Summary
Police say King Charles’s brother is in custody and officers are carrying out searches at addresses in Berkshire and Norfolk - read the police statement in full

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The nonce formerly known as prince facing justice? Wow. I’m looking out of the window right now waiting for the pigs to fly by.

    • Kraiden@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      there’s something clever in there, I can feel it… something something the difference between a nonce and a prince is PR… i…

      needs work

  • thehatfox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    As a British person that’s something I thought I’d never see.

    Arrested on his birthday too.

    • Nighed@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The late queen’s protection of him was a blemish on her record. I’m happy the king has cut him loose to face consequences… I wonder if they asked him before the arrest…

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s not exactly the same as not asking for permission. They could have asked, but not told him when or how. I would assume they didn’t, based on the wording, but there is some room where they could have still.

        • arrow74@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s an interesting development then. Nothing stopping the king from issuing a pardon

          • Depress_Mode@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Charles also said something like “the law must take its course” in reaction to the news, so I think he might just let it play out

            • greygore@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              On June 6, ABC News’ David Muir asked Joe Biden, “Have you ruled out a pardon for your son?” Biden responded, “Yes.”

              A week later, Biden reiterated to reporters during an international summit that “I will not pardon him,” nor commute his sentence, a lesser action that would have reduced Hunter Biden’s sentence but not lifted his conviction.

              (source)

              Not saying Charles will do an about face like Biden, nor will I say that he’s not just throwing Andrew under the bus to avoid additional fallout, but let’s see what he does if/when Andrew faces real consequences.

              • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yeah, sucks that Biden had to do that. But he clearly saw how trump was going to weaponise the doj. They were already reneging on the plea deal that Biden jr had made.

            • fiat_lux@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Where are you hearing that? The charge is misconduct in public office, and while the initial arrest for it has been made based on sharing documents, the penalty itself can have a maximum of life in prison. Life in prison won’t happen, but given they’ve now searched 4 properties, I don’t think he’s getting away with just a fine either.

            • arrow74@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              It’s the continual back and forth they’ve had for the last several centuries.

              They don’t want to lose more power or come off as weak, but they also don’t want to wield too much power and be removed.

              • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yeah. I think throwing his brother under the bus would probably earn the king a whole lot of goodwill with the public, whereas pardoning him would outrage people.

                Though not much came of Jimmy Saville, but Andrew’s not dead

            • arrow74@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              No the King has that power. It is exercised today under the guidance of other officials, but the King can still use the power without reccomendation.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_of_mercy

              It is crazy how much power the UK monarchs still have. They choose not to exercise it often, but the option remains.

              So I dove into the law a bit more and the King must follow the ministers reccomendation when asked to pardon, but there is no indication that the King is limited on his ability to use this mechanism.

              However parliment can the check it if they so choose.

              Feel free to correct me though, it’s complicated text and I may be mistaken

              • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                The convention is that the royal family don’t use these powers unilaterally. There’s an unspoken agreement here that they get to keep their palaces and fancy lifestyle on the understanding that they keep out of politics and legal issues so while Charlie could in theory do something like this, he also knows that if he did, it would pretty much signal the end of the monarchy in the UK.

      • 3abas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        And what a record it was! Empire’s torture, internment and state killings, racist borders and racist policing, catastrophic wars sold on certainty they didn’t have, colonialism and ethnic cleansing and genocides, a little bit of family racism drama as a cherry on top, and a strong propaganda machine to sell her as a sweet old woman without much power and to ensure people still defend her and worship her.

        Her record was too tarnished to blemish.

      • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        As a one of her foreign subjects. May I say god save the Queen, because nothing will save the Governor General.

        Fuck the queen, fuck the monarchy.

    • BrightCandle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Got to have a couple of examples of the rich and powerful going away for their crimes so the plebs don’t realise how stacked against them the system really is.

    • fiat_lux@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m not British but I’m also very surprised. I can’t help but wonder if they would have dared had he still had his title?

      on his birthday too The cops took the phrase “the icing on the cake” literally, and I think it was an excellent choice.

      • gnutrino@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I can’t help but wonder if they would have dared had he still had his title?

        I would assume that the king and other interested parties will have known this was coming for a while and that is why he lost his title.

        • fiat_lux@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Maybe, I’m not so sure. I had thought they knew it was very likely the accusations were true, but they spent a lot of time sidestepping action. If public criticism hadn’t been so relentless, they might have been content to sweep it under the rug, as is tradition.

          But I have never kept close track of the royal family, largely because I always assumed they were untouchable.

          • gnutrino@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            they spent a lot of time sidestepping action

            That’s sort of my point though, they spent years protecting him and then suddenly a few months ago something made them turn on a dime and strip him of his titles very rapidly. I suspect that “something” was being told the police had enough evidence to arrest him.

            • hector@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              I wonder if the one that defected with his wife to california had something to do with all of this too, and not just snobbery to his new wife.

            • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Someone asked Ernest Hemingway how he lost all his money.

              “Gradually, then all at once.”

              Same situation. One person says something and it’s dismissed. Ten people say it and it becomes gossip fodder. A hundred people say it and it becomes an open secret. A million people say it and he gets arrested.

        • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Charles has always hated and envied Andrew. He removed him from Royal duties as soon as he had the power to do so.

            • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Charles has a complex that his parents never loved him, and merely bred him to be Sovereign. It’s why he still refuses to move in to Buckingham Palace. Andrew was unquestionably Elizabeth’s favourite child, with his frequent failures and bankruptcies excused and waved away.

              • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                You do not know these people. This is knitting circle talk. Charles removed Andrew because of Epstein and other local infractions, as well as knowledge of him sharing state secrets.

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Blame Queen Elizabeth. She was more interested in preserving the monarchy than Andrew’s victims. There has to be a better way to promote tourism.

  • Kraiden@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    over the alleged sharing of confidential material by the former prince with late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein

    Really? Not because he’s a sex offender himself maybe? I’m happy to see an arrest, but fucking really!?

    • ClownStatue@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Unfortunately, I fear most of the fallout from this will be that we “know” what some people did, but few will actually be held legally responsible. There’s the bar of proof that satisfies the public (the “sniff test?”), and what’s required for a conviction in court. In the end, any punishment is better than none. One up side could be that, because of what the public “knows” happened, those that are punished will hopefully be unlikely to see any lenience in sentencing. Not hopeful after seeing Maxwell’s treatment, but early days.

    • fiat_lux@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      They probably have to start small, it’s unprecedented territory, and they’d want the proper charges to stick. I expect this also opens up the door to evidence gathering for the bigger charges.

    • hector@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      We can hope Mandelson is next, he shared information with Epstein too if I recall.

      They never go down for their worst crimes. Usually they are guilty of horrible things, killing people with greed and knowing lies, but get taken down with sex scandals. So when it’s an actual sex scandal I’m not surprised it’s some other thing.

      I think because other connected people don’t want to be implicated, so they make sure the person is convicted on something unrelated and use their influence to keep the charges off the larger issue perhaps. Never more true than with this case, they are all implicated. Who is they? Every swell in the US and UK apparently. Just presume anyone in the US that went to the ivy league and was in a private club hung out with epstein. (Private clubs started after civil rights triumphed, when they had to start taking in deserving poor and minorities, they started the clubs to differentiate between the aristocracy that almost exclusively runs our business and government, and the dirty charity cases.)

    • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      There has been a significant development in that case, so that’s what they’re investigating.

    • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Across the pond, whenever they’d get a big Mafia don, usually it wasn’t because of all the bodies in the river wearing concrete shoes. Usually, it was due to unpaid taxes or some white-collar bullshit. I guess they take what they can get?

    • determinist@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      CPS generally charges what they can reasonably prove.

      *and since he’s high profile I expect (hope) they aren’t going to fuck it up. get him for something like this, maybe it opens the doors to further charges. Anyway, living in hope.

    • dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That was probably the best angle to start an in-depth investigation into his dealings with Epstein. Evidence that comes to light during that investigation can still be used for additional charges.

      • Kraiden@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Max sentence is life imprisonment, so I guess I shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth, but it would still be nice to call a spade a spade… and other idioms

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Might be a matter of what they can prove definitively. Better to hit him with a charge they know will stick than one that he has a chance to wiggle out from.

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because even in the Epstein files most people aren’t saying “ay Jeff, cheers for the fifteen year-old lasses we all shagged, see you next time,” but they are saying “here are the minutes of the cabinet meeting/this is what the prime minister thinks about regulating your company/this is the most he’s willing to give you a tax break for” in emails because that stuff had to be communicated somehow.

      We can all see that Andrew probably committed some sex crimes. But being a suspicious creepy fucker, being accused, and having a photo of you crouching over a girl would not be enough evidence to get you or me charged with a crime either. The counterweight to “nobody is above the law” is “nobody shall be convicted except on the evidence.”

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes, sadly, this will be about selling state secrets, not pedophilia. Of course, Trump did the same thing out of Maralago.

        • FishFace@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s sad that all too often there is insufficient evidence to charge people with sexual crimes, but he’s being charged with a very serious crime for which there apparently is sufficient evidence. It’s no competition, but betraying your country causes small amounts of harm to millions of people, which is not less important than causing extreme harm to a small number of people.

  • ageedizzle@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Assuming he hasn’t destroyed the evidence, this could potentially lead to more arrests once police search his laptop and read his texts messages and emails.

      • ageedizzle@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes. But it will be interesting to see if anyone else is implicated once they examine Andrew’s online accounts

      • andallthat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        A rich, white, pedophile! Arrested. Have they no respect? What will they do next… tax them?

        • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          They’re not going after him for Pedophilia.

          Apparently as per the rationale of some very pro-Royal British newspapers, the police doesn’t have the resources to properly investigate and prosecute him for Pedophilia, even though according to the news just the other day they arrest 1000 people a year for that very crime.

          • andallthat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yes, I’ve read. I hope it’s one those “Al Capone arrested for Tax Evasion” things where they just went for the one that was easier to prove. But my joke was on other rich, white, alleged pedophiles with ties to Epstein and the weird fact that people keep bringing those things up when the DOW is over 50000

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Well, fair play to the current royal house. Prince Charles (he’ll always be a prince to me) upholds the liberal values and accountability since his grandfather’s time.

  • myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    There is more happening on a global level from the findings in the Epstein files then there is in the US. The US just gets tweets and soundbites on the news. The US is a joke.

    • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Especially when the US justice system nailed Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein with fewer adult(?) victims.

    • MunkyNutts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Sadly, as I understood from a report I saw this morning, it’s not in connection to his pedophilia but to sending highly sensitive gov docs to Epstein which may have been used for financial gain.

      • greygore@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        And they arrested and imprisoned Al Capone for tax evasion. The important part is they arrested him, and secondly that it was for something related to Epstein. Hopefully the ensuing investigation will cause more details to be revealed and a wider reckoning to occur, but either way, he’s no longer free.

        • MunkyNutts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m hopeful, Al wasn’t as well connected as Andrew, and seeing how the US has pursued it, I hope the UK does better.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          In the UK there’s quite the tradition of using the Justice System to merelly whitewash the crimes of the Aristocracy, so better wait until the trial is over before one starts celebrating this.

  • hector@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Hang the childfuckers high! As per law with due process obviously, and yes I know they don’t have the death penalty which I do not support generally because we can’t trust authorities to get the right people let alone to decide who should be executed.

    Still though, send this guy to like a penal colony on some island north of scotland or something, building sea bird habitat on bread and water rations.