Police Probe Andrew Over Sex Offences

Smileless2012

^innocent until proven guilty^ which no doubt we would want to be the case if he were a member of our family.

hear, hear

innocent until proven guilty which no doubt we would want to be the case if he were a member of our family.

The Police have not yet concluded their investigation- still appealing for witnesses and evidence. Thus the police have not yet made a case to put to the CPS for a decision whether to bring a case to trial (i.e. must have a realistic prospect of success).

No court case- no guilty verdict yet made. In the eyes of UK law AMBW is innocent until proven guilty.

nanna8

If Andrew had been a ‘commoner ‘ ( ghastly description ) no doubt he would be in jail not just for the young women he abused but for the lying and cheating and sharing of confidential information with potential enemies.

I doubt it, and anyway it may still happen, as the police are still making investigations. Many allegations about AMW have been made, but the police and prosecution service need hard evidence to prosecute, not just hearsay.

This kind of reaction is what leads to accusations against perfectly innocent people, like the ex police offier erroneously named as being involved in the Nowak case. She had to leave her home and family and go into hiding from the threats of death to her and her family.

MawsRosie

Who are the we in this post?

Today, in conjunction with the Daily Mail, we are launching a campaign for greater royal transparency, not least when it comes to money etc

Norman Baker former MP and author Andrew Lownie historian and author.

My above post was reply to nanna8

You are totally aware I know , you are totally aware I lied ?

Who are the we in this post?

Today, in conjunction with the Daily Mail, we are launching a campaign for greater royal transparency, not least when it comes to money etc

The women that he was with that Epstein trafficked to him. But I am totally sure you are aware of that.

Abused women , who are these woman nanna8 ?

Only if he or any other person had been tried in court and found guilty nanna. 'Innocent until proven guilty' may be unpalatable to some but it's how the law works.

If Andrew had been a ‘commoner ‘ ( ghastly description ) no doubt he would be in jail not just for the young women he abused but for the lying and cheating and sharing of confidential information with potential enemies.

It may well be of interest- so have started a new post....

Well the post was about reforms of the monarchy AMW is a royal and there is mention of him too. Thought this might be of interest to anti and pro royals, if they think these reforms are good are needed, to help the monarchy survive.

Samwam

Yes people have made their own minds up wether pro or anti monarchy. I am just posting what reforms are needed for the monarchy written by those know better than most.

I agree with Casdon - posters are able to make their own minds up whether pro or anti monarchy. They are also able to find out what reforms various republicans and anti monarchists propose. Such proposed reforms don't need to be laid out in detail on a post about Police investigations of AMBW.

A separate post you may feel is merited?

The only royals who should be supported are the King, the Queen and the heir to the throne and his immediate family. The remainder of them should find their own way in life like the rest of us. So you have Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and their children only.

Yes people have made their own minds up wether pro or anti monarchy. I am just posting what reforms are needed for the monarchy written by those know better than most.

Do you think the mature, experienced and worldly wise people on this site are unaware of the views of Republicans, and have not made their own minds up what they think already, whether they are pro or anti the monarchy Samwam?

Norman Baker and Andrew Lownie write about monarchy the reforms needed.

Reforms which are long overdue and make the monarchy fit for purpose for the 21st century. Today, in conjunction with the Daily Mail, we are launching a campaign for greater royal transparency, not least when it comes to money.

We believe that, together, Buckingham Palace and the Government must enact a series of measures which would help regain the trust and respect of the British people.

Measures

Remove the ban on questions in Parliament

First, there must be proper parliamentary accountability, with members of both Houses of Parliament being allowed to ask questions about the monarchy and scrutinise public expenditure on the royals.

Replace the Sovereign Grant with a new “Royal Duties Grant”

We believe the bloated Sovereign Grant should be replaced with a new Royal Duties Grant voted upon annually by MPs. This would return us to the position that existed between 1760 and 2011.

Fold the Duchies into the Crown Estate

The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster should be subsumed into the Crown Estate, which – despite the name – has been wholly owned by the British public for more than two centuries. (In return, the taxpayer agrees to fund some of the monarchy’s costs.)

Run on ruthlessly commercial lines, the Duchy of Lancaster produced more than £27million for King Charles in the last reported year; the Duchy of Cornwall earned almost £24million for Prince William. The Duchies should no longer be exempt from capital gains and corporation taxes, as they are at present.

Full PAC inquiry into royal finances

Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee should commence a full and detailed investigation into all aspects of royal finances, not least the rents paid for Crown properties such as Royal Lodge, formerly occupied by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. After an initial multi-million-pound investment, he had lived there virtually rent-free.

Commercial rents for Crown Estate properties

A full list of ‘grace and favour’ properties presently controlled by the Royal Family should be made available. Commercial rents should be applied and the money paid to the Crown Estate.

Make royal wills public

We believe that royal wills should be open to public inspection. We would like to see a royal register – just like the parliamentary register – in which business interests are declared. This is hardly a new suggestion, by the way: it was first proposed in Parliament more than 20 years ago.

Remove royal exemptions from FOI

The Royal Family’s freedom from complying with the FOI Act should be removed, leaving only the exemptions that apply to the rest of the population. Thousands of files relating to the Royal Family – some going back to the Victorian period and most completely innocuous – remain closed for no good reason.
All those going back beyond 20 years should now be made accessible, subject to the usual exemptions that apply to public records.

Inventorise the royal archives

We also want the Royal Archives to publish an inventory of the material it holds – a small step, you might think. The same applies to the Royal Collection Trust, to be renamed the National Collections Trust, which should publish a full inventory of the treasures it holds in two lists: one clearly showing what it keeps on behalf of the Crown and one detailing what is held privately for the King.

Fully open Buckingham Palace

Buckingham Palace and its extensive gardens should be fully opened as a public museum. All proceeds from entry tickets to this and other royal properties should go to the Treasury.

Investigate AMW’s time as a trade envoy

Finally, we believe that much, much more should be disclosed about the activities of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. How was he allowed to spend a decade as trade envoy running up huge costs at public expense? Such a scandal must never happen again.

All the files relating to him from the Foreign Office and Department for Business and Trade should be released immediately to help us understand who he met on these trips, who accompanied him, and why.

We need a parliamentary inquiry into Andrew’s time as trade envoy, including evidence from former foreign secretaries, from the heads of the former UK Trade & Industry department which employed him, and from ambassadors to the countries that he visited, including Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. They should be summoned to give evidence on oath.

This is all very good and what republic have been campaigning for too. I would prefer an elected head of state to replace the monarchy.

If AMW is ever charged, then we will get a chance to 'see' the evidence.
Have a feeling that they will go for the misconduct in public office, instead of the Epstein issues.
Probably easier to prove.

I think everyone has their blind spot, even women whose life as generally exemplary, like our late ueen.

I can see also see that when private and public life are so closely interwoven, the decisions are hard to make.

But these problems are not particular to our royal family. Look at Scotland in recent years. Political and managerial leadership of the ruling party lay with one married couple and we are being asked to believe that someone considered able and gifted enough to run the government of a country at an exceedingly difficult time,

As a deluge of expensive coffee makers, other expensive devices, £80,000 cars etc etc came to the house did she really never have a single ualm of unease. I mean her DH (at the time) need not be embezzling money, he could just as easily have been running up huge credit card debts, or remortgaging the house with forged documents.

The leader of Scotland did exactly what the Royal Family did, she obstructed enuiry, sidelined those who asked uestions. and made sure her DH was protected from everything.

That is perfectly fine and right how a mother would feel I agree, however the Queen was our Head of State paid handsomely for that public role.
She wanted AMW to be a trade envoy, although Charles had misgivings. The palace was told about his many misdeeds, giving away government secrets to friends business associates, doing exactly what he liked having massages and prostitutes all paid for by the public purse.
The top diplomats warning palace about AMW were sent away with a flea in their ear or demoted.
There has been a cover up by the Palace about AMW the question has to be asked. What did they know? Accountability and transparency.

Fair comment MOnica.

I think the ueen was like any mother who is always protective of the child who is struggling most, whether that is for good or ill.

Andrew is clearly less intelligent than his siblings and socially inept, easily beguiled by presents, gifts and flattery, and rude and arrogant to those he considers below him.

Despite AMW's courage in the Falklands War and his enjoyment of his naval career, I do not think the navy reciprocated those feelings. He was not popular with fellow officers and ratings and had to be discretely supported in all his roles by officers working with him. He left the navy when he did because promoting him further was out of the uestion for reasons of ability and character.

I can understand why AMW was a constant worry for his mother, who did all she could to try and find a role for him that would occupy him and keep him at least adjacent to the straight and narrow. She was his mother.

I am sure there are members of GN who have a wayward child who they worry about constantly and try to do all they can to help, even at the expense of their siblings. the ueen was no different.

Lownie's book must be a best seller as it is now available in paperback in the local supermarket.