• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York

Timing seems very convenient for Keir Starmer; certainly pushed him off front pages. The case is going to go nowhere, the information he was given was to 'drum up' business for the UK. So long as he claims he used the information in the belief it might result in new business for Britain, he did nothing wrong. It will be very important exactly what terms and briefing he received about his role.

Misconduct in Public Office has four elements
  • a public officer acting as such
  • wilfully neglects to perform their duty and/or wilfully misconducts themselves
  • to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder
  • without reasonable excuse or justification
Consequently, at the time of the alleged misconduct the individual must be acting as, not simply whilst, a public official… No authority was shown to us suggesting that the offence can be or has been equated to bringing an office into disrepute or misusing a platform outside the scope of the office.

The way that they could convict is if they could show that AMW received sexual favours in return for disclosure of information.
 
Timing seems very convenient for Keir Starmer; certainly pushed him off front pages. The case is going to go nowhere, the information he was given was to 'drum up' business for the UK. So long as he claims he used the information in the belief it might result in new business for Britain, he did nothing wrong. It will be very important exactly what terms and briefing he received about his role.

Misconduct in Public Office has four elements
  • a public officer acting as such
  • wilfully neglects to perform their duty and/or wilfully misconducts themselves
  • to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder
  • without reasonable excuse or justification


The way that they could convict is if they could show that AMW received sexual favours in return for disclosure of information.

Cash, to both him and Fergie would be easier to prove
 
Cash, to both him and Fergie would be easier to prove
Cash, to both him and Fergie would be easier to prove
Sarah Fergusson is irrelevant, she is an ex-wife. It can only be his conduct that is relevant to the crime. Cash would be very hard to trace. More formal financial relationships such as loans or gifts would need to be shown to be related to the misconduct, this might be hard to do. Epstein won't testify in an English court.
 
Sarah Fergusson is irrelevant, she is an ex-wife. It can only be his conduct that is relevant to the crime. Cash would be very hard to trace. More formal financial relationships such as loans or gifts would need to be shown to be related to the misconduct, this might be hard to do. Epstein won't testify in an English court.


When I say 'cash' I don't literally mean thousands of dollars in a brown envelope. Bank transfers leave a paper trail.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom