Afternoon music
The Strange Case of Andrew Windsor
I see on TV news that Andrew Windsor has now been arrested and will be facing police questioning.
I also doubt that anything much, in terms of criminal sanction, will happen to Andrew Windsor. He will probably weasel out of it in the end, though it is pretty obvious that the Jew Epstein may have and, realistically, almost must have acquired some interesting and lucrative commercial intelligence from him; possibly military, naval, and political intelligence as well. The Israelis had a good source or secondary source there.
As a “disgraced and disbarred” former barrister (as the Jews call me), I am interested in the “sovereign immunity” aspect. Normally, “sovereign immunity” applies to heads of state when visiting the UK, akin to diplomatic immunity, and it was international customary law, as adopted and/or altered by the Vienna Convention, but has been partly put on a statutory basis in the UK since 1978:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Immunity_Act_1978
Sovereign immunity also applies to the Sovereign himself or herself; the King cannot be prosecuted. That applies, in principle, to members of the “Royal Family” too.
It will be recalled that Princess Anne (aka “the Princess Royal” and/or “Mrs. Levy”) was prosecuted several times, in the 1970s and 1980s, for speeding at a speed which would normally have resulted in disqualification and even (in view of her plainly recidivistic offences) imprisonment. In the event (several events) she was fined but not disqualified. Wikipedia, while noting her speeding convictions, implies (wrongly) that her only criminal conviction was in relation to a dog out of control:
“Anne is the first member of the royal family to have been convicted of a criminal offence.[151] In November 2002, she pleaded guilty to one charge of having a dog dangerously out of control, an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and was fined £500.”
[Wikipedia]
I do not know whether she herself, on all those occasions, waived sovereign immunity; presumably so; or, more likely, the question was not raised formally at all. I know she pleaded guilty on all occasions.
The Guardian has this about it: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/13/2
“A spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace said the princess accepted that she was subject to the normal rule of law. She will be paying her fine accordingly.
The princess has been in trouble with the law several times before for breaking the speed limit.“
[Guardian]
Princess Anne was disqualified from driving for a month on another occasion.
Under international customary and convention law, family members of a head of state also have immunity, though the ambit of that has been questioned over the years: eg, in the UK, in respect of a few “princes” and “princesses” from Saudi Arabia (there are, I believe, hundreds, altogether) who abused their status in this country, e.g. by ordering luxury items never paid for.
Andrew Windsor is not a head of state, but is a “close relative” of the Head of State, being his brother.
Seems that, in the UK as in USA etc, a relative has to be very close, really part of the household and/or a dependant, to have immunity.
Andrew’s case may be a grey area. After all, he is the King’s brother, and moreover is, at least arguably, dependent— the King is even giving him his new house.
A general overview of sovereign immunity from a leading City of London law firm, with focus on a recent Court of Appeal judgment [ HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and (2) HRH Prince Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v. Apex Global Management Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 642 c]:
“It should be noted that this case deals with personal immunity (ratione personae), rather than functional immunity (ratione materiae), which operates when an individual acts in his official capacity on behalf of his state.“
It seems that Andrew Windsor is being investigated partly as to potential liability when he was acting in his official capacity, so he may yet be able to claim immunity, if anything ever comes to court.
Were Andrew Windsor to be prosecuted for a serious criminal matter, that would be unique in British history, as far as I know. Even Charles I was prosecuted for “State crimes”, i.e. political matters, basically.
In any case, it is arguable that the King could withdraw sovereign protection from Andrew, just as the sending state can, under the Vienna Convention, withdraw diplomatic immunity from an errant diplomat or other embassy employee.
Epstein/Maxwell/Windsor blog post, with updates:
Tweets seen
A storm in a teacup, of course. “Neo-Nazi” is just a meaningless insult, based anyway on a false perception of National Socialism, a perception mainly crafted by Jews and other pro-Zionist, pro-Israel elements since the 1920s, i.e. for the past century, and particularly over the past 30 years or so.
“Honour thy father and thy mother“…[Exodus 20:12]
Both Reform and “Restore Britain” are to some extent contaminated by the Jew-Zionist-Israel influence. While I prefer Lowe to Farage, the fact is that only Reform UK can destroy the longstanding LibLabCon political scam in the short term (up to 2029). It has the public profile to do that. There is the danger that two similar parties, Reform and Restore, both standing in any given seat, will result in far more Lab and Con enemies surviving.
Alternatively, “Antonia Romeo has been appointed new UK Cabinet Secretary, the first hard-faced, bullying, moneygrubbing careerist bitch to hold the role...”
Ian Robert Millard 