Crisis, What Crisis?

The Progressive Media Are Asking The Wrong Questions About Andrew's Arrest.

The press frenzy over the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on suspicion of misconduct in public office is, with depressingly boring predictability, leading to questions about the future of the Monarchy. Inevitably, and equally unsurprisingly, the most interested in that seem to be the progressive elements and the BBC. As always, they’re missing the point in their glee and desire to impose their own agenda. When in doubt, look at the facts.

The King has stated that the law will take its course, which it demonstrably is. No cover-up. As His Majesty is of a generation that chose not to “externalise” (or whatever the phrase is) their emotions, he has not commented on the personal pain of having his family dragged into a tawdry mire. The next months aren’t going to be much fun for the Palace, but he hasn’t mentioned that either. His address ended with the statement, “Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.” That’s what the Royal Family does, day in, day out. The army’s officer training centre at Sandhurst’s motto is “Serve to lead”.

The King has a public approval rating of about +45% to +60%. The Prime Minister, the leading progressive, is rated about minus 57%. Go figure, as they say in the United States. Actually they’re saying more than that. They’re stunned to discover that a member of the Royal Family is not above the law. In a land where presidents have the constitutional power to impose clemency, which often means a pardon. The President’s word is (pretty much) law. Some presidential pardons are controversial. Nixon pardoned Jimmy Hoffa, a notoriously corrupt union boss jailed for jury tampering and fraud. President Biden pardoned his own son. Ghislaine Maxwell, sex trafficker for Epstein, is seeking a pardon in return for her testimony. I suspect many in the United States are rather impressed by the impartiality and reach of British justice.

The biggest current threat to the Monarchy is that the King’s heirs might not look forward to the job and be tempted to abdicate. Should that happen, we should ask the progressives if they’re pleased with what they have achieved: producing a country that no one wants to rule. The second threat is the diminishing size; as people leave the Royal Family the workload on those left will increase and the public will have the opportunity to see and meet Royalty less frequently. (If you’re saying to yourself “good”, imagine President Blair and think again.)

And Saint Tone brings us to the second strand the press has missed. The charge of misconduct in public office is seldom used, not least because it’s quite hard to define as it derives from common law, not civil law. That said, there are around 100 prosecutions a year.

When Blair and Campbell produced the 2002 “Dodgy Dossier” that led directly to British participation in the invasion of Iraq, there was muttering in some quarters about prosecution. Instead we got the Chilcott Report. It which concluded (in 2014) that the case for military intervention was based on flawed intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, presented with unjustified certainty, and that intelligence qualifications describing the information as “sporadic and patchy” were removed to strengthen the argument for action. There were no prosecutions. But if the King’s brother can be arrested, so too can an ex-prime minister and his team.

Interestingly, and by coincidence, Blair’s Cabinet Secretary, Lord Gus O’Donnell, was being interviewed yesterday. Asked about the appointment of Starmer’s Cabinet Secretary, Antonia Romeo. Lord O’Donnell said that the Civil Service was not very good at dealing with underperformance. Perhaps the prospect of being prosecuted for misconduct (drawing the pay but not doing the required job) might sharpen a few minds in Whitehall. Perhaps Paula Vennells (the as yet unprosecuted head of the Post Office at the time of the Horizon Scandal) is on the phone to her lawyers. If the law can touch the Monarch’s family, perhaps it can slay the blob.

None of the allegations would have come out had Epstein not been a paedophile. Which rather begs the question of what other billionaires are gaining privileged information from government sources? There are plenty of private islands and there are plenty of billionaires. What, for example, made Lord Ali so generous with glasses and clothes to the humble toolmaker’s son now failing as Prime Minister? What did those who fund Labour Together hope to achieve?

Some politicians have power, and money is drawn to power like flies to the proverbial. The progressives would argue that this is the case for state funding of political parties (an objective they’re working towards in Wales). Taxpayers might well wonder why politics is so expensive. (A good question which I will turn to on another day).

As we wait to see the outcome of the police investigation, which is now wider but more private following Andrew’s arrest courtesy of the Contempt of Court Act, we should remember that anyone is innocent until found guilty and that we have remarkably little to go on. For example, we don’t know if there is a minute of a trade mission discussion suggesting that Andrew should find investors to rebuild Helmand province. I’m speculating, of course, but trade is all about money.

The biggest bewilderment about this saga probably lies in the Kremlin, where President Putin must be asking how Andrew hasn’t fallen from a fifth-floor window in the Russian way.

---

If you enjoyed this article please remember that Views From My Cab is a reader-supported publication and subscribe, which costs you nothing but makes the SubStack bots more helpful.

Alternatively you could make a small, one off donation to defray my production costs. I am hugely grateful for every donation. The simplest method is via Buy Me a Coffee.