So Andrew cannot claim diplomatic immunity in the UK because he is not an accredited UK diplomat? Interesting ...
Or could it be that diplomatic immunity is meaningless in one's home country?
Like I said earlierk so far as Andrew is concerned the question of Diplomatic Immunity would never arise. The position
so far as the UK is concerned is quite simple - British Royals are not accredited diplomats [unless the particular Royal decides formally to train for the Diplomatic Service with a view to a professional career as a diplomat rather than a 'working' royal, as in the same way that the Duke of Gloucester, when Prince Richard decided to train as an architect......
As I undertand the British Diplomatic Service, British Diplomats cannot claim diplomatic immunity in Britain, because they are NOT accredited to the Court of St James, [ as for example the US Ambassador to the UK is] but are classed as British Civil Servants and therefore subject to the laws of the land in exactly the same way as any ordinary British Citizen....
A British Diplomat working abroad in our Embassies and High Commisions is [generally speaking]
able to claim diplomatic immunity abroad.
Hope this helps
Alex
Forgive me. There is quite a bit of made up reasoning in your entry, so I am tempted to dismiss all of it as nonsense, but I might be wrong to do that.
I thought I had an understanding of the charges against Epstein and the improprieties alleged with respect to Prince Andrew. Epstein paid underage (as young as 14) girls for sex. That is not disputed. Am I wrong in thinking that Andrew has never been accused of any such thing? An underage girl (US age of consent, not UK) was supposedly flown to England by Epstein to "entertain" Andrew, but they never had sex.
If Andrew is not even accused of committing a crime, then why would you dismiss the decision to not "go after" Andrew as "quasi-political", unless by "quasi-political" you mean rooted in facts, law and logic?
Please, help me with this, I might be missing a part of the story.
There is no 'made up reasoning' in what I have said and it is certainly not nonsense. I have not considered the possibility of what Andrew might or might not have done. I have confined my responses to the general question of Prince Andrew's status as we are discussing his current affairs in the light of the decision that has apparently been taken for him to end his role as special trade representative: Andrew is a member of the Royal Family, not an accredited Diplomat and his role as a Special Trade Representative is NOT a Diplomatic post, but a role he is carrying out in his role as a member of the BRF. I have not considered in any great deal what Andrew is alleged to have done / not done in the Epstein case. All I am pointing out is that in Britain, our Sovereign has Sovereign immunity but apart from that British Royals do NOT have immunity from prosecution and
can be prosecuted, and has been the case with Princess Anne. Thus Andrew is not immune from suit in this country and could theoretically like any other British Citizen find himself the subject of extradition proceedings without being able to claim Diplomatic Immunity.....
This seems simple enough to me; the US may be a common law system to but the two legal systems are apparently poles apart if this is a hard concept for you to grasp.
Alex
I have to say that "if it was felt" is a pretty weak shield for discussing Andrew as a child rapist (which is what "sex" with underage girls is).
This speculative discussion is going too far and is completely uncalled for.
I have not mentioned child rapists etc. I am just trying to explain the legal status of Andrew as a member of the BRF as we are discussing his current affairs here and I am certainly not the one speculating on what Andrew may or may not have done. All I am saying is that Andrew is NOT a diplomat and whatever he might or might have done vis a vis Epstein or anyone else he could not ever claim Diplomatic Immunity as he is not a diplomat. Simple. Or so I thought...........