Scrutable

Gfamily wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 10:34 am On his birthday as well
His good news for the day, is that he starts to get his state pension from today.

I doubt he's ever paid a penny in NI. If so, his hopes of a state pension withered and died long ago.

dyqik wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 11:59 am

Grumble wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 10:57 am

Tessa K wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 10:23 am He has been arrested on suspicion of 'misconduct in public office' - divulging secrets, not paedophilia

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c70kjr9wjw0t

AFAIK the sexual allegations against him in this country involved girls over 16, which wouldn’t be illegal however distasteful. The age in the US is 18 I think? (Though child marriage is legal in some states.) I don’t know if we have an offence about bringing people into the country. Anything that happened in the US wouldn’t be a matter for our police, unless they received an extradition request.

It'd be 18 in most (all?) states of the US for an over 18 partner. And Epstein's island is in the US Virgin Islands, I think? Which is a territory rather than a state.

"Misconduct in public office" could maybe include violating the laws of a country you are visiting on official business?

Was he always on official business on the island or just a party guest?

Lew Dolby wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 12:12 pm

Gfamily wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 10:34 am On his birthday as well
His good news for the day, is that he starts to get his state pension from today.

I doubt he's ever paid a penny in NI. If so, his hopes of a state pension withered and died long ago.

His Navy service would probably count; so his day's not completely ruined !

There's an Institute for Government guide to Misconduct in Government here.

I think we should keep the sweaty nonce on as a royal, just so that when trump dies, we can send him as the representative to the funeral.

noggins wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 3:40 pm I think we should keep the sweaty nonce on as a royal, just so that when trump dies, we can send him as the representative to the funeral.

He is the embodiment of royal values.

The first royal to be arrested since Charles I in 1647. That ended well.

Simon Jenkins has written something that I actually agree with, I think. I should probably read it again to make sure.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... le-new-era

snoozeofreason wrote: Thu Feb 19, 2026 3:30 pm There's an Institute for Government guide to Misconduct in Government here.

As DAG points out, misconduct in public office is an offence that only little people - and generally just junior police and prison officers - have ever been found guilty of. It is a catch-all offence used when more specific offences are unavailable for the conduct. It has been much spoken of in terms of the Post Office scandal, but there is yet no sight of any Post Office people being arrested or arraigned for it, nor any more specific offences.

There has apparently been much document shredding going on in recent weeks at the property in Berkshire, as the police referred to AMW's recent residence, that the police are searching at the moment. One suspects they won't find much of interest. Though competence is not his strong point, and he may have incompetently overlooked stuff that could have usefully shredded. And electronic records can be harder to destroy.

But I rather suspect this arrest is well-timed, or even stage-managed, to have a suitable look about it, certainly to the general public, and maybe to AMW himself. But then in due course, which might be several months or a couple of years, we will learn that due to lack of evidence there are no further proceedings.

IvanV wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 1:55 pm
As DAG points out, misconduct in public office is an offence that only little people - and generally just junior police and prison officers - have ever been found guilty of.

Quite - You'd think lying, for instance, would be misconduct, right? An Oxford Prof I follow on LinkedIn keeps suggesting Boris Johnson be prosecuted for Brexit based on misconduct in public office for the massive pack of lies he told. Yeah, right... good luck with that one.

I doubt any actually meaningful consequences will reach Andrew in his lifetime.

TopBadger wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 2:29 pm

IvanV wrote: Fri Feb 20, 2026 1:55 pm
As DAG points out, misconduct in public office is an offence that only little people - and generally just junior police and prison officers - have ever been found guilty of.

Quite - You'd think lying, for instance, would be misconduct, right?

I have no such preconception. Rather I perceive it is authoritarian regimes that crack down on "lying".

What is a lie? We are often mistaken. Or in error. Or confused. Or dogmatically committed to illogical or inconsistent doctrines. And then we tell knowing lies all the time, it is socially demanded of us. Then there is freedom of speech.

So, in a world of free speech, I think we have to distinguish between situations where some asserted fact is in some way certified as true, and where it is not. If there is no certification, then we must remain sceptical and check it for ourselves. When it is certified, then it is some form of misconduct if it turns out to be not true.

So I don't imagine that a politician telling "campaigning lies", voluntarily asserted, at the despatch box to persuade people of their (dubious) point of view, or to conceal their real reasons for supporting a particular policy, can possibly be misconduct. These are not certified facts, and we accept them at our peril. We deprecate that it was said, but rejoice in the freedom of speech that enabled it to be said.

It is, or should be, misconduct when an official asserts certain falsehoods as the basis for an official act. Those falsehoods have in effect been certified, by virtue of the official act being based on them. This is the basis on which the prosecutions of subpostmasters on the basis of known falsehoods have been asserted by observers to be misconduct in public office by the people in effect certifying those falsehoods as true fact.

When a minister is given an official question, concerning an objective fact, and either claims knowledge they have not got, or gives some clearly different information contradicting the briefing they have been given on that objective fact, then that is certainly wrong. And the specific offence is misleading the house, and probably a breach of the ministerial code. But a breach of the ministerial code is less than a parking fine these days.

Another royal scandal, this time in Norway. It's less of a big news story because the accused isn't in the line of succession but it's interesting to compare coverage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0e5r28y3xqo