Boris Johnson Must Waive Any Claim of Immunity for Prince Andrew 235

Contrary to the Establishment line, Prince Andrew does not automatically have diplomatic immunity for statutory rape charges in the USA: and if he does, the UK Government can waive it.

Any British diplomat facing investigation for under-age sex in the USA would, beyond doubt, instantly have their immunity waived by the UK government. There is no reason why Prince Andrew should be different.

That is even if he has diplomatic immunity in the first place. The children of a Head of State do not have immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It is generally accepted that they do often enjoy such immunity, but this is not contained in any international treaty and most experts in public international law do not even think it reaches the bar of customary international law, rather reaching the lower standard of comity – what states usually do in friendly co-operation. Comity can be argued in an international court, but it is the weakest form of international law below treaty law and customary law. Comity in this case boils down to no more than the notion that Donald Trump would not want Andrew in the dock in Florida, because he would want Ivanka to be protected from ending up in the dock in London.

A UN Commission considered this subject:

128. The doctrine reflects the various viewpoints. It is noted in Oppenheim’s International Law that a comparison of the status of members of the family of a Head of State with the position of the family of a diplomatic agent indicates that members of the family of a Head of State forming part of his household enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of the host State. The fact that members of the family of a Head of State and Head of Government are protected by immunity is also acknowledged by P. Gully-Hart. In the view of A. Watts, the immediate family of a Head of State may enjoy immunity, but on the basis of comity and not of international law. This view is endorsed by S. Sucharitkul. The view that, if the members of the family of a Head of State are also granted immunity, it is on the basis only of international comity and not of international law was supported in the resolution of the Institute of International Law.

Even then, it is universally agreed that children of a Head of State would only be covered by immunity if they were part of the head of state’s household. Now it is important to note that the word “household” here, in international law, does not necessarily have the same precise application as it does in UK domestic political parlance. In the UK, Prince Andrew is part of the “Royal Household”, which is why he troughs a massive £280,000 a year for doing very little. But in international law the provision is much more likely to be interpreted in the common meaning, as in dependent family living together in a single home. Dependent children might include adult students but does not stretch to 60 year old millionaires.

The USA of course has a habit of ignoring international law when it so wishes under the doctrine of “exceptionalism”. However it would need British agreement not to claim diplomatic immunity for extradition proceedings in the UK to go ahead. It is sickening that Julian Assange is in a maximum security prison awaiting extradition for publishing the truth, while Prince Andrew is in some mansion having his feet massaged.

There is a further argument that Prince Andrew had immunity while on his visits to Epstein because of his status as “International Trade Ambassador” for the UK. That is a possible argument, although just like immunity for children of the Head of State, the situation on temporary visiting envoys is not firmly established by treaty. There is a UN Convention on Special Missions, but only about 30 countries ever ratified it, and neither the UK nor USA has ever done so. If Andrew was in the USA in that capacity, and if the State Department had received a formal Diplomatic Note indicating he was visiting on official business, customary international law would tend to support the view he had a claim to immunity. This quote from the German Federal Supreme Court is given in a very interesting paper on the subject in the European Journal of International Law:

irrespective of the [UN Special Missions Convention], there is a customary rule of international law based on State practice and opinio juris which makes it possible for an ad hoc envoy, who has been charged with a special political mission by the sending State, to be granted immunity by individual agreement with the host State for that mission and its associated status, and therefore for such envoys to be placed on a par with the members of the permanent missions of State protected by international treaty law.

However, it is not plain that on all occasions when he partied with Epstein, Andrew was in the States on an official basis, and even if he was, the UK government can still waive his immunity. The media are attempting to fix in our minds the idea that his immunity is immutable and nothing can be done. Far from it. It is conferred by the sending government and agreed by the receiving government. The sending government can simply waive or revoke it at will. This is frequently done.

All of this might be entirely academic because of the extraordinary inaction of the FBI on the case. It beggars belief that Ghislaine Maxwell has not yet been arrested or interviewed about the overwhelming evidence of her role as a procuress or pimp. It further beggars belief there has been no interview under caution of Prince Andrew in either the United States or the UK. The problem is, of course, that any number of very powerful people are going to be implicated in any serious investigation. In particular, the Clintons still have an astonishing amount of influence over senior staff of the FBI.

Only the power of public outrage is ever going to force any action, and this will be difficult to mobilise and focus; doubtless the mainstream media will shortly seek to close the matter down. But we can do a little to push things forward by insisting on a declaration from Boris Johnson that Prince Andrew’s bogus claim to diplomatic immunity will be denied or waived.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

235 thoughts on “Boris Johnson Must Waive Any Claim of Immunity for Prince Andrew

1 2 3
  • giyane

    Projecting our imaginations into the establishment’s private lives is voyeuristic.
    Of course the law applies to them and for far too long they have felt themselves to be untouchable which has exacerbated the problem.

    In Saudi Arabia where spying , fear of repression and a lack of humanity in the law terrorise the population , drug and alcohol consumption is high and marriages last only a few years. The queen’s son’s have not been able to avoid the tyranny of Royalty. Nor have they thrived psychologically under its tyranny.

    But we should be scared of the political vacuum that the destruction of our monarchy would leave. Trump declaring illegal settlements in Palestine legal is a timely reminder of what would fill the power vacuum left by the dissolution of the monarchy.

    Andrew should resign his royalty and claim asylum from their tyranny in the real world.
    Public schools , royalty and right wing dodgy politics should all be banned. 12/12/2019 is the day to change the UK.

    • Mary

      Senior Twitter exec (Gordon Macmillan) is a member of the 77th Brigade.

      Our Man on the Inside: Senior Twitter Executive Exposed as British Army Information Warrior

      Advise have nothing to do with Twitter or Facebook. Both toxic.

      Lady Nicola Mendelsohn, wife of Lord Jonathan Mendelsohn, sees nothing wrong in hosting political advertising on Facebook where she is vice president of Facebook’s MENA ops, and objects to any censorship of it. Lucrative for Facebook I assume.

      Her husband is a big cheese in Labour and elsewhere. Cleggover also works for Zuckerberg in California.

      ‘He (Lord Jonathan Mendelsohn) donated money to Peter Hain’s 2007 deputy leadership campaign. Mendelsohn is on the board of directors of the New Labour pressure group Progress, According to The Daily Telegraph, “Mr Mendelsohn is steeped in the north London Jewish community”, and is a trustee of the UK charities the Holocaust Educational Trust and the UK arm of the New Israel Fund. He is a former chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, of the Finchley United Synagogue, and the Union of Jewish Students.’ Wikipedia.

      Commentary from an American who works for Facebook on political advertising.

      • N_

        Gordon Macmillan has been Twitter’s Head of Editorial for Europe, the Middle East and Africa since July 2016. (Source.) That’s an interesting date. What was he doing immediately before he took that post? I have confirmed that he was at Twitter, a company he officially joined in 2013 according to his LinkedIn account. The reason I ask is that the EU referendum took place on 23 June 2016. This 77th Brigader wasn’t involved in Twitter editorial for Britain, was he, by any chance?

  • Rachel Sagar

    It’s my belief that she has been disappeared by Mossad for whom she and Epstein worked, luring ‘important’ people into situations where they could be blackmailed. There’s plenty of evidence that her father worked for Mossad. She clearly thought she was immune to prosecution and had probably been offered safety, but she may have been ‘made safe’ the same way Epstein was.

    • Pyewacket

      I think you’re right Rachel that MOSSAD have been involved, but maybe in two ways. A smart place in Eilat, with Sea views and luxury, as reward for her valuable services for the State, or as you state, totally silenced, a bit like Yulia.

    • giyane

      Rachel Sagar

      Andrew may well have been drugged to facilitate rape and being caught on film.
      Drugs are extremely common now, but accessible only to the very rich then.
      Mossad blackmailing the queen might be an explanation for the mystery of why she swore Trump II into No 10 along with his ultra Zionist cabinet.

      Unlike both Craig and Mary I don’t vitriolically hate the roysls. I do believe that the Church of England preaches falsehood and needs to be abolished. By taking Jesus as a living God they demote God to a lonely old out of touch fogey who knows nothing. From this absurd position they deduce that nobody is watching their crimes. E.g. Libya Iraq Syria Palestine.

      Mossad believes only in an old fogey God whom they despise.

          • giyane

            Never tried them or tried to buy them. The first time i realised they were easy to buy was when they managed to hospitalise my son and my nephew. If Andrew was off his head on Mossad supplied drugs. can he claim he can’t recall doing things even if photos said he did?

          • SA

            There are far simpler explanations to why he had selective amnesia, like the rush of Adrenalin that also led to his anhidrosis.

      • Phill

        “Drugs are extremely common now, but accessible only to the very rich then.”

        Yes, all those drug problems that only seem to affect rich people whilst poor communites have no problems with drugs whatsoever because they can’t get them! What a dumb statement.

        “Andrew may well have been drugged to facilitate rape and being caught on film.”

        He doesn’t need to have been drugged to behave like that. He’s known as “Randy Andy” for a reason.

        • giyane


          Dumb statement indeed. I don’t get my highs from substances. My grandfather died of alcohol and fags at an early age so i never met him or his miserable priveleged world.
          Are we now at a stage where I have to apologise for not knowing about drugs?
          What a dumb world!.

        • giyane


          Epstein was an international arms dealer and Prince Andrew was trying to be one.
          Presumably Epstein’s underage girls were there for the arms deals customers and whatever other inducements like posh villas as well.

          The British establishment is utterly misguided if it decided that it could manage the fall-out from Andrew’s involvement with such a dodgy customer through the royal connections.
          What has happened now is extreme hypocrisy in which the powers that be have never apologised for Andrew selling UK made arms via Epstein to unscrupulous people who like shagging teenagers. But because Epstein has now fallen foul of the law, they;re trying to connect Andrew with the girls who were lined up for the punters who buy arms.

          Do we seriously think the son of the monarch was allowed by his minders to cross that line?
          I do think Epstein was capable of crossing that line for him by way of a photo set up, but I don’t believe Andrew would have been allowed to cross that line by those who look after the Queen.

          What nicknames people get given are sometimes in jest. I’ve worked with a man nicknamed Killer Ken who is the softest most generous human spirit alive. Because it’s Royals, everybody wants to jump on the guy. Especially the feminists and jilted ex-ambassadors who once hobnobbed with the Queen. His main crime is choosing to be an arms dealer which kills people.
          Arms sellers mix with arms buyers. Bad decision. Bad karma. Who was he trying to please?
          The establishment, who are now having fun pulling him off his pedestal. Bastards one and all.

    • Redsheepothefamily96

      Rachel, this is of course a distinct possibility; however I read elsewhere that she has disappeared to Brazil along with another cohort. Thus she effectively avoids any possible extradition to the U.S.

  • Mary

    Meanwhile the Queen’s granddaughter is in hock to a Hong Kong Chinese millionaire so that she can keep her gee gees in the style to which they have become accustomed. And P Andrew’s greedy wife is at the same trough.

    Zara Tindall and Sarah Ferguson’s lucrative ‘secret deals’ with Hong Kong tycoon
    A company owned by little-known entrepreneur Dr Johnny Hon has been paying hundreds of thousands of pounds to members of the royal family, an investigation has found

    Abolish the monarchy and get rid of these hangers on.

  • Republicofscotland

    So Boris Johnson has said that he’ll never debate Nicola Sturgeon, and therefore the voices of the Scottish electorate will never be heard as long as we remain in the union.

    • Hatuey

      So far, so good. Now what? Ask even more nicely?

      There’s no root to independence through their rigged system. They’ll only play by the rules if they know you’ll lose. Now they think you might win, they refuse to play by the rules.

      There’s zero chance of a referendum next year. I expect Sturgeon to stand down by the spring and I suspect that’s why she is insisting a referendum will go ahead next year — if she’s stepping down, she doesn’t need to worry about failing (again).

      I asked her to stand down 2 years ago on this blog. She should have.

      The only thing that’s motivating sensible people to vote SNP today is the desire to stop other parties winning. Sensible people know the SNP is incapable of delivering independence as its currently structured.

      The hope now is that Brexit and the post-Brexit apocalypse is so cataclysmic that Scottish people take matters into their own hands. It probably will be and I’ve more confidence in that than anything Sturgeon says. If the SNP wasn’t in the way, I think this process would be well underway by now.

      • Republicofscotland

        “There’s no root to independence through their rigged system. They’ll only play by the rules if they know you’ll lose. Now they think you might win, they refuse to play by the rules.”

        I’m not so sure this time, Sturgeon has committed herself to holding one next year. However as we all know both Johnson and Corbyn have said no, and we should then be off to the courts.

        Still I can’t help thinking that its just posturing from Johnson and Corbyn, and that saying no to a nation which should return more independence leaning MP’s with a independence leaning government already in power in Scotland, would be a massive snub not only to the people of Scotland but democracy itself.

      • glenn_uk

        H: “I asked her to stand down 2 years ago on this blog. She should have.

        Gosh, maybe she didn’t get your message!

  • Tarla

    Firstly, the sweating due to the Falklands – he never saw the Falklands. And there are plenty of photos of him sweating since the Falklands war. He says, he only goes out in shirt and tie in London – obviously not true, again plenty of photos.

    The Pizza Express episode – ‘it was a birthday party’. 1) whose birthday party on 10 March. It wouldn’t be his daughter as her birthday is on 24 March. An ‘early’ birthday party maybe, but two weeks early. Really? So whose birthday party? Surely the parent(s) would come forward to collaborate such a story – even anonymously. The time of the party on Saturday 10 March. When was it? Even if it was in the evening, he still had plenty of time to get his daughter back and go out. Did both his child attend the pizza party, as he said he was ‘the one who’s turn it was to look after the children’? They have a nanny so if the two children didn’t go then who was looking after the other one?

    Is the prince telling the world that neither he nor his wife ever went out when it was their turn to look after the kids? There will be plenty of photos of them partying separately. And he still had time to come back from the pizza party and go out to Maxwell’s house and then partying at Tramps. There are more holes in his story than in a sieve. He’s been caught out bang to rights and should be brought in by ‘our trusted’ MET and answer questions about what the sex trafficking of young females. The FBI will be forced to interview the prince as this story will run and run in the US.

    • Doghouse

      His turn to look after the children! LOL. Choked on my coffee!! Did he really say that – like the pair of them took it in daily turns to ‘look after the children? That’s one of the most unbelievable things this benevolent humanitarian, ptsd’d war heroe, nspcc’d benefactor defender of children, unsweating, non-cock-happy, selfless, honourable, conscientious devout parent and all round bloody nice humanitarian guy said.

      It would have taken the pair of them a month of sundays to find the fleet of nannies let alone the kids in that sprawling palace which he sold at nigh twice the market value after it stood rotting and unwanted for years before being picked up at the opposite of a bargain by some business contact or other.

      Now if he had said he didn’t know where the children where or what they even looked like as he hadn’t seen them since the post birth hospital departure photo op I’d have found that more believable! Best laugh in yonks.

    • Borncynical

      What I want to know is if the US requests Prince Andrew’s extradition will he be banged up in Belmarsh … well he’d have more opportunity of doing ‘a runner’ than Julian Assange ever would. 🙂

      • Doghouse

        BC, the real pie in the sky question if he were ever to find himself in the same position as Epstein – banged up instead of banging, would be………
        “But who’s going to look after the kids?” I still can’t get over that one. That really, really does show the contempt he feels for the average person, the stupidity and gullibility he demonstrably believes they possess. Which is of course, nothing more than a reflection of himself.

    • intp1

      I think you will find and I remember his being stationed on a Navy ship lying off the Falklands during the conflict and made sorties in and around the Falklands, even evacuating people off other stricken ships that were attacked by the Argentines.

      • Doghouse

        intp1 – ah at last, someone with first hand knowledge. You were there weren’t you? You speak as though you were.
        Or is that just something you read in the press or heard on the news almost 4 decades ago , automatically believed without question and were so impressed you still recall it as fact all these years later?
        And even if it were true – and I seriously, seriously doubt they would put the second in line to the throne into full on full time front line action – what has that to do with this total nonsense about recalling almost two decades on that it was his day to babysit?

        • intp1

          Look, I am not Royal-lover nor a casual tin foil hat merchant but yes, that is what they said then, that was the official story. I think it is up to doubters to provide some kind of evidence, if only circumstantial this was not the case beyond ¨I dont think they would have done that¨.
          I remember there was a bit of fuss about it. I could imagine they might have thought it was much worse PR to not let him go. He was assigned to that ship before during and after the Falklands. If he was not present in the mess, not on the rosters, never sent out, it would be extremely embarrassing to have somebody prove it wasn´t so at a later date. I have never heard any rumours to the contrary until now by you so I think he was, in all likelihood there and being sent out on missions. You are entitled to your suspicions but back it up with something or you are speculating wildly. You are right it has almost nothing to with today so why bring up the possibility that it was lie. I personally think the non-sweating syndrome is the most dubious concept in this defense.

          • intp1

            Now you got me started-
            I believe this is at Port Stanley –
            i see another one titled . PRINCE ANDREW IN THE FALKLANDS: 1982 – Image ID: G4XKB5
            And – Falklands Prince Andrew & pilots – Image ID: G4WK3P
            He got off the ship when they came back see – Royalty – Prince Andrew – Falklands – Image ID: G5ECYK – Google it
            The URLs are very long.

            In a book (Scram!: The Gripping First-hand Account of the Helicopter War in the Falklands) by a serving Falklands War helicopter pilot Harry Benson, he writes the following –
            ¨The article states that HRH Prince Andrew, piloting a Sea King, was the first to take off survivors. This is not correct. The first aircraft to rescue survivors, including an RAF engineer who had ended up in the sea after the Atlantic Conveyor was hit by Exocets, was a Royal Navy Wessex V of 845 Commando Squadron, call sign YD, that was piloted by Lieutenant Kim Slowe RN. The air crewman was a Royal Marine Corporal, Ian Tyrell RM. A Sea King from HMS Invincible, piloted by HRH Prince Andrew, picked up the survivors that were not able to fit into the Wessex V.

            Pretty specific documentation by someone who was there?

      • Michael

        I never saw any footage of Andrew in the Falklands and only remember seeing footage of him up until the fleet reached the Ascension Island. That’s where I think he got off. His “service” in the Falklands Conflict I just do not believe.

  • nevermind

    Q: lookl Boris you know about hanky panky and keeping quiet about all your kids, how about helping me to help you. I don’t mind if you shut down parliament to oust debate, but you will have to help poor Andrew with his little peccadillo abroad, won’t you?
    B: off course I will.

  • nevermind

    Anybody who wants to know about proud father Boris and his fatherly qualities in this election will be deeply disappointed, these questions are off the menue as its deemed personal and none of our business.
    Meanwhile his peccadilloes with Ms. Arcuri are fair dinkum to be raked over. The relations with his children to which he does not seem to have any parental rights, is not in question as he squats his tight self into small chairs at primary schools up and down the country, pretending he cares about your children.
    The man is a fraud, inconsistent,. a liar with an emotional bypass,imho.
    I will be boycotting any TV event that does not include the SNP,Lib Dems and the Greens, not because I support them, but because Britain’s vague idea of establishment democracy UEBER ALLES seemingly does not want to be bothered having to talk about a climate emergency, fatherhood and or why the WTO is disfunct.

    • Doghouse

      And my second good giggle of the morning thanks to that poll. In the political demographic breakdown, the highest percentage of believers were Lib/Dem voters. I’m off for a lie down…..

    • glenn_uk

      All the gutter-press are against PA on this, particularly the Sun, Mail and so on. If they were rallying around him, I daresay over half the public would think PA is marvelous and these women lying whores.

      Don’t credit the Great British Public with too much – their opinions are largely fed to them.

      • Vivian O'Blivion

        There is a good degree of truth in what you say. Only 2% of those polled in Scotland believe in randy Andy’s account.

      • Doghouse

        True enough GlennUK, but that doesn’t diminish it any. I get the image of him after the interview saying to himself “well, that went pretty well”. Then, tipped to the poll, eagerly awaiting confirmation of his delusion.

  • CasualObserver

    Stage magicians usually employ female assistants dressed provocatively to distract attention from the hands of the magician.

    So, stop and think for a moment, what is the Andrew thing distracting us from ?

    Maybe the mushroom like sprouting of theories helps to conceal the parlous state of UK politics in the run up to a fairly important election ? 🙂

    • Dungroanin

      It is both and more.

      It is an attempt to seal the testimonies of scores of others. Leaving just this one unprovable one. Which allows all the real big shites to escape – it is the Clinton protection scam. Do we really believe Hillary was over to the 51st State to pump her daughters book and campaign for grand office in 24?

  • Carl

    It would be nice to see the Queen’s favourite son clasped to the tender bosom of the US penal system. But under the prevailing order that’s as likely as justice ever being visited upon the architects of the GFC or the world-historical crimes in Iraq, Libya, etc.
    Sadly this aged ‘playboy’ will continue to bestride the earth like a colossus while degenerate subversives like Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning rot out of sight and mind. It is an order that sorely needs changing for this and a multitude of other reasons.

  • TonyT12

    Big news evolving re. Arron Banks.
    It appears Arron Banks’ Twitter DM has been hacked and Carole Cadwalladr of the Guardian is on the case.
    #arronbanksleaks on Twitter.
    This promises to be big.

    • OnlyHalfALooney

      #northernmonkeys That will go down well with northern voters won’t it? Ha ha!! Couldn’t be better!

  • Chris

    Sorry it’s off topic:
    BBC reports that Sweden has dropped investigation into Julian Assange.
    They’re still saying “rape allegations”, of course.
    One American poodle has done as it was told and can now drop its extradition nonsense and go back to the kennel.
    Another American poodle is on the real extradition case.

    • OnlyHalfALooney

      Not really off topic if you compare how the BBC treats the very serious accusations against Andrew (involvement with sex trafficking, statutory rape, etc.) and how the BBC consistently misrepresents the trumped-up allegations against Assange.

        • pretzelattack

          lol “statute of limitations” is an even lamer excuse. there was never solid evidence in the first place. i haven’t seen any evidence that they used that anyway, are you just making it up?

          • Martinned

            We will never know, because the Swedish prosecutors (understandably) had no desire to expend resources investigating offences that they would never be able to prosecute. So the announcement today only concerns the most serious potential charges, for which the limitation period had not yet expired, but which would have been the most difficult to prove.

          • pretzelattack

            so you just made it up, and now you’re coming up with yet another excuse for the lack of evidence, they didn’t want to “expend resources”. all they had to do is assure assange they wouldn’t extradite him and he would have given them all the interviews they wanted. it was a trumped up case from the start, and now they can get him to the u.s. another way, so the swedish lapdogs stand down and wait for their treats, tails wagging.

          • Martinned

            And what is it about Julian Assange absconding from justice that gave you the impression that he might waive the limitations defense?

            (By the way, I’m not sure that limitation periods can be waived in other jurisdictions. IIRC from undergrad, part of the point of a limitations period is the overall interests of justice in making sure that prosecutions are based on sound evidence, rather than the hazy recollections of witnesses about events that are years or even decades in the past. In that case, waiving the statute of limitations might not be possible.)

          • pretzelattack

            you said above you had no idea if the statute of limitation even applied to this case, now you’re speculating again on the basis of no evidence.

    • Martinned

      So rape allegations should only be described as rape allegations if they’re against someone you don’t like? Just out of curiosity, what would you have the BBC call them the rest of the time?

    • Jack

      The swedes dropped it since they didnt play any useful part any longer for a US extradition. That is the job UK will do.
      Generally, it is a shameful display how whistleblowers are treated in the west. Made-up lies of rape for 7 years! Meanwhile same media whine about China and Iran for HongKong or Iranian protests!

      • Martinned

        After all those blog posts on this blog, I still don’t understand how adding a Swedish charge makes extraditing Assange to the US easier rather than harder. For any combination of A, B, C, etc., extraditing person A from country B to country C is easier if their extradition isn’t simultaneously sought by country D, particularly if country D can rely on a European Arrest Warrant while country C cannot.

        • Jack


          US needed a nation to extradite him, until he was charged in the UK no state but Sweden had the power to extradite him.

  • Dungroanin

    Boris gets to have his say on the issue tonight in his first debate. As will Corbyn no doubt.

    Is there any high ground on this?

    We will certainly see if the Tory gambit changes their demise trajectory.

    We had the single issue ‘Brexit’ election in 2017; following the Brexit referendum in 2016; which itself followed the 2015 election where the referendum was a manifesto item.

    We all know the addage of fooling people, we also know we only normally get to vote only every 4-5 years on the menu that we are offered and the shineyness of the contestants. I for one am ecstatic to be allowed to vote every year now. We should make it compulsory!

    Thre collective mentality KNOWS we have already given our vote on the Brexit election – B means B! Strong & Stable etc. was the alpha and omega of the last campaign – and we voted to take away the majority that would have let them do whatever they wanted (a HARD brexit).

    Thus a hard Brexit was avoided in March and October. In an effort to try and snatch that victory from the jaws of defeat (soft/no brexit) the desperate gambit to regain a majority before xmas and immediately move to use it to attain the goal by 31st January is their only hope.

    They will say anything, copy anything … and have their mini ‘winnie’ attempt to win with his bulldog manner where May failed with her schoolmarm charm.

    But they have disregard for the fact that all of the people can’t be fooled all of the time!

    We had our fill of brexit elections sandwiching the brexit referendum – we don’t want the same menu again!
    We want a change menu – like we were promised in 79 and 97, so in 19.

    The tory strategy to revisit the same question is in my opinion lethal for their cause and their party. In fact I think an unprecedented event is likely – traditional Tory voters will vote Labour in significant numbers.

    Because they too refuse to be fooled once again with the same choice! When IDS loses Churchill & Tebbits seat it will be seismic for them. If the seating PM also loses his pants, it will be biblically cataclysmic for the Tories.

    And running handy Andy as a distraction from the election weekend when Labour had stolen a march with broadband for all, is set to backfire.

    • CasualObserver

      Oh Dear, Not that they did it back in the day, but I’d imagine a Boris vs Jeremy debate would be very similar to a Winston vs Clem debate, with one side spouting cliches and the other looking forward rather than backward.

      We can but hope that the Labour crowd have studied Boris’ less than stellar debate performances, maybe in the way pugilists study their opponents before a title match 🙂

  • Vronsky

    “There is no reason why Prince Andrew should be different.”

    For fuck’s sake. Were you really born yesterday?

  • Ali

    There should be a deluge of complaints to the BBC on their complicity in this – a prince granted one hour to rubbish his accuser with only a tame interviewer and vetted questions to provide soft serves that allow him to cover what he wants to say. Maitland didn’t even need to be present other than to give the impression of actual discussion.

    • Mary

      It’s a waste of time complaining. ‘BBC Complaints’ go to C(r)apita’s giant sized grey shed in Darlington for squelching.

      They also operate the BBC Licence Fee setup.

  • rwendland

    Craig, I agree with your analysis of general diplomatic status above. But from a U.S. bureaucratic perspective, wouldn’t what mattered most be the type of U.S. visa that was in Andrew’s passport, and whether he declared he was using it on entry to the U.S.?

    Almost certainly he had a class A-1 (diplomats etc) or A-2 (government officials) visa on a page in his passport due to his Trade Envoy or royal family status. And if he was recorded using a properly issued A-1 or A-2 visa on entry he cannot be prosecuted or subpoenaed as a witness due to rules most probably enshrined in U.S. law (to make sure States similarly apply the rules). If it was a personal visit, he shouldn’t invoke his A-1 or A-2 visa, but I doubt the U.S. government would want to pursue such a line of argument – though maybe a court could be forced to.

    • rwendland

      … of course the above only applies for past visits. Any A-1/A-2 visa could be rescinded for a future visit to explain his actions, along with a UK decision to waive immunity.

  • Martinned

    Yes, I wouldn’t have thought that Prince Andrew automatically has immunity – any kind – either here or in the US, nor should he. He’s not a Head of State, nor anything similar to the Head of State.

  • glenn_uk

    CM: ” It is sickening that Julian Assange is in a maximum security prison awaiting extradition for publishing the truth, while Prince Andrew is in some mansion having his feet massaged.

    Assange certainly cannot be charged with anything else now, that pretence is over – the Swedes are finally dropping charges against him:

    “The evidence is not strong enough to form the basis of an indictment,” the country’s deputy director of public prosecutions said.

  • Sam

    It’s a bit hypocritical to judge the Duke of York by different standards than you did your friends Alex Salmond and Assange regarding allegations of sexual crimes. Whatever happened to presumption of innocence in this case?

    • Doghouse

      Difference between Salmond / Assange and the not so grand old duke of york is that two out of those three will have been involved in Court proceedings. But the grand old duke, not just son of a monarch, but second son of the most prominent royal on the planet, Queen of not simply a country but an entire commonwealth, well, he’s not going to have his rights read to him and will likely continue to have a lot more than his feet massaged.

      The public are therefore left to do the job refused by the police and judiciary themselves, and, form a decision on what evidence and pathetic excuses they have by employing inference and common sense. Not that much different from a jury really who although advised against it do exactly that as much of the evidence is often excluded from them.

      With the result of that poll, appears the verdict 19 – 1, is in.

  • Hatuey

    I’ve seen a few people dismiss the Epstein and Andrew stuff as a mere distraction, a ruse designed to take our attention elsewhere whilst something more important and meaningful unfolds. This is wrong and stems from an underestimation of the royal family’s importance and role in UK politics, society, and even the economy.

    As Craig has pointed out on here, the Royal Household has been somewhat on manoeuvres this year. The decision to give assent to Boris as PM, and his government, wasn’t the simple rubber stamp people assume it was. It was a controversial decision and we must assume one made by someone that was pro-Boris and pro-Brexit.

    The decision to prorogue Parliament, again, was a political decision. There’s no way anyone was misled on that — it was an unconstitutional ploy to shut down dissenting voices who might get in the way of Brexit. The Supreme Court ruling put that issue beyond debate but let’s not naively give the Queen any benefit of the doubt on this — she and her advisors knew exactly what was going on.

    Similarly, the Panama papers put the Queen squarely in the frame as someone who was caught red handed using offshore banking facilities. You don’t unwittingly invest millions offshore. Was it a simple way of avoiding tax? I thought the Queen was exempt from tax anyway. Was it an investment in something unsavoury? We don’t know. And we don’t know what we don’t know — were/are there other investments?

    There are those who convincingly argue that Brexit is primarily aimed at protecting Britain’s offshore banking interests. Britain is globally dominant when it comes to offshore banking and has over 40% of the multi-billion dollar market. And it’s a market that’s growing, along with corruption, fraud, tax evasion, and all sorts of other crimes.

    And now we have the prince up to his eyeballs in what appears to be a global conspiracy to traffic women and children. In the U.K. this is being described as a simple trafficking issue but in the US, Australia, and elsewhere, they are much more up front in giving emphasis to the plight of the many victims who were children.

    This isn’t a ruse or red herring. These are extremely serious and sinister matters. And be in no doubt, the crown is one of the most actively conservative institutions in Britain, a bastion and monument to aristocratic privilege and entitlement. And it’s in tatters. It couldn’t be more discredited. The foundational basis upon which they define themselves as superior and lord over us is crumbling before your eyes.

    • Republicofscotland

      The Royals have always been working in the background trying to influence political decisions.

      From the Queen setting up a body to help hide her huge wealth from the public to Prince Charles and the Black Spider memos, to King George V negotiating tax exemption in 1910 to King George VI (The currents Queen father) not paying any income tax throughout the 1930’s, of course this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    • SA

      Interesting. Andrew made a very clear point that it was entirely his decision and his responsibility. The deduction is that he was forced to do this and distance himself from the firm to protect it.

      • Hatuey

        But he hasn’t distanced himself, he’s still on the payroll.

        I believe the reasoning behind the interview was preemptive. It’s a certainty that this subject is going to explode in the US courts at some point. There’s a very good chance the FBI will want to talk to Andrew too. And despite Epstein’s absence, I think those who were victims are going to press for justice vis a vis those, like Andrew, who procured the services of Epstein.

        I think we are going to be reading and talking about this a lot over the next few years. And I suspect many of us are going to be left shocked at the nature and scale of the Epstein stuff when those victims start to talk.

  • Mary

    Epstein guards charged with falsifying records.

    Huddersfield university students want to chuck out P Andrew as Chancellor. ‘Not a role model for students.’ ‘Lacking integrity’. Etc

    BBC website.

    The Buck House brand is bust.

  • Mary

    Some humorous tweets contained within #arronbanksleaks
    There is even one linking back to Pizza Express Woking. Cadwalladr is on it too.

    • Republicofscotland

      Just in Ronnie Biggs and Kray twin acquitted posthumously of any wrong doing. New evidence shows all three were at Pizza Express in Woking when any crimes aimed at them were committed. ?

    • Phill

      Cadwalladr is a joke. She implied Farage was responsible for Wiileaks Vault 7 release because, according to her, the vault 7 data was released “just minutes after” Farage left the Ecuadorian embassy. When in reality, the vault 7 stuff was released 2 days BEFORE Farage visited Assange. Also, the leak was months in the planning (including discussions with the CIA about stuff Wikileaks wouldn’t release due to matters of national security). And then there’s the Integrity Initiative stuff. Don’t believe a single word she writes.

  • bevin

    Something that might be worth thinking about is the coincidence that a thread of comments about Prince Andrew, and what someone calls charges of “serious sex crimes”, is interrupted to return to the story of Julian Assange and the clearly, I am sure that we are agreed, ‘sex crime’ smears employed to manouevre him into jail. And possibly the United States of imprisonment and injustice.
    I hold no brief for Andrew but I cannot but notice that the charges against him-charges on which the great majority appear to have found him guilty- are not noticeably more substantial than those against Julian.
    My own view is that we should reject all such smears and particularly where, as is the position in both these cases, the journalistic lynch mobs howling hatred at the men involved are led by the mainstream media in the UK and USA.
    Like freedom of speech the freedom to engage in consensual sexual relations with young women has to be for everybody. And when we take these freedoms from our enemies we can hardly expect them to be preserved for our friends.
    Incidentally Roman Polanski has just produced or directed a new movie about the Dreyfus Affair- many will, no doubt, be angry about this and wish that Polanski were in solitary confinement for life somewhere. Not me.

  • Mary

    The latest episode of Going Underground includes an appearance by Norman Baker who discusses his new book with Afshin Rattansi – ‘And What do You Do?’ about the Royal family.

    It begins with an interview with a Palestinian negotiator and about the latest Israeli attacks on Gaza.

    ‘Going Underground 18 November 2019
    We speak to senior Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath about the recent violence between Gaza and Israel and the deaths caused by Israeli strikes.

    Shaath discusses the targeting of Islamic Jihad facilities, why Palestine cannot be the aggressor as it is occupied, allegations the Palestinian leadership are weak in resistance, and why Israeli strikes are murder and cold-blooded assassination.

    Next, we speak to the former minister of state at the Home Office Norman Baker about his new book ‘…And What Do You Do?’ which shows a side of the Royal Family that the hit Netflix series The Crown would rather not show, including Nazi leanings in the Royal family and much more! ‘

    • Hatuey

      I like Norman baker. His book on the mysterious death of David Kelly is a good read. Thanks for this but as far as the diabolical crimes against Palestinians are concerned, it seems that very few in the west are willing to listen to any reasoned or moral arguments. And, truth be told, there’s no debate — what israel has done there over the decades must be considered war crimes of the highest order.

  • Dungroanin

    I’m glad that my message on LaKeunsberg is finally getting traction. Keep digging. CM is doing on twitter. Journalists need a better school to learn their tradecraft.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.