise the UK asa aspiring to meritocracy
So which particular merits should any State look for in a constitional
head of state, with no real powers at all ?
What are the actual functions of such a head of state such that
certain qualities are actually needed ?
This is a head of state with no real power remember.
One such quality surely is legitimacy.
And human nature being what it is, heredity confers a legitimacy
on individuals, that no mere human appointment can.
Another such quality surely, linked to the first is tradition.
Along with continuity.
This being a head of state don't forget, who by tradition has no
real power at all. And whose very existence in terms fo day to
day living expenses, is wholly dependant on Parliament.
So we have legitimacy, tradition, continuity, and dependance on
Parliament as against say a *38 year old Donald Trump* seeking his
third term as President.
So I'll see your King Andrew, and raise you President for Life
Donald Trump.
bb
* He might not have turned out to be such an insufferable prick had
he actually succeeded to the trone; and found himself with more to
do.
On 25 Feb 2026 at 08:23:32 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2026 at 19:02:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your country >>>>> as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier? >>>> Of course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he'sestablished to have done.
My dispute is with those who assume the answer based on their own
personal prejudices when there is no evidence at all (in the case of the >>>> sexual allegations) or no established proof (in the case of the
misconduct allegations). I abhor witch-hunts. I believe in the
principle of innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that anyone, >>>> whoever he is and regardless of whether he's a witch, is entitled to put >>>> his side of the story and receive a fair hearing. I also believe that >>>> no punishment should be meted out without fair trial.
The Andrew affair has shown the worst side of human nature. No-one
seems concerned that he has been turfed out of his home, had his titles >>>> forcibly removed, has had so much mud thrown at him that I'm surprised >>>> any of Norfolk is left, and has had the main (sexual) charges against
him dropped with not even a hint of an apology. 82% of the public
apparently think he should be removed from the line of succession. What >>>> for exactly?
If it were anyone else, they would have a really good case for
defamation and/or unfair dismissal, and very valid complaints under
Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fair Trial >>>> and No Punishment Without Law).
Although using prostitutes is not illegal it probably should be. It may well
rank as misconduct for many employment purposes and be grounds for
disciplinary action. And is certainly abhorrent as far as many of us are >>> concerned. This is not unconnected with the fact that most prostitutes are >>> trafficked or coerced, often from a young age. And the fact that in this case
it is not Pakistani men exploiting them does not make it in any sense better.
I can't see a persuasive argument for making the use of prostitutes
illegal, or grounds for disciplinary action in a workplace. Nor do I
find it abhorrent. And I am sure that most prostitutes are not
trafficked or coerced - it has been a reliable way for women to earn
money when no better work is available, ie no work that is as well paid.
It is important to find a way of protecting sex workers who are in fact
coerced and deprived of their earnings by others. That can best be done
by acknowledging and respecting the existence of sex workers.
This may be the relevant campaigning group or at least the one with the
most public profile: https://prostitutescollective.net/
quote
The English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) is a grassroots organisation
of sex workers and supporters campaigning for the decriminalisation of
prostitution, for sex workersrCO rights and safety, and for resources to
enable people to get out of prostitution if they want to. Our network
includes sex workers working on the street and in premises.
Our rights information was written by sex workers with the help of
committed legal professionals, and explains the prostitution laws in
simple terms. It aims to ensure that sex workers, no matter where we
work, know the law, how to protect ourselves from arrest, how to defend
ourselves if charged, and where to get help. By informing the public
about these unjust and devious laws, which have been passed in their
name, we hope that the guide will build support for the
decriminalisation of prostitution.
I am aware of that point of view. The fact is, however, that the vast majority
of prostitutes got there by exactly the same route as the victims of "Pakistani grooming gangs" from a vulnerable background. By bribery/grooming/coercion/blackmail.
See, for instance:
https://juliebindel.substack.com/p/the-pimping-of-prostitution
The pro-prostition campaign is largely made up of people indirectly making money from prostitution rather than personally engaged in it, pimps and academics.
On 23/02/2026 10:58, Pancho wrote:
On 2/21/26 16:56, Andy Walker wrote:[...]
Yes, because our (UK,EU,USA) involvement in those wars does notThe point with Epstein is that there is a clear suspicion thatNo doubt.-a But is that suspicion /so/ important that it has to
he was applying inappropriate influence on public officials,
probably on behalf of a foreign government, such as Israel.
dominate the news week after week, month after month?-a Is it more
important than [for eg] wars in Ukraine or the Middle East?
appear to be justifiable in terms of national benefit. [,,,]
-a-a-a-aYou say "yes", but you seem to be arguing for "no".-a Surely
events that involve deaths and injuries for hundreds of thousands
of people and many billions of pounds of expense are more important
than "revelations" about the possibly-criminal behaviour of a small
number of prominenti?
That's not to say that the behaviour should
not be headline news for a few days;-a but headline news for week
after week after tedious week?-a "Police have spent yet another day
searching [wherever]".-a Gosh, how interesting.-a Not.
The Epstein files give us a rare glimpse into things that are
hidden. Andrew is largely a distraction, but Mandelson was at the
heart of the UK government. Expecting a million pound a year job
from JP Morgan shows how influence may be applied.
I think a lot of bad government is caused by inappropriate lobbying,
we need to action to discourage it.
-a-a-a-aIt's a point of view;-a but not one I feel disposed to debate
here, even if the mods allow it.-a "Uk.p.m" is that-away -->.
Not like a postcard. With SSL email is like a letter in an envelope.Yes, email is insecure, but in practice, for most of us, it is"Quite secure" means "open to anyone with the means and the interest".
probably quite secure.
-a-a-a-aHow lucky we are that Epstein and his friends took your advice rather than mine, we would have been deprived of all the tittle-tattle!
A letter in an envelope is vulnerable while in transit, and for as long
as the sender/recipient keep copies.-a E-mails are also vulnerable in
back-up copies at ISPs and to hackers, so copies are legion;-a virtually impossible to track down every one and destroy them all
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:02:22 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your country
as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier?
Of course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's
established to have done.
So why are you so annoyed about the police investigating it?
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 21:09:24 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:veqrpkp868hl6o1jgcs2i7b9hs7d8db60a@4ax.com...
It bogles my mind that a modern society aspiring to meritocracy still
lets its head of country be selected by birth. Whatever offences he
may or may not have committed, it's clear that he is an insufferable
prick who would have been king except for the good luck of his brother
not suffering a fatal accident or terminal illness when younger.
I must admit that when I first read that paragraph, encompassing the
prospect of Andrew as King, all my arguments in favour of a
consitutional monarch looked like flyiong straight out of the
window.
However.
You charcterise the UK asa aspiring to meritocracy
So which particular merits should any State look for in a constitional
head of state, with no real powers at all ?
Number one that they are selected by the people they are going to
represent.
Number two that there is a readily available process for dumping them
if they turn out to be unsatisfactory.
Number 3 that their tenure is time-limited.
What are the actual functions of such a head of state such that
certain qualities are actually needed ?
Their primary function in the UK is to present the best possible image
of the "best of British" to the British people and the world at large.
Added to which, peculiar to the UK, they become head of the
predominant religious organisation in the country irrespective of how unfitted they are for that position or whether they even subscribe to
the religious beliefs of the religious organisation.
This is a head of state with no real power remember.
One such quality surely is legitimacy.
And human nature being what it is, heredity confers a legitimacy
on individuals, that no mere human appointment can.
Another such quality surely, linked to the first is tradition.
Along with continuity.
This being a head of state don't forget, who by tradition has no
real power at all. And whose very existence in terms fo day to
day living expenses, is wholly dependant on Parliament.
So we have legitimacy, tradition, continuity, and dependance on
Parliament as against say a *38 year old Donald Trump* seeking his
third term as President.
So I'll see your King Andrew, and raise you President for Life
Donald Trump.
Where are you getting "President for Life"? Much as he'd clearly like
to be, he can't. At least not legally; if he did find some way to
circumvent the constitution, then he would stop being president and
become a dictator.
bb
* He might not have turned out to be such an insufferable prick had
he actually succeeded to the trone; and found himself with more to
do.
Some people are born pricks; some have to work at it; some are born
that way and continue to work at it anyway.
On 25 Feb 2026 at 08:23:32 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2026 at 19:02:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your country >>>>> as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier? >>>> Of course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he'sestablished to have done.
My dispute is with those who assume the answer based on their own
personal prejudices when there is no evidence at all (in the case of the >>>> sexual allegations) or no established proof (in the case of the
misconduct allegations). I abhor witch-hunts. I believe in the
principle of innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that anyone, >>>> whoever he is and regardless of whether he's a witch, is entitled to put >>>> his side of the story and receive a fair hearing. I also believe that >>>> no punishment should be meted out without fair trial.
The Andrew affair has shown the worst side of human nature. No-one
seems concerned that he has been turfed out of his home, had his titles >>>> forcibly removed, has had so much mud thrown at him that I'm surprised >>>> any of Norfolk is left, and has had the main (sexual) charges against
him dropped with not even a hint of an apology. 82% of the public
apparently think he should be removed from the line of succession. What >>>> for exactly?
If it were anyone else, they would have a really good case for
defamation and/or unfair dismissal, and very valid complaints under
Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fair Trial >>>> and No Punishment Without Law).
Although using prostitutes is not illegal it probably should be. It may well
rank as misconduct for many employment purposes and be grounds for
disciplinary action. And is certainly abhorrent as far as many of us are >>> concerned. This is not unconnected with the fact that most prostitutes are >>> trafficked or coerced, often from a young age. And the fact that in this case
it is not Pakistani men exploiting them does not make it in any sense better.
I can't see a persuasive argument for making the use of prostitutes
illegal, or grounds for disciplinary action in a workplace. Nor do I
find it abhorrent. And I am sure that most prostitutes are not
trafficked or coerced - it has been a reliable way for women to earn
money when no better work is available, ie no work that is as well paid.
It is important to find a way of protecting sex workers who are in fact
coerced and deprived of their earnings by others. That can best be done
by acknowledging and respecting the existence of sex workers.
This may be the relevant campaigning group or at least the one with the
most public profile: https://prostitutescollective.net/
quote
The English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) is a grassroots organisation
of sex workers and supporters campaigning for the decriminalisation of
prostitution, for sex workersrCO rights and safety, and for resources to
enable people to get out of prostitution if they want to. Our network
includes sex workers working on the street and in premises.
Our rights information was written by sex workers with the help of
committed legal professionals, and explains the prostitution laws in
simple terms. It aims to ensure that sex workers, no matter where we
work, know the law, how to protect ourselves from arrest, how to defend
ourselves if charged, and where to get help. By informing the public
about these unjust and devious laws, which have been passed in their
name, we hope that the guide will build support for the
decriminalisation of prostitution.
I am aware of that point of view. The fact is, however, that the vast majority
of prostitutes got there by exactly the same route as the victims of "Pakistani grooming gangs" from a vulnerable background. By bribery/grooming/coercion/blackmail.
See, for instance:
https://juliebindel.substack.com/p/the-pimping-of-prostitution
The pro-prostition campaign is largely made up of people indirectly making money from prostitution rather than personally engaged in it, pimps and academics.
On 25/02/2026 11:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Feb 2026 at 08:23:32 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2026 at 19:02:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your country >>>>>> as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier? >>>>> Of course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's >>>>> established to have done.
My dispute is with those who assume the answer based on their own
personal prejudices when there is no evidence at all (in the case of the >>>>> sexual allegations) or no established proof (in the case of the
misconduct allegations). I abhor witch-hunts. I believe in the
principle of innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that anyone, >>>>> whoever he is and regardless of whether he's a witch, is entitled to put >>>>> his side of the story and receive a fair hearing. I also believe that >>>>> no punishment should be meted out without fair trial.
The Andrew affair has shown the worst side of human nature. No-one
seems concerned that he has been turfed out of his home, had his titles >>>>> forcibly removed, has had so much mud thrown at him that I'm surprised >>>>> any of Norfolk is left, and has had the main (sexual) charges against >>>>> him dropped with not even a hint of an apology. 82% of the public
apparently think he should be removed from the line of succession. What >>>>> for exactly?
If it were anyone else, they would have a really good case for
defamation and/or unfair dismissal, and very valid complaints under
Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fair Trial >>>>> and No Punishment Without Law).
Although using prostitutes is not illegal it probably should be. It may well
rank as misconduct for many employment purposes and be grounds for
disciplinary action. And is certainly abhorrent as far as many of us are >>>> concerned. This is not unconnected with the fact that most prostitutes are >>>> trafficked or coerced, often from a young age. And the fact that in this case
it is not Pakistani men exploiting them does not make it in any sense better.
I can't see a persuasive argument for making the use of prostitutes
illegal, or grounds for disciplinary action in a workplace. Nor do I
find it abhorrent. And I am sure that most prostitutes are not
trafficked or coerced - it has been a reliable way for women to earn
money when no better work is available, ie no work that is as well paid. >>>
It is important to find a way of protecting sex workers who are in fact
coerced and deprived of their earnings by others. That can best be done
by acknowledging and respecting the existence of sex workers.
This may be the relevant campaigning group or at least the one with the
most public profile: https://prostitutescollective.net/
quote
The English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) is a grassroots organisation >>> of sex workers and supporters campaigning for the decriminalisation of
prostitution, for sex workersrCO rights and safety, and for resources to >>> enable people to get out of prostitution if they want to. Our network
includes sex workers working on the street and in premises.
Our rights information was written by sex workers with the help of
committed legal professionals, and explains the prostitution laws in
simple terms. It aims to ensure that sex workers, no matter where we
work, know the law, how to protect ourselves from arrest, how to defend
ourselves if charged, and where to get help. By informing the public
about these unjust and devious laws, which have been passed in their
name, we hope that the guide will build support for the
decriminalisation of prostitution.
I am aware of that point of view. The fact is, however, that the vast majority
of prostitutes got there by exactly the same route as the victims of
"Pakistani grooming gangs" from a vulnerable background. By
bribery/grooming/coercion/blackmail.
See, for instance:
https://juliebindel.substack.com/p/the-pimping-of-prostitution
The pro-prostition campaign is largely made up of people indirectly making >> money from prostitution rather than personally engaged in it, pimps and
academics.
Julie Bindel seems to be a modern day Mary Whitehouse, trying hard to generate enthusiasm for a movement when there is little or no appetite
for her puritanism.
The poor are always with us and so are the sex workers and so are the transgender people (another target for Bindel's ire).
If the police prosecute more women and prosecute more of the punters,
this takes resources away from more worthwhile police work, and the
public disgrace would probably result in more suicides. And instead of blackmailing men for being secretly homosexual as used to happen in
Oscar Wilde's day, the blackmailers would target men who use prostitutes.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 21:09:24 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:veqrpkp868hl6o1jgcs2i7b9hs7d8db60a@4ax.com...
It bogles my mind that a modern society aspiring to meritocracy still
lets its head of country be selected by birth. Whatever offences he
may or may not have committed, it's clear that he is an insufferable
prick who would have been king except for the good luck of his brother
not suffering a fatal accident or terminal illness when younger.
I must admit that when I first read that paragraph, encompassing the >>prospect of Andrew as King, all my arguments in favour of a
consitutional monarch looked like flyiong straight out of the
window.
However.
You charcterise the UK asa aspiring to meritocracy
So which particular merits should any State look for in a constitional
head of state, with no real powers at all ?
Number one that they are selected by the people they are going to
represent.
Number two that there is a readily available process for dumping them
if they turn out to be unsatisfactory.
Number 3 that their tenure is time-limited.
What are the actual functions of such a head of state such that
certain qualities are actually needed ?
Their primary function in the UK is to present the best possible image
of the "best of British" to the British people and the world at large.
Added to which, peculiar to the UK, they become head of the
predominant religious organisation in the country irrespective of how unfitted they are for that position or whether they even subscribe to
the religious beliefs of the religious organisation.
This is a head of state with no real power remember.
One such quality surely is legitimacy.
And human nature being what it is, heredity confers a legitimacy
on individuals, that no mere human appointment can.
Another such quality surely, linked to the first is tradition.
Along with continuity.
This being a head of state don't forget, who by tradition has no
real power at all. And whose very existence in terms fo day to
day living expenses, is wholly dependant on Parliament.
So we have legitimacy, tradition, continuity, and dependance on
Parliament as against say a *38 year old Donald Trump* seeking his
third term as President.
So I'll see your King Andrew, and raise you President for Life
Donald Trump.
Where are you getting "President for Life"? Much as he'd clearly like
to be, he can't. At least not legally; if he did find some way to
circumvent the constitution, then he would stop being president and
become a dictator.
* He might not have turned out to be such an insufferable prick hadSome people are born pricks; some have to work at it; some are born
he actually succeeded to the trone; and found himself with more to
do.
that way and continue to work at it anyway.
On 26 Feb 2026 at 10:22:11 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 11:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Feb 2026 at 08:23:32 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 24/02/2026 22:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2026 at 19:02:22 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your country >>>>>>> as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier? >>>>>> Of course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's >>>>>> established to have done.
My dispute is with those who assume the answer based on their own
personal prejudices when there is no evidence at all (in the case of the >>>>>> sexual allegations) or no established proof (in the case of the
misconduct allegations). I abhor witch-hunts. I believe in the
principle of innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that anyone, >>>>>> whoever he is and regardless of whether he's a witch, is entitled to put >>>>>> his side of the story and receive a fair hearing. I also believe that >>>>>> no punishment should be meted out without fair trial.
The Andrew affair has shown the worst side of human nature. No-one >>>>>> seems concerned that he has been turfed out of his home, had his titles >>>>>> forcibly removed, has had so much mud thrown at him that I'm surprised >>>>>> any of Norfolk is left, and has had the main (sexual) charges against >>>>>> him dropped with not even a hint of an apology. 82% of the public >>>>>> apparently think he should be removed from the line of succession. What >>>>>> for exactly?
If it were anyone else, they would have a really good case for
defamation and/or unfair dismissal, and very valid complaints under >>>>>> Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Fair Trial >>>>>> and No Punishment Without Law).
Although using prostitutes is not illegal it probably should be. It may well
rank as misconduct for many employment purposes and be grounds for
disciplinary action. And is certainly abhorrent as far as many of us are >>>>> concerned. This is not unconnected with the fact that most prostitutes are
trafficked or coerced, often from a young age. And the fact that in this case
it is not Pakistani men exploiting them does not make it in any sense better.
I can't see a persuasive argument for making the use of prostitutes
illegal, or grounds for disciplinary action in a workplace. Nor do I
find it abhorrent. And I am sure that most prostitutes are not
trafficked or coerced - it has been a reliable way for women to earn
money when no better work is available, ie no work that is as well paid. >>>>
It is important to find a way of protecting sex workers who are in fact >>>> coerced and deprived of their earnings by others. That can best be done >>>> by acknowledging and respecting the existence of sex workers.
This may be the relevant campaigning group or at least the one with the >>>> most public profile: https://prostitutescollective.net/
quote
The English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) is a grassroots organisation >>>> of sex workers and supporters campaigning for the decriminalisation of >>>> prostitution, for sex workersrCO rights and safety, and for resources to >>>> enable people to get out of prostitution if they want to. Our network
includes sex workers working on the street and in premises.
Our rights information was written by sex workers with the help of
committed legal professionals, and explains the prostitution laws in
simple terms. It aims to ensure that sex workers, no matter where we
work, know the law, how to protect ourselves from arrest, how to defend >>>> ourselves if charged, and where to get help. By informing the public
about these unjust and devious laws, which have been passed in their
name, we hope that the guide will build support for the
decriminalisation of prostitution.
I am aware of that point of view. The fact is, however, that the vast majority
of prostitutes got there by exactly the same route as the victims of
"Pakistani grooming gangs" from a vulnerable background. By
bribery/grooming/coercion/blackmail.
See, for instance:
https://juliebindel.substack.com/p/the-pimping-of-prostitution
The pro-prostition campaign is largely made up of people indirectly making >>> money from prostitution rather than personally engaged in it, pimps and
academics.
Julie Bindel seems to be a modern day Mary Whitehouse, trying hard to
generate enthusiasm for a movement when there is little or no appetite
for her puritanism.
The poor are always with us and so are the sex workers and so are the
transgender people (another target for Bindel's ire).
If the police prosecute more women and prosecute more of the punters,
this takes resources away from more worthwhile police work, and the
public disgrace would probably result in more suicides. And instead of
blackmailing men for being secretly homosexual as used to happen in
Oscar Wilde's day, the blackmailers would target men who use prostitutes.
The answer to being victimised for robbing banks is to not rob banks. Perhaps there is a lesson here? (Note that neither Julie Bindel nor I were suggesting that *being* a prostitute should remain criminalised.)
The answer to being victimised for robbing banks is to not rob banks. Perhaps there is a lesson here? (Note that neither Julie Bindel nor I were suggesting that *being* a prostitute should remain criminalised.)
On 26 Feb 2026 at 10:22:11 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
If the police prosecute more women and prosecute more of the punters,
this takes resources away from more worthwhile police work, and the
public disgrace would probably result in more suicides. And instead of
blackmailing men for being secretly homosexual as used to happen in
Oscar Wilde's day, the blackmailers would target men who use
prostitutes.
The answer to being victimised for robbing banks is to not rob banks.
Perhaps there is a lesson here?
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
It bogles my mind that a modern society aspiring to meritocracy still
lets its head of country be selected by birth. Whatever offences he
may or may not have committed, it's clear that he is an insufferable
prick who would have been king except for the good luck of his brother
not suffering a fatal accident or terminal illness when younger.
I must admit that when I first read that paragraph, encompassing the
prospect of Andrew as King, all my arguments in favour of a
consitutional monarch looked like flyiong straight out of the
window.
However.
You charcterise the UK asa aspiring to meritocracy
So which particular merits should any State look for in a constitional
head of state, with no real powers at all ?
Number one that they are selected by the people they are going to
represent.
Number two that there is a readily available process for dumping them
if they turn out to be unsatisfactory.
Number 3 that their tenure is time-limited.
What are the actual functions of such a head of state such that
certain qualities are actually needed ?
Their primary function in the UK is to present the best possible image
of the "best of British" to the British people and the world at large.
Added to which, peculiar to the UK, they become head of the
predominant religious organisation in the country irrespective of how unfitted they are for that position or whether they even subscribe to
the religious beliefs of the religious organisation.
This is a head of state with no real power remember.
One such quality surely is legitimacy.
And human nature being what it is, heredity confers a legitimacy
on individuals, that no mere human appointment can.
Another such quality surely, linked to the first is tradition.
Along with continuity.
This being a head of state don't forget, who by tradition has no
real power at all. And whose very existence in terms fo day to
day living expenses, is wholly dependant on Parliament.
So we have legitimacy, tradition, continuity, and dependance on
Parliament as against say a *38 year old Donald Trump* seeking his
third term as President.
So I'll see your King Andrew, and raise you President for Life
Donald Trump.
Where are you getting "President for Life"? Much as he'd clearly like
to be, he can't. At least not legally; if he did find some way to
circumvent the constitution, then he would stop being president and
become a dictator.
I think Andrew needed a proper role for himself after leaving the armed forces.-a Who can honestly say how we would have behaved in his
situation? I hope we would have led a quiet life of public service, championing the disadvantaged, donating huge sums to worthwhile
recipients. But did he have a good male role model in his life?
Was he
encouraged by his upbringing to be promiscuous and to live a similar
life to, say, Donald Trump who has managed to avoid the disgrace that
ought to come with greed, self-indulgence and vanity?
When Andrew asked our government to "find a role for me" perhaps someone should have given him firm guidance.
John Profumo managed to rehabilitate his image after his disgrace (Wikipedia: in the eyes of some, Profumo's charity work redeemed his reputation. His friend, social reform campaigner Lord Longford, said he "felt more admiration [for Profumo] than [for] all the men I've known in
my lifetime".) but there is little sign of Andrew being given the help
he needs to do the same.
On 25/02/2026 12:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:02:22 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your country
as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier?
Of course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's
established to have done.
So why are you so annoyed about the police investigating it?
I'm not opposed to any due process, with the only proviso that it is not >oppressive, vindictive, vexatious, dumb, clomping or heavy-handed.
Sadly, though, these seem to have been characteristics of many police >actions recently, including against Andrew, placard-carrying pensioners, >Cliff Richard, Auriol Grey, Katie Hopkins, Peter Mandelson etc etc.
Generally, with no subsequent police regret at all.
Their primary function in the UK is to present the best possible image
of the "best of British" to the British people and the world at large.
It isn't. Their primary function is to be the person who ultimately >"decides" what passes into law, as it is in many other democratic states. >The PR side of it is an extra.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 08:35:35 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 25/02/2026 12:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:02:22 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your country >>>>> as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier?
Of course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's
established to have done.
So why are you so annoyed about the police investigating it?
I'm not opposed to any due process, with the only proviso that it is not
oppressive, vindictive, vexatious, dumb, clomping or heavy-handed.
Searching a suspect's home is a perfectly valid and reasonable part of investigation, provided legal processes are followed. What makes you
consider the search of Andrew's home as the police trampling all over
his house "on a fishing mission for something, anything, they can
sling"?
On 26/02/2026 in message <n0ars2FdtipU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
Their primary function in the UK is to present the best possible image
of the "best of British" to the British people and the world at large.
It isn't. Their primary function is to be the person who ultimately
"decides" what passes into law, as it is in many other democratic
states. The PR side of it is an extra.
Seriously? Last time a British monarch did that was 1708.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your country >>>>> as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier?
Of course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's
established to have done.
So why are you so annoyed about the police investigating it?
I'm not opposed to any due process, with the only proviso that it is not
oppressive, vindictive, vexatious, dumb, clomping or heavy-handed.
Searching a suspect's home is a perfectly valid and reasonable part of investigation, provided legal processes are followed. What makes you
consider the search of Andrew's home as the police trampling all over
his house "on a fishing mission for something, anything, they can
sling"?
On 26/02/2026 14:33, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 08:35:35 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 25/02/2026 12:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 19:02:22 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your country >>>>>> as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier? >>>Of course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's >>>>> established to have done.
So why are you so annoyed about the police investigating it?
I'm not opposed to any due process, with the only proviso that it is not >>> oppressive, vindictive, vexatious, dumb, clomping or heavy-handed.
Searching a suspect's home is a perfectly valid and reasonable part of
investigation, provided legal processes are followed. What makes you
consider the search of Andrew's home as the police trampling all over
his house "on a fishing mission for something, anything, they can
sling"?
Because that was clearly what they were doing.
It ought to be proportionate and reasonable. In my view, it was overkill.
On 26/02/2026 02:33 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your country >>>>>> as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier? >>>Of course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's >>>>> established to have done.
So why are you so annoyed about the police investigating it?
I'm not opposed to any due process, with the only proviso that it is not >>> oppressive, vindictive, vexatious, dumb, clomping or heavy-handed.
Searching a suspect's home is a perfectly valid and reasonable part of
investigation, provided legal processes are followed. What makes you
consider the search of Andrew's home as the police trampling all over
his house "on a fishing mission for something, anything, they can
sling"?
I am sure that you only accidentally omitted the word "valid" from
between "provided" and "legal".
Did the police have any valid legal reasons to search Cliff Richard's home?
It isn't. Their primary function is to be the person who ultimately
"decides" what passes into law, as it is in many other democratic
states. The PR side of it is an extra.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 15:53:14 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 26/02/2026 02:33 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 18:10, Martin Harran wrote:
Does it not bother you at all that someone representing your country >>>>>>> as Trade Envoy may have passed privileged information to a financier? >>>>Of course it does, and of course he is responsible for anything he's >>>>>> established to have done.
So why are you so annoyed about the police investigating it?
I'm not opposed to any due process, with the only proviso that it is not >>>> oppressive, vindictive, vexatious, dumb, clomping or heavy-handed.
Searching a suspect's home is a perfectly valid and reasonable part of
investigation, provided legal processes are followed. What makes you
consider the search of Andrew's home as the police trampling all over
his house "on a fishing mission for something, anything, they can
sling"?
I am sure that you only accidentally omitted the word "valid" from
between "provided" and "legal".
No, it wasn't accidental - I'm not a fan of tautology.
Did the police have any valid legal reasons to search Cliff Richard's home? >>They probably had at the time - an accusation of a mature adult
sexually abusing someone under 16 years of age is a serious matter
that would warrant immediate investigation including a search. What
was not legal was tipping off the BBC and they were rightly punished
for that.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It isn't. Their primary function is to be the person who ultimately
"decides" what passes into law, as it is in many other democratic
states. The PR side of it is an extra.
Not quite. The Monarch customarily appoints Commissioners, usually
Privy Councillors, who actually grant the Royal Assent of their behalf.
This has been possible since 1542; when Henry VIII decided he didn'tI think we all knew that (to the extent that we took an interest in it).
fancy having to sit through the reading of the lengthy Bill authorising
the execution of Catherine Howard. Having better things to do
While apparently the idea that Queen Victoria withheld the Royal
Assent from a Bill criminalising lesbianism, on account of her not
believing it existed, is sadly a myth.
On 26/02/2026 01:55 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 26/02/2026 in message <n0ars2FdtipU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
Their primary function in the UK is to present the best possible image >>>>of the "best of British" to the British people and the world at large.
It isn't. Their primary function is to be the person who ultimately >>>"decides" what passes into law, as it is in many other democratic states. >>>The PR side of it is an extra.
Seriously? Last time a British monarch did that was 1708.
No it wasn't.
It was last week or so.
On 26/02/2026 06:54 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It isn't. Their primary function is to be the person who ultimately
"decides" what passes into law, as it is in many other democratic
states. The PR side of it is an extra.
Not quite. The Monarch customarily appoints Commissioners, usually
Privy Councillors, who actually grant the Royal Assent of their behalf.
Even in Australia, the Governor general acts on behalf of the Monarch. The buck doesn't stop in Canberra. Its resting place is London SW1.
This has been possible since 1542; when Henry VIII decided he didn't
fancy having to sit through the reading of the lengthy Bill authorising
the execution of Catherine Howard. Having better things to do
While apparently the idea that Queen Victoria withheld the Royal
Assent from a Bill criminalising lesbianism, on account of her not
believing it existed, is sadly a myth.
I think we all knew that (to the extent that we took an interest in it).
On 26/02/2026 in message <n0b8faFfqvlU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2026 01:55 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 26/02/2026 in message <n0ars2FdtipU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
Their primary function in the UK is to present the best possible image >>>>> of the "best of British" to the British people and the world at large. >>>>It isn't. Their primary function is to be the person who ultimately
"decides" what passes into law, as it is in many other democratic
states. The PR side of it is an extra.
Seriously? Last time a British monarch did that was 1708.
No it wasn't.
It was last week or so.
Please expand, research suggests the last veto was in1708 as I said and since then it is a formality.
On 26/02/2026 09:17 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 26/02/2026 in message <n0b8faFfqvlU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>
On 26/02/2026 01:55 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 26/02/2026 in message <n0ars2FdtipU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>>
Their primary function in the UK is to present the best possible image >>>>>> of the "best of British" to the British people and the world at large. >>>>>It isn't. Their primary function is to be the person who ultimately
"decides" what passes into law, as it is in many other democratic states.
The PR side of it is an extra.
Seriously? Last time a British monarch did that was 1708.
No it wasn't.
It was last week or so.
Please expand, research suggests the last veto was in1708 as I said and since
then it is a formality.
That's right (the last bit).
The formality is that the Monarch decides whether a Bill/Act passes into law.
I heard on TV last night that "assisted dying" legislation passed by Tynwald in the Isle of Man has been waiting a year or so for Royal Assent. The commentator explained that the Home Office was examining the proposed legislation - and will presumably advise the Monarch as to how to proceed (I guess that its fate might depend on how th UK's own proposed legislation fares).
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:n0dql7Fs7dbU1@mid.individual.net...
On 26/02/2026 09:17 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 26/02/2026 in message <n0b8faFfqvlU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>
On 26/02/2026 01:55 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 26/02/2026 in message <n0ars2FdtipU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
Their primary function in the UK is to present the best possible image >>>>>>> of the "best of British" to the British people and the world at large. >>>>>>It isn't. Their primary function is to be the person who ultimately >>>>>> "decides" what passes into law, as it is in many other democratic states.
The PR side of it is an extra.
Seriously? Last time a British monarch did that was 1708.
No it wasn't.
It was last week or so.
Please expand, research suggests the last veto was in1708 as I said and since
then it is a formality.
That's right (the last bit).
The formality is that the Monarch decides whether a Bill/Act passes into law.
I heard on TV last night that "assisted dying" legislation passed by Tynwald >> in the Isle of Man has been waiting a year or so for Royal Assent. The
commentator explained that the Home Office was examining the proposed
legislation - and will presumably advise the Monarch as to how to proceed (I >> guess that its fate might depend on how th UK's own proposed legislation
fares).
That story is covered on here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24drev8qvjo
And while it mentions a number of people, guess who it never mentions
at all ? Not once. Go on, guess !*
On 28/02/2026 08:08 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n0dql7Fs7dbU1@mid.individual.net...
On 26/02/2026 09:17 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 26/02/2026 in message <n0b8faFfqvlU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>>
On 26/02/2026 01:55 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 26/02/2026 in message <n0ars2FdtipU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>> wrote:
Their primary function in the UK is to present the best possible image >>>>>>>> of the "best of British" to the British people and the world at large. >>>>>>>It isn't. Their primary function is to be the person who ultimately >>>>>>> "decides" what passes into law, as it is in many other democratic >>>>>>> states.
The PR side of it is an extra.
Seriously? Last time a British monarch did that was 1708.
No it wasn't.
It was last week or so.
Please expand, research suggests the last veto was in1708 as I said and >>>> since
then it is a formality.
That's right (the last bit).
The formality is that the Monarch decides whether a Bill/Act passes into >>> law.
I heard on TV last night that "assisted dying" legislation passed by Tynwald
in the Isle of Man has been waiting a year or so for Royal Assent. The
commentator explained that the Home Office was examining the proposed
legislation - and will presumably advise the Monarch as to how to proceed (I
guess that its fate might depend on how th UK's own proposed legislation >>> fares).
That story is covered on here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24drev8qvjo
And while it mentions a number of people, guess who it never mentions
at all ? Not once. Go on, guess !*
You?
That must be a source of annoyance to you.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:5krtpkpho457bg21ll507vsoupo7hildit@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 21:09:24 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:veqrpkp868hl6o1jgcs2i7b9hs7d8db60a@4ax.com...
It bogles my mind that a modern society aspiring to meritocracy still
lets its head of country be selected by birth. Whatever offences he
may or may not have committed, it's clear that he is an insufferable
prick who would have been king except for the good luck of his brother >>>> not suffering a fatal accident or terminal illness when younger.
I must admit that when I first read that paragraph, encompassing the >>>prospect of Andrew as King, all my arguments in favour of a
consitutional monarch looked like flyiong straight out of the
window.
However.
You charcterise the UK asa aspiring to meritocracy
So which particular merits should any State look for in a constitional >>>head of state, with no real powers at all ?
Number one that they are selected by the people they are going to
represent.
Number two that there is a readily available process for dumping them
if they turn out to be unsatisfactory.
Number 3 that their tenure is time-limited.
But the point is that the opinion of the public on most things is
notoriously fickle.
At one stage, if the opinion polls were to be believed, people would
quite happily have had Princess Diana as President; in open
defiance of Charles and the Establishment
And then a few weeks later, they'd have changed their minds and
chosen Elton John instead.
That is simply no way to appoint a Head of State.
When what is required above all else, is a sense of permamance
and stability.
What are the actual functions of such a head of state such that
certain qualities are actually needed ?
Their primary function in the UK is to present the best possible image
of the "best of British" to the British people and the world at large.
There is no longer any "best of British". That all went out of the
window with the decline of British manufacture, aircraft, shipbuilding
etc.
All we have left is tradition and history.
And a monarchy which by means of some creative genealogy encompasses the >likes of Henry VIII; who everyone knows executed at least some of his
wives; and George III who as every American knows who's seen the film
was Mad a lot of the time. Then Edward VII with his mistresses who was
among the most popular monarchs ever; and then Edward VIII who gave
up the throne to marry the women he loved. This is the "tradition
which everyone already knows about; made up of real human beings
and which Andrew would have been part of,
And had he been King it's likely his and Queen Fergie's money worries >wouldn't have been have quite so great. Possibly. Fergie could
have charged more for access, for starters
Added to which, peculiar to the UK, they become head of the
predominant religious organisation in the country irrespective of how
unfitted they are for that position or whether they even subscribe to
the religious beliefs of the religious organisation.
This is a head of state with no real power remember.
One such quality surely is legitimacy.
And human nature being what it is, heredity confers a legitimacy
on individuals, that no mere human appointment can.
Another such quality surely, linked to the first is tradition.
Along with continuity.
This being a head of state don't forget, who by tradition has no
real power at all. And whose very existence in terms fo day to
day living expenses, is wholly dependant on Parliament.
So we have legitimacy, tradition, continuity, and dependance on >>>Parliament as against say a *38 year old Donald Trump* seeking his
third term as President.
So I'll see your King Andrew, and raise you President for Life
Donald Trump.
Where are you getting "President for Life"? Much as he'd clearly like
to be, he can't. At least not legally; if he did find some way to
circumvent the constitution, then he would stop being president and
become a dictator.
He would still be a powerful head of state nevertheless
Whereas our head of state, by way of contrast, has no real power at
all. Something the republicans tend to overlook. And whether
that might change, following the inauguration of President Blair
* He might not have turned out to be such an insufferable prick hadSome people are born pricks; some have to work at it; some are born
he actually succeeded to the trone; and found himself with more to
do.
that way and continue to work at it anyway.
Possibly if you yourself had been surrounded by sycophantic
dickheads, ever since the day you'd been born, you might think
somewhat differently.
bb
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 10:57:36 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:5krtpkpho457bg21ll507vsoupo7hildit@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 21:09:24 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:veqrpkp868hl6o1jgcs2i7b9hs7d8db60a@4ax.com...
It bogles my mind that a modern society aspiring to meritocracy still >>>>> lets its head of country be selected by birth. Whatever offences he >>>>> may or may not have committed, it's clear that he is an insufferable >>>>> prick who would have been king except for the good luck of his brother >>>>> not suffering a fatal accident or terminal illness when younger.
I must admit that when I first read that paragraph, encompassing the >>>>prospect of Andrew as King, all my arguments in favour of a >>>>consitutional monarch looked like flyiong straight out of the
window.
However.
You charcterise the UK asa aspiring to meritocracy
So which particular merits should any State look for in a constitional >>>>head of state, with no real powers at all ?
Number one that they are selected by the people they are going to
represent.
Number two that there is a readily available process for dumping them
if they turn out to be unsatisfactory.
Number 3 that their tenure is time-limited.
But the point is that the opinion of the public on most things is >>notoriously fickle.
If we ignore that fickleness and allow them to elect a Government that
will implement legislation, take their money from them and affect
their lives in many ways, why should we use it a reason not to let
them choose their largely non-functional head of state?
At one stage, if the opinion polls were to be believed, people would
quite happily have had Princess Diana as President; in open
defiance of Charles and the Establishment
And then a few weeks later, they'd have changed their minds and
chosen Elton John instead.
That is simply no way to appoint a Head of State.
When what is required above all else, is a sense of permanence
and stability.
What are the actual functions of such a head of state such that
certain qualities are actually needed ?
Their primary function in the UK is to present the best possible image
of the "best of British" to the British people and the world at large.
There is no longer any "best of British". That all went out of the
window with the decline of British manufacture, aircraft, shipbuilding
etc.
All we have left is tradition and history.
And a monarchy which by means of some creative genealogy encompasses the >>likes of Henry VIII; who everyone knows executed at least some of his >>wives; and George III who as every American knows who's seen the film
was Mad a lot of the time. Then Edward VII with his mistresses who was >>among the most popular monarchs ever; and then Edward VIII who gave
up the throne to marry the women he loved. This is the "tradition
which everyone already knows about; made up of real human beings
and which Andrew would have been part of,
And had he been King it's likely his and Queen Fergie's money worries >>wouldn't have been have quite so great. Possibly. Fergie could
have charged more for access, for starters
Thank you for showing so many examples of what is wrong with inherited monarchy.
Added to which, peculiar to the UK, they become head of the
predominant religious organisation in the country irrespective of how
unfitted they are for that position or whether they even subscribe to
the religious beliefs of the religious organisation.
This is a head of state with no real power remember.
One such quality surely is legitimacy.
And human nature being what it is, heredity confers a legitimacy
on individuals, that no mere human appointment can.
Another such quality surely, linked to the first is tradition.
Along with continuity.
This being a head of state don't forget, who by tradition has no
real power at all. And whose very existence in terms fo day to
day living expenses, is wholly dependant on Parliament.
So we have legitimacy, tradition, continuity, and dependance on >>>>Parliament as against say a *38 year old Donald Trump* seeking his >>>>third term as President.
So I'll see your King Andrew, and raise you President for Life
Donald Trump.
Where are you getting "President for Life"? Much as he'd clearly like
to be, he can't. At least not legally; if he did find some way to
circumvent the constitution, then he would stop being president and
become a dictator.
He would still be a powerful head of state nevertheless
Whereas our head of state, by way of contrast, has no real power at
all. Something the republicans tend to overlook. And whether
that might change, following the inauguration of President Blair
* He might not have turned out to be such an insufferable prick hadSome people are born pricks; some have to work at it; some are born
he actually succeeded to the trone; and found himself with more to
do.
that way and continue to work at it anyway.
Possibly if you yourself had been surrounded by sycophantic
dickheads, ever since the day you'd been born, you might think
somewhat differently.
bb
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 24:12:07 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
12 files (21,036K bytes) |
| Messages: | 195,978 |