Comment

Comment on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office

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

source

Sort:hotnew top

ohulancutash@feddit.uk ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
This is for misconduct in public office, not alleged sexual offences.

source
- HumanPenguin@feddit.uk ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Yep it’s about giving secret gov data to Epstein. So while the peado accusations will likely be investigated as a result. Based on motive gathering.
  
  ATM no new evidence of actual SA with minors has been shown in the files.
  
  Just pics of him kneeling over a fully clothed shortish female of indeterminate age.
  
  source
- Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  So far
  
  source
Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
From what I recall, they’d most likely have probably needed to ask The King for permission to do so, who would have handed him over.

source
- HumanPenguin@feddit.uk ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  The kings authority to refuse is not recognised.
  
  If the king or queen were to be accused. It is technically impossible. As our whole criminal justice system is based on the king Vs the defendent/accused.
  
  But that dose not apply to other royal family members.
  
  source
  - wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    If a king or past queen were to be accused. It is technically impossible. As our whole criminal justice system is based on the king Vs the defendent/accused.
    
    It’s not “The King vs…”. It’s “The Crown vs…”. It might seem a pedantic point, but the crown is a concept similar to “the state”, and distinct from any monarch.
    
    A case being “The Crown vs. HRH King Charles III” is perfectly feasible. The monarch being subject to law is a concept that goes back over 800 years.
    
    Other then the king. The only people fully free of the justice system. Are MPs when acting in parliament itself.
    
    They are not free of the whole justice system. They have limited parliamentary privileges mainly related to what they can say without consequences, but they couldn’t murder their opponents.
    
    source
  - Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    The trial done by Cromwell wasn’t really legal. And Cromwell isn’t really the best example of democracy. It was basically a coup. It’s also legal for MPs to disclose classified information in parliament.
    
    I think they probably would have asked the King or possibly the prime minister, especially because they entered his property to make the arrest. It would have been courtesy. Although the King stated a while ago he is co-operating, and even if he did say no, it would be an absolute PR disaster, so really he wouldn’t have had any choice… Like with most things as a consititional monarch.
    
    It’s just the idea he likely was asked by the Police and he handed his brother over.
    
    Although honestly I would have 100% done the same thing, whether I was a king or not.
    
    source
    HumanPenguin@feddit.uk ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    While Cromwell’s far from a great example of democracy.
    
    He is the example of parliament creating a law that made killing a king illegal. And the very creation of our current constitutional monarchy. His actions basically created most of the constitution changes the nation now works on.
    
    Hence why the example was made.
    
    You are correct in the fact that telling secrets in parliament is technically legal. It is worth noting that parliament has the power to enforce rules upon itself. Technically to the point made by Cromwell.
    
    IE in the event and MP was to announce secrets in parliament. Without gov approval and more so now it is televised. (This was not the case in my youth. When recording parliament was illegal for that very reason.)
    
    Parliament would technically be able to have the MP imprisoned. Although as of now parliament has no where to store them. It was the tower of London in the past.
    
    But yep it would have to be parliament that enforced such rules. And doing so would require a majority. Hence why bojo tried to close parliament and got prevented.
    
    source