Andrew arrested!

[clubchamp98]

I imagine that looking for documented evidence of misconduct in public office would require a search of all drawers, cupboards or anywhere where pieces of paper could be stored.
Bedside tables included.
Where exactly would the officers doing this search be told not to look?

If he has any sense he would have seen this coming and has had plenty of time to get rid of any evidence.

Whether he has the brains is another matter

 

[chico]

I think it's obvious that Andrew is not guilty of any wrongdoing. He just needs to find who he pays the £12 million pounds to prove his innocence.

 

[Tashyboy]

Sometimes things aren't straightforward. Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion. To me, the Americans are avoiding looking to hard into it knowing there will be many with money and power who will be caught.
Mandy will be charged at some time no doubt, but I would say the police are probably collecting evidence to be able to provide a solid charge and lead to a conviction.

This bit I find odd. I am sure the evidence is incriminating which is why he was removed from the ambassador’s role. For me the Crown acted a lot quicker stripping Andrew Mountbatten of his titles than the government did in stripping Mandleson of his.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Surely as a golfer, he must innocent..

 

[Tashyboy]

Surely as a golfer, he must innocent..

Would of been under CONGU, but not WHS

 

[PaulMdj]

This bit I find odd. I am sure the evidence is incriminating which is why he was removed from the ambassador’s role. For me the Crown acted a lot quicker stripping Andrew Mountbatten of his titles than the government did in stripping Mandleson of his.

Mate, they have to be careful these days that people don’t get away on technicalities etc, the info on Mandelson is relatively new when compared to how long Andrew had these allegations against him for over 12 years, Farage will have to answer questions soon as well.

Hopefully all those named in the Epstein Files will get done, regardless of stature, wealth, political allegiance etc. utter scum

 

[Billysboots]

Billy please excuse my ignorance.
If the police stumbled across something else which may indicate evidence of a different crime could they then follow this up?
If so (which I presume) they could how would they have to go about it?

Yes, as I said elsewhere they have a power to seize items related to other offences, if found, under S19 PACE. They won’t simply ignore other matters.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Surely as a golfer, he must innocent..

What till they find out he faked his handicap there’ll be uproar

Does remind me of something from years ago. There was a member at our old club (back in the 90s), regularly played in the same 4 ball as my dad in comps and he was quite high up in the fire service so was a well respected bloke, one week he failed to turn up to their tee time. Turns out he’d been arrested for inappropriately touching his step daughter over a number of years.

My dad and his regular group alienated him immediately distancing themselves from him. However, there were lot of members that defended him stating he couldn’t have done it because he was a well respected member of the club and wouldn’t risk that with his job, that the “silly girl “ must’ve made it up. Many even continued to play with him and defend him, then others came forward saying he’d done similar over a number of years so they soon changed their tune toward him.

I don’t actually know what happened to him in the end as he disappeared off the scene so can only assume he did get his comeuppance. But it’s amazing what people will try and defend in golf clubs and all walks of life when they think someone just isn’t like that. I won’t name the club in question as if you’re a member of where I think you are there will be several people there now that knew him or knew of him as it was in your local area it occurred.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Any stuff with Mandelson will be dealt with when they gather all the evidence

We have just been give snippets by the media with very little details behind them

They will act just as they did with Andrew when they have enough to go on

 

[Neilds]

What till they find out he faked his handicap there’ll be uproar

Does remind me of something from years ago. There was a member at our old club (back in the 90s), regularly played in the same 4 ball as my dad in comps and he was quite high up in the fire service so was a well respected bloke, one week he failed to turn up to their tee time. Turns out he’d been arrested for inappropriately touching his step daughter over a number of years.

My dad and his regular group alienated him immediately distancing themselves from him. However, there were lot of members that defended him stating he couldn’t have done it because he was a well respected member of the club and wouldn’t risk that with his job, that the “silly girl “ must’ve made it up. Many even continued to play with him and defend him, then others came forward saying he’d done similar over a number of years so they soon changed their tune toward him.

I don’t actually know what happened to him in the end as he disappeared off the scene so can only assume he did get his comeuppance. But it’s amazing what people will try and defend in golf clubs and all walks of life when they think someone just isn’t like that. I won’t name the club in question as if you’re a member of where I think you are there will be several people there now that knew him or knew of him as it was in your local area it occurred.

It's the same with all criminals. How many times are neighbours or work colleagues interviewed on TV and they come out with the classic "I'm really surprised, they didn't look like a robber/murderer/terrorist/whatever". Not sure what these people are meant to look like?

 

[PaulMdj]

What till they find out he faked his handicap there’ll be uproar

Does remind me of something from years ago. There was a member at our old club (back in the 90s), regularly played in the same 4 ball as my dad in comps and he was quite high up in the fire service so was a well respected bloke, one week he failed to turn up to their tee time. Turns out he’d been arrested for inappropriately touching his step daughter over a number of years.

My dad and his regular group alienated him immediately distancing themselves from him. However, there were lot of members that defended him stating he couldn’t have done it because he was a well respected member of the club and wouldn’t risk that with his job, that the “silly girl “ must’ve made it up. Many even continued to play with him and defend him, then others came forward saying he’d done similar over a number of years so they soon changed their tune toward him.

I don’t actually know what happened to him in the end as he disappeared off the scene so can only assume he did get his comeuppance. But it’s amazing what people will try and defend in golf clubs and all walks of life when they think someone just isn’t like that. I won’t name the club in question as if you’re a member of where I think you are there will be several people there now that knew him or knew of him as it was in your local area it occurred.

Saville went to his death bed never convicted of anything, yet after his death there were over 200 allegations against him.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

This bit I find odd. I am sure the evidence is incriminating which is why he was removed from the ambassador’s role. For me the Crown acted a lot quicker stripping Andrew Mountbatten of his titles than the government did in stripping Mandleson of his.

This might be a tad controversial, but why do you assume the Crown has only just found out about his actions?
I would suggest Mandy has been stripped of everything and will probably face the courts probably sooner than AMW

 

[D-S]

Mate, they have to be careful these days that people don’t get away on technicalities etc, the info on Mandelson is relatively new when compared to how long Andrew had these allegations against him for over 12 years, Farage will have to answer questions soon as well.

Hopefully all those named in the Epstein Files will get done, regardless of stature, wealth, political allegiance etc. utter scum

Given the redactions by the FBI prior to giving the files to the Department and Justice as well as all the subsequent redactions by the DOJ (although some senators are being allowed to the unredacted files but not the FBI redacted ones), those named in the files will be who they want/allow to be named and those not named will be the ones with the most power and hold over the FBI and DOJ.

Andrew is one of the sacrificial tw*ts (lamb sounded wrong and the word I wanted to use isn’t allowed) to deflect from those with more clout Stateside.

 

[Neilds]

Mate, they have to be careful these days that people don’t get away on technicalities etc, the info on Mandelson is relatively new when compared to how long Andrew had these allegations against him for over 12 years, Farage will have to answer questions soon as well.

Hopefully all those named in the Epstein Files will get done, regardless of stature, wealth, political allegiance etc. utter scum

Not all those who have been named are guilty of anything. The late Queen was listed as being mentioned, for example. Also, there was a celebrity who was named just because her people asked Epstein's people if his jet was available to fly to an awards ceremony.
People need to make sure they read everything and not just what they want to read.

 

[D-S]

Not all those who have been named are guilty of anything. The late Queen was listed as being mentioned, for example. Also, there was a celebrity who was named just because her people asked Epstein's people if his jet was available to fly to an awards ceremony.
People need to make sure they read everything and not just what they want to read.

Of course not everyone who’s name appears in the files are guilty of anything, apparently the TV shows QI and Have I Got News For You are mentioned (this courtesy of Mock the Week this week) as they probably were an irritant to him. Many people are named/mentioned as they were against him or were a threat.
Perhaps it is better to say ‘implicated in the Epstein Files’ or a similar set of words.

 

[PaulMdj]

Not all those who have been named are guilty of anything. The late Queen was listed as being mentioned, for example. Also, there was a celebrity who was named just because her people asked Epstein's people if his jet was available to fly to an awards ceremony.
People need to make sure they read everything and not just what they want to read.

We are discussing those who we believe have done wrong and thought people on here would understand that, but I get your point.

 

[Voyager EMH]

We’re splitting hairs. The search for an offence like this will, by its very nature, be extremely detailed. I just saw on the news that it has entered a second day.

My point was to correct you when you suggested that the police will be searching for “anything incriminating about anything”. To do that is an abuse of their powers. They will be searching for items related to the offence Andrew was arrested for, or like offences.

I think I know the point you were perhaps trying to make, which I have seen any number of others making elsewhere. That the police will use this as an opportunity to look for evidence relating to what Andrew may or may not have been involved with when it came to Epstein’s offending. It is of course entirely possible such evidence may be found, especially when electronic items are forensically examined. And it can then be seized and dealt with. But my point here is that this CANNOT be the focus of the searches as Andrew was not arrested for such matters.

The focus MUST be the offence for which he was arrested, or like offences. That is what the law clearly stipulates.

So they will be looking everywhere.
If they find anything incriminating about anything they will not ignore it.

"Anything incriminating about anything is what I imagine they were looking for."
I state that "I imagine" this to be happening - and it is what is happening in effect.

I believe it is entirely reasonable of me to make this statement to describe what is actually happening, even though they are there ostensibly for the purpose of misconduct in public office.

If they do find evidence of anything incriminating that is not directly related to the offence of misconduct in public office, they will have done very useful work, in my opinion.

 

[Voyager EMH]

If he has any sense he would have seen this coming and has had plenty of time to get rid of any evidence.

Whether he has the brains is another matter

The nail has been hit well and truly on its head.
The ONLY sense he has is one of entitlement.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

The nail has been hit well and truly on its head.
The ONLY sense he has is one of entitlement.

Are you going to volunteer to brush his teeth and wipe for him?
Can you just imagine him in general population?

 

[Billysboots]

So they will be looking everywhere.
If they find anything incriminating about anything they will not ignore it.

"Anything incriminating about anything is what I imagine they were looking for."
I state that "I imagine" this to be happening - and it is what is happening in effect.

I believe it is entirely reasonable of me to make this statement to describe what is actually happening, even though they are there ostensibly for the purpose of misconduct in public office.

If they do find evidence of anything incriminating that is not directly related to the offence of misconduct in public office, they will have done very useful work, in my opinion.

You do realise, I take it, that any barrister worth their salary, never mind the best money can buy, will absolutely rip to shreds any case, the foundation of which is a search of premises which has not been conducted strictly according to the power used?

The officers conducting these searches absolutely will not be working on the basis that they are looking for “anything incriminating about anything”. If the officer in charge of a S18 search was ever to give evidence during which they suggested they had been on what amounted to a fishing expedition, seeking anything they could find which may be incriminating regardless of the offence to which the material relates, then there is every possibility that the entire search may be ruled unlawful. That in turn would very likely mean all evidence secured from the search would be inadmissible.

Your opening comment was pretty unambiguous. When I suggested that was not how things worked, you asked a supplementary question and I clarified exactly what the position is - any evidence relating to other matters may still be seized under a different section of PACE. But such material CANNOT be a focus of any search under S18 of PACE. The law does not allow it.

I absolutely get that we are largely disagreeing due to semantics, but there is no latitude allowed in search powers which entitles those exercising those powers to enter a property and conduct a search the focus of which is to find “anything incriminating about anything.”

These searches will relate solely to securing evidence relating to an offence of misconduct in public office, or similar offences. Anything else discovered is incidental, and will be seized and dealt with accordingly. That is how it works, not in the way you imagine.