Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Episode Summary
Former Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public life, and not for his alleged behavior toward women. He is the first member of the British royal family to be detained since King Charles I was taken prisoner in 1647. Former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove details the level of classified information Andrew may have allegedly shared for personal gain.
In this special bonus episode:
Why Prince Andrew was arrested for misconduct in public office
The state of the UK justice system and the future of the monarchy
The fallout from the Epstein files: why the UK is acting while the US remains silent
Peter Mandelson’s vulnerability to similar charges
Andrew’s history as “Randy Andy” and “Air Miles Andy”
Hosted by Sir Richard Dearlove (former MI6 Chief) and co-host Kate McCann (Political Editor, The Times).
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Mccann: Hello, and welcome to this bonus special episode of One Decision in Brief. I'm your host, Kate McCann, and I'm joined by Sir Richard Dearlove. Hi, Richard.
Dearlove: Hi, Kate. Yes. I'm still in the United States in Colorado. So following these events from a distance.
Mccann: Well, I was going to say, in a way, it doesn't matter where in the world we are right now because this news, the news of the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, is so monumental. It has ripples in every country around the world. So we thought we would bring you a special episode to discuss that arrest and the impact that it will have on the UK, on the UK's relationships, on the royal family, but also on security. So Richard, I know that, you know, you've had a very high profile job, which means that you have met some of the people involved in this. You know some of the royal family. What impact first do you think it will have on the royal family itself and their reputation?
Dearlove: Well, obviously, it's going to be damaging for them. There's no question. Because Andrew has behaved, you know, whether legal or illegal, in a manner of which so many people, you know, thoroughly disapprove. But what I would say is that the royal family have been through huge crises before. I remember graphically the death of princess Diana, which, let's say, had a similar impact in the international media. I think the other thing one ought to bear in mind is the sort of personal angst that it creates for the king in particular. And one has to remember that he is a cancer patient. We don't know much about that because there haven't been medical bulletins other than the general one. But the last thing you probably need is to have a sort of stressful situation like this dominating your daily life.
Mccann: I think that's such a good point. We we don't really talk about that very often. I suppose because it is sensitive, people don't want to talk about the king's medical diagnosis, but it's relevant here. Do you think, given that, is it possible for the king to separate Andrew from his own reputation? Will it be possible for the royal family as a whole to hive Andrew off and protect themselves?
Dearlove: Well, this is clearly what they've obviously wanted to do and what they've done in the recent months when they removed him from his residence in Windsor Great Park and shunted him off to rural Norfolk and stripped him of his royal titles. But I think there is a potential issue there. Okay. Why wasn't it done sooner? And why wasn't a clear stand taken much earlier on? Of course, it affects everybody's reputation. It's a problem inside the family that they've had to live with. One can't but feel sorry for the family who are not involved because the whole problem has escalated in media terms. I mean, where we are now is is pretty extraordinary. You know, when a member of the royal family hasn't been publicly arrested since 1647. I mean, we have to bear in mind, though, that there is a broader dimension to this, which is Peter Mandelson's vulnerability to the same charges that have been brought or appear — there hasn't been charged yet. Let's say, sorry. The one has to be careful here. The sort of investigation of misconduct in public office, because the evidence we've seen from the emails seems much more clear cut in Peter Mandelson's case than it does in the case of Andrew Windsor Mountbatten. So I I'm surprised that they didn't go for Mandelson first.
Mccann: As you say, we do need to be careful what how we talk about this because, I mean, Andrew's been arrested, but no charges formally yet. Peter Mandelson has been very careful in terms of the things that he comments on. We are expecting him to be interviewed by police at some point. I suppose that there are so many questions really that spiral from this for me. But the fact that the UK has seen so much more of the fallout from the Epstein files than the US has, what is it doing to the UK's reputation? I mean, if you were Russia right now or China, would you be watching this and thinking, how can I exploit this instability? Because it is instability, political and social, when we talk about the royal family. There is a conversation now in this country about, do we want the royal family? Do they cost too much? People are starting to ask about the amount of money we spend on the royals, starting to ask about the duties of the royals. Why hasn't the king been more involved? What about Sarah Ferguson? This point in time has opened up an entire Pandora's box of very, very difficult questions. Do you think this is also a moment that could be exploited by those foreign actors?
Dearlove: I'm not sure that it is. And I think it's natural that in an age of extreme transparency that people ask these questions and push on these issues. But interestingly, looking quite extensively at the media here in the States, there's a vein of commentary which is quite prominent now, where people are saying, hang on. This is an indication of the strength of the British system of justice. And really? Why on earth haven't more definitive steps been taken on the Epstein issue here in the United States when the Brits are prepared to behave in this way and go through a, you know, procedure which has such an extreme impact on the media. I don't really go along with that argument. I mean, he is only eighth in succession to the throne. I'm not gonna go into detail. I've met him quite often. Knowing the man and having met him, I'm not surprised he's got himself into these difficulties. I'm not prepared to say much more than that.
Mccann: I understand you you don't want to say more than that, but would it be fair to say there are many who've been critical of his pursuit of opportunities for personal gain in the past? I mean, anybody who was around over the last twenty, thirty years, he was well known in the press as Randy Andy. You know, he had a reputation. None of this stuff was sort of very far beneath the surface.
Dearlove: No. That's been going for years. I mean, I can remember, you know, British ambassadors way back dreading him visiting them in the countries where they were representing UK interests because he was a bit of a liability as a guest because he was a known womanizer. And maybe I can say that without causing offense. You're absolutely right, Kate. He's carried this reputation with him. You know, it's just a great shame that he didn't stay in the military flying helicopters and leading, you know, that sort of macho soldier's life, which would have kept him perhaps largely out of trouble. I think his appointment as this trade representative was a pretty extraordinary thing for him to be given. There are all sorts of indications that it was opposed by the king, but I don't know whether that's true or not. Even when he was in that job, there was all sorts of comments about him. He was known as air miles Andy because he was traveling all over the place at government expense and having a pretty nice time of it. I remember running into him and meeting him in a hotel in Singapore. Okay. I was retired by then. I was there on behalf of British academia. But, you know, he was living the life of Riley staying, you know, in probably the most expensive suites. Who was paying at the time? I'm not sure. The other thing we ought to discuss is the extent to which he really did have access to sensitive information. As a trade envoy, I don't think that the information would have been classified. It might have been classified what we call commercial in confidence, but it wouldn't have been, you know, highly sensitive in terms of national security. I think he's just been, as it were, extremely foolish in disclosing government documents, which shows a lack of trust and a lack of integrity. But whether there's any really sensitive security information involved, frankly, I doubt.
Mccann: Does that matter? I mean, I suppose I mean that in the sense that while it may have been may not have been classified, and I think you're almost certainly right there. It'd be unlikely to be classified. But does it matter in terms of misconduct in public office if you are passing on information about commercial opportunities, which is the, you know, the allegation here, to somebody who could have used that to make a lot of money?
Dearlove: In essence, your argument carries. It is a breach of trust. It's a breach of integrity. If it isn't damaging to the national interest and if it isn't for personal gain, then the offense is less serious. Misconduct in public office is a very peculiar area of the law. As we all know, is based in statute, and the prosecutions are based on common law precedent. And I looked up to see how many there had been. And in the ten years from 2014, there were only a 191 prosecutions, and the majority of them are corrupt police officers and corrupt prison officers. How the law will be interpreted in relation to Andrew, I think, is a very complex and difficult issue. And it could well be this investigation before it gets anywhere near a court, if it ever does, you know, could run for eighteen months. It's not straightforward at all.
Mccann: That is fascinating for people who are sort of legal watchers in the sense that the police arresting Andrew, given what you've just said, they must believe that the CPS, the Crown Prosecution Service, I mean, how we make those legal decisions in this country, they must believe there is enough there to go forward because it's such an incredible thing to do, as you say, that hasn't happened since 1647. I'm fascinated by the fact that you were in the States at the moment because it leads me to this question about what about America? What about all of these high profile people who would have had links to Epstein in America? What's the attitude like there in terms of the appetite for any kind of action or repercussions on men who've been involved but in the States?
Dearlove: Well, obviously, the issue is partisan to an extent. But there are both eminent Republicans and Democrats, you know, calling out for measures to be taken against individuals. The irony of the prosecution of Andrew is actually not to do with women or mistreatment of women. It's a different offense. But on the other hand, there are some hugely prominent people here who clearly are, I would have thought legally, in a very vulnerable situation. I mean, I'll mention one because so much has been published about it, although he hasn't had a lot of published in the UK, which is George Mitchell. The senator who was prominent in the Irish negotiations. And, I mean, some of the stuff that is available online about him is deeply shocking in terms of Epstein. So, I mean, I think that there is huge grounds here for measures to be taken. And, you know, the American media is saying, well, if the Brits could go after a member of the royal family in the way that they did without warning, without consultation, why on earth in the US aren't similar steps being taken about some of the people here who've been identified in the Epstein papers?
Mccann: And it's a good point. I mean, a lot of the coverage here, I think that the benefit that we have is it's not partisan. I mean, this is not an issue really where politics comes into it. So I suppose it's easier in the UK in that sense to go through these motions. But I think it says a lot, and I feel this personally, I think, that we are talking about Andrew Mountbatten Windsor being arrested on the basis of breaking the rules of the political game, if you like. Misconduct in public office is about passing on state secrets or state information to make financial gain. It is still not about the women. And it's important we say that. It isn't anything to do with any allegations against Andrew Mountbatten Windsor to do with women. But I suppose for those campaigners who've spent a long time now calling for some action on that front, it's frustrating that really the only legal repercussions seem to be about the politics and the money and still not about the women.
Dearlove: Yeah. I agree with you. And, of course, okay. It's satisfying for the victims to see him being arrested. But on the other hand, it isn't in relation to them that the arrest is taking place. And I think, you know, there's a substantial irony in that fact.
CHAGOS, DIEGO GARCIA AND IRAN
Mccann: Well, I have you with me for this emergency episode. Can I just ask you about one other issue? Because over the last couple of days, we've seen increasing tension over the Chagos deal and Donald Trump once again calling out Keir Starmer, the UK Prime Minister, saying it's a bad deal. The UK, of course, essentially wants to lease back the island of Diego Garcia, pay quite a lot of money to do that. Donald Trump has gone back and forth on this. It seems now he's once again in a position where he thinks it's a very bad idea. But there's a link to Iran here, isn't there? What's going on?
Dearlove: There's definitely a link to Iran, and it's to do with the geographic position of Chagos in relation to Iran, that aircraft that might be used in an attack on Iran would fly from the base of Diego Garcia because it's the closest large US strategic base. I mean, there are other bases, of course, in the Middle East, but Diego Garcia is so important. In terms of reading the coverage here in the United States, the media has been saying that Trump needs the permission of the British government to use a UK base for aircraft which are gonna be involved in a direct attack. Well, actually, this applies to a base in the UK called Fairford, where a lot of the US Air Force assets in Europe are based. But I think what's happened is that Trump's military and strategic advisers, because of Iran, had looked more closely at the Diego Garcia Chagos issue and said to Trump, hang on a moment. If you take a long term strategic look at the geopolitics of the area, this is a lousy deal, and we are opposed to it. And that's why he's changed his mind. I think Iran has brought it back up the agenda, and the White House have focused on it in a way that they hadn't done before. You know, I can't say that's based on anything other than my interpretation of events.
Mccann: Just finally, I mean, you've been ahead of the curve on this issue. We've been talking about it, you know, for, well, I think a couple of months now about how risky this situation is. Do you think over this weekend, we could see some movement from the Americans, or is Donald Trump genuinely in a difficult position if the UK won't grant permission to use that base?
Dearlove: I don't think that the use of Fairford makes a fundamental difference to the deployment of assets, because they have alternatives. They've got two aircraft carrier groups in the region. They've got Diego Garcia. They've also got other bases in the Middle East. I think they can probably manage without Fairford. I mean, I'm not surprised that the labor government has so far not given permission. You've said this before. You know, Starmer is in political difficulties anyway, and he's the prisoner to an extent of his left wing. And they would be mightily opposed to any intervention in Iran, and he has to appease them. I think if it's a different type of government, this wouldn't be a problem. I mean, I would predict that events are likely to escalate next week because it's clear that the Iranians have made no concessions in negotiations at all. I think the Americans aren't quite ready because the second carrier group is close by, but it isn't yet deployed. So there's still a bit of time left. And the other interesting thing which I've been watching is the price of oil and the price of shares of international oil companies, which, of course, are creeping upwards in anticipation of possibly an attack on Iranian petrol or gasoline refining facilities and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Mccann: Always worth keeping an eye on oil prices. Richard, it's been great to speak to you. We'll catch up with you next week.
Dearlove: Will indeed. Look forward to that. Who knows where we'll be by then?
Mccann: Thank you for joining us for this special edition of One Decision in Brief. We'll be back with you next Monday and Thursday with more conversations on world events that go behind just the headlines.
