Former Prince Andrew has just been arrested in Norfolk

We are discussing the protection officers here who usually sign the OSA but they are allowed authorised disclosure which they’ll have in these circumstances

Maremia

All these failing attempts to stop us chatting about whatever we want, within GN rules

Exactly. You can’t discuss with people who ave already decided the outcome. Especially when Tuliptree dismisses anything she doesn’t agree with as silly.

Oh Molly you’ve cut me to the quick. I really only dismiss things as silly that are, well you know, silly.

Tuliptree 17.24: "The Metropolitan Police says it is asking Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's protection officers what "they saw or heard" during their period of service
In a statement, it says it is requesting any information as part of an ongoing review into the Epstein files"
Galaxy: "That may be problematic as some if not all would have signed the official secrets act".

The Police and Crown/Royal employees are both restricted to unauthorised disclosures of sensitive information. If police are asking for information regarding a royal/Crown employer, it is likely to pertain to allegations of illegal activity or serious security breaches. There is a balance between potential criminal liability under the OSA and co-operation with law enforcement. For Crown/RF servants/employees it is only an offence to share sensitive or confidential information if the disclosure is deemed to be "damaging" to the national interest or falls under the specific categories like security/intelligence.

Disclosure to the police for the purpose of investigating a crime or breach of security is generally considered to be in the "proper lawful purpose" or "official duty" to disclose category.

The King also went on record yesterday that the Law must take its course and the RF/Crown WILL fully cooperate with the police and their enquiries.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Can they get round the Official Secrets Act by questioning 'in camera'?

Silvershadow

Gordon Brown has given a five page summary to all the police about what he knows. Gordon Brown for heavens sake. He’d be unlikely to put his head above the parapet unnecessarily surely.

I think Gordon Brown is an honourable man. I’m glad that he came forward as soon as the opportunity to say what he knew was available. I expect David Cameron will do the same, as Andrew was removed from the Ambassador role while he was PM he will know things too I imagine. Who would be PM.

We could be anyone StoneofDestiny.

Lemonjam thank you for full background. It’s quite right and proper that this is happening and is a further step imo in sending a message to the public

Maremia

Can they get round the Official Secrets Act by questioning 'in camera'?

See Lemonjam’s post. They font have to ‘get round it’ it’s allowed for in the legislation - as it should be. But A wouks never have known that

It wasn't me who talked about the official secrets act lemonjam .
I agree Casdon about GB , I said elsewhere ( possibly even on this thread I have lost track) that his wife has always been a strong advocate of women's rights, I imagine they are both appalled.

Maremia

We could be anyone StoneofDestiny

Indeed we can

Silvershadow

Gordon Brown has given a five page summary to all the police about what he knows. Gordon Brown for heavens sake. He’d be unlikely to put his head above the parapet unnecessarily surely.

Is Gordon Brown after Mandelson ? I thought that he was. GB managed the 2008 financial crisis and was outraged, I thought , that Mandelson was busy overseas somehow undermining that.

There is HUGE public interest in this arrest and investigation- not previously known in modern times for such serious RF allegations/potential criminal activity.

Another clear reason to support the view that said employees would have a "duty to disclose" what they know and they explicitly have the on record support of King Charles- who clearly understands the public needs to be assured that his brother AMW's investigation follows full and due legal process..

I am sorry if this has already been mentioned, but i see they are saying Mandelson pushed for andrew to be trade envoy, despite the then Prince of Wales expressing concerns.

David49

Tuliptree

Iam64

No wonder it took so long to prosecute the men involved in organised child sexual exploitation here is it. David appears not to understand trafficked people can’t give consent.

And he’s not the only one - both in GN and within the CJ system

Epstein was convicted of trafficking if you have evidence that AMW was involved then let's have it now, or stop making unsubstantiated allegations.

We have plenty of sex trafficking in the UK, the police know pretty much who responsible, it would be easy to stop if we had vigilantes to dispense justice, the same goes for the drug trade.

Well, you must have different standards for drug dealers and sex traffickers than you do for men like AMW. You’d be happy to send vigilantes in to ‘dispense justice’ with no investigative or judicial process.

With Epstein ‘s victims, especially it seems Virginia Guiffre you expect enough evidence to satisfy a criminal court. So far as I’m aware, no criminal police investigation into AMW /Epstein/trafficked women or girls has yet taken place, so there’s no point in you trying to shut down discussion David

I should add, the focus here is the alleged misconduct in public office. It’s more likely clear evidence on that can be found. Investigating organised abuse of children and adults is notoriously difficult

Galaxy 18.03- I apologise, I've just checked and it was not you it was GrannyGravy. I need an eye test 🥱🥱

Iam64
I expect David49 will answer himself but it shows how we all read a post differently at times.I understand it to be that we shouldn’t rush to judgement or be as vigilantes in either AMW case or drugs or any other if we didn’t bother about laws and due process in one case why should we in any?

Oreo

Iam64
I expect David49 will answer himself but it shows how we all read a post differently at times.I understand it to be that we shouldn’t rush to judgement or be as vigilantes in either AMW case or drugs or any other if we didn’t bother about laws and due process in one case why should we in any?

Oh for goodness sake - NOONE on here is being a vigilante or not bothering about the law.

I think there will be evidence of the misconduct especially as AMW was sacked from that role.It’s whether there’s enough to actually charge him with.Without us seeing all the emails and being in a position to interpret them legally we can’t know.
Why was he sacked, for ineptitude, lassitude in the job or actually it being known that he gave away secrets/knowledge?

Oreo

I think there will be evidence of the misconduct especially as AMW was sacked from that role.It’s whether there’s enough to actually charge him with.Without us seeing all the emails and being in a position to interpret them legally we can’t know.
Why was he sacked, for ineptitude, lassitude in the job or actually it being known that he gave away secrets/knowledge?

Probably all of the above

Am not so sure about that Tuliptree as you seem to have made your mind up already.

Thanks for the clarification about the Official Secrets Act.

Minds may be changed, when other plausible versions are offered.
Minds are never changed by attempts to close down the narrative.