Prince Andrew

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Pinno718

Pinno718

Guru
If I am correct, Andy was arrested for alleged misconduct, Not alleged sexual allegations. Or is that simply the police being polite? Does this mean that they have been questioning him about passing over classified info. or are they looking at other things?
If pandy Andy get's formerly charged over divulging classified info., does that necessarily open a lid on allegations of anything sexually related?
 
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Pharaoh
Pinno718 said:
If I am correct, Andy was arrested for alleged misconduct, Not alleged sexual allegations. Or is that simply the police being polite? Does this mean that they have been questioning him about passing over classified info. or are they looking at other things?
If pandy Andy get's formerly charged over divulging classified info., does that necessarily open a lid on allegations of anything sexually related?
Click to expand...

I assume because it's an easier charge to prove, without trawling through the Epstein sex trafficking stuff - rather like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.
 
First Aspect

First Aspect

Guru
Pinno718 said:
If I am correct, Andy was arrested for alleged misconduct, Not alleged sexual allegations. Or is that simply the police being polite? Does this mean that they have been questioning him about passing over classified info. or are they looking at other things?
If pandy Andy get's formerly charged over divulging classified info., does that necessarily open a lid on allegations of anything sexually related?
Click to expand...
It is just about the release of confidential information, not about his trouser snake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
Psamathe

Psamathe

Guru
briantrumpet said:
Haha.

https://bsky.app/profile/eddieburfi.bsky.social/post/3mfdc3almmc2w
Click to expand...
midlandsgrimpeur said:
I watched this a few years back and I believe it is the same guy. Well worth a watch to give a clear insight into Andrew (although perhaps we already knew!)


View: https://youtu.be/WY-Jk3Ubs4U?si=D6lxwdDZUITWURGU
Click to expand...

The trouble with individual stories is you don't always know if there are other motives involved eg in the 1st video post below the video "And this is coming from Andrew’s former protection officer who was jailed for six years for defrauding colleagues, friends and others out of life savings, redundancy cash and retirement money in a £3m investment scam.". Gets difficult to know who is telling reality and/or if those accounts are coloured by additional motives. I have no idea.

I do feel inclined to believe the stories as I also remember completely separate stories about how Mr former Prince as an adult would throw a tantrum if his teddy bears were not correctly organised. But source and verification become important to me where I have a bias to believe because the acounts fit my personal views.
 
Psamathe

Psamathe

Guru
Re: Royal Protection Officers
Now it seems these enquiries into former Prince are checking with his former protection officers I wonder which way things might go. If Andrew was as unpopular as some suggest then they might be they'd be more inclined to "tell all" holding nothing back, no gloss on anything. But at the same time, sounds like their duty was to act as Police Officers not to cover up any wrongdoing so telling of wrongdoing might also be in effect admitting they failed in their duty as Police Officers.
 
Pblakeney

Pblakeney

Legendary Member
Psamathe said:
Re: Royal Protection Officers
Now it seems these enquiries into former Prince are checking with his former protection officers I wonder which way things might go. If Andrew was as unpopular as some suggest then they might be they'd be more inclined to "tell all" holding nothing back, no gloss on anything. But at the same time, sounds like their duty was to act as Police Officers not to cover up any wrongdoing so telling of wrongdoing might also be in effect admitting they failed in their duty as Police Officers.
Click to expand...

It's a strange one though as they are to protect the ex-prince and also to uphold the law.
Difficult to do when the ex-prince is breaking the law as fulfilling one or the other is a dereliction of duty.
 
BoldonLad

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
There seems to be an assumption that the Protection Officers did not indulge in any behaviour which would reflect badly on themselves?, not a view relating to the Met which is frequently held.
 
Psamathe

Psamathe

Guru
Pblakeney said:
It's a strange one though as they are to protect the ex-prince and also to uphold the law.
Difficult to do when the ex-prince is breaking the law as fulfilling one or the other is a dereliction of duty.
Click to expand...
Thinking in a abstract way (ie not suggesting such things ever happened or didn't happen) not the job of a Royal Protection Officer to check the age of a tenage girl their ward was getting friendly with. Their role to check she didn't represent a physical threat to him. ... but then does a "danger" include a danger to his reputation or a danger of breaking laws of geographic jurisdiction?
 
M

midlandsgrimpeur

Well-Known Member
Psamathe said:
The trouble with individual stories is you don't always know if there are other motives involved eg in the 1st video post below the video "And this is coming from Andrew’s former protection officer who was jailed for six years for defrauding colleagues, friends and others out of life savings, redundancy cash and retirement money in a £3m investment scam.". Gets difficult to know who is telling reality and/or if those accounts are coloured by additional motives. I have no idea.

I do feel inclined to believe the stories as I also remember completely separate stories about how Mr former Prince as an adult would throw a tantrum if his teddy bears were not correctly organised. But source and verification become important to me where I have a bias to believe because the acounts fit my personal views.
Click to expand...

Fair point, and yes I was aware of his criminal convictions. Like you, I would be inclined to believe what he says regarding Andrew, particularly the general context of him being a fairly horrendous human being.
 
Last edited:
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Pharaoh
midlandsgrimpeur said:
Fair point, and yes I was aware of his criminal convictions. Like you, I would be inclined to believe what he says regarding Andrew, particularly the general context of him being a fairly horrendous human being.
Click to expand...

Can't help feeling that it would be more honest of these interviewers to mention that at the beginning - it could easily be part of the contract ("In the pursuit of openness, we will ask you about your conviction for fraud and whether it has influenced your views").
 
M

midlandsgrimpeur

Well-Known Member
briantrumpet said:
Can't help feeling that it would be more honest of these interviewers to mention that at the beginning - it could easily be part of the contract ("In the pursuit of openness, we will ask you about your conviction for fraud and whether it has influenced your views").
Click to expand...

To be fair, it is unusual for Ladbible interviews. They have a lot of interesting interviewees and usually go into more depth about their past. I am not saying this to justify it, but I suspect that as his crimes were not directly connected to Andrew, they felt that not disclosing them was therefore not an issue. Agree though that it does obviously speak to character and reliability more generally, and is relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom