Prince Andrew Reaches Settlement

In an unforeseen development in the civil sex claim filed by Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew has reached a settlement out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.

The unexpected settlement has opened up plenty of questions and speculation, whilst the carefully constructed statement has left royal pundits trying their best to read between the lines.

Whilst it is not unusual at all for civil cases, particularly in the US, to be settled out of court – around 90% of them are – court documents filed by Prince Andrew’s lawyers not three weeks ago show that the disgraced royal “demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted in the complaint”.

Given that the duke has vehemently denied all accusations against him, and infamously insisted that he was in Pizza Express in Woking on the night in question in 2001, the question remains – what has changed?

The Royal Family will certainly be wishing that this settlement could have been reached months ago, avoiding the messy and damaging public spats of teams of lawyers on both sides. However, with Andrew due to give evidence under oath both in London and New York over the spring, and with the trial set to take place in the Autumn, there is some silver lining that there won’t be a trial media circus overshadowing the Queen’s upcoming jubilee celebrations

The main question being asked is who is paying for this settlement? No figure has been officially disclosed, but rumours suggest the figure could be north of £12m. The royal family both cost and contribute to the public purse – with official expenses in 2019 suggesting that royal official expenses cost the taxpayer £67m. The Queen is, of course, privately wealthy, but questions – and rightful questions – are being asked as to whether the taxpayer is funding this settlement. Anti-monarchy group Republic, as well as MPs, have already demanded to know whether the British public are essentially paying for Andrew to avoid appearing in court. It could be a wise move for the Royal Family to categorically deny that public funds were being used in the case to stop any further speculation.

The statement specified that Andrew would make a “substantial donation” to Ms Guiffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights, and supporting the fight against sex trafficking. But it is unlikely that victims’ of these horrific crimes will be comforted much by this. If anything, it is likely to contribute to the sense that rich and powerful men are able to pay their way out of problems and accusations, rather than face the course of justice.

The monarchy will be able to weather this storm, but it seems unlikely that Prince Andrew’s reputation will ever recover from this one. Despite no admission of guilt, Andrew has certainly been found guilty in the court of public opinion, and it would be best for the monarchy if he was to be kept firmly out of sight, (hopefully) out of mind, going forward.

Cressida Dick Resigns – What Does It Mean For The Met?

Met Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick has publicly announced her resignation following months of calls for her to step down in the wake of numerous scandals involving the Met Police. This comes after Mayor of London Sadiq Khan put the commissioner ‘on notice’ and announced last week that he no longer had any confidence in her, thereby making her position untenable.

Some MPs have criticised Khan for his actions and claimed that it’s ironic for a Labour politician to remove the first female head of the force. However, if we are at a stage in politics and decision making whereby one’s gender is more important than performance, or lack thereof, we seriously need to rethink our priorities. Yes, let’s empower women in typically male dominated industries and sectors, but let us not conflate gender and standards.

The Met, and specifically Cressida Dick, have been a lightning rod for criticism from politicians and the public alike. Careless inaction in the lead up to the high-profile murder of Sarah Everard shone a light on chronic institutional failings, whilst Dick’s handling of its aftermath was widely regarded as incompetent at best. Since then, the lack of forthcoming change to police practices and culture, as previously promised, has only magnified how enfeebled her leadership had become.

The slew of complaints exposing the force as “institutionally corrupt” and highlighting the racism, sexism and homophobic language used by current and past officers has further undermined the force’s credibility and commitment to reform. While on the face of it many will be relieved by Dick’s exit and the opportunity for the force to rehabilitate itself, the road ahead will no doubt be an uphill battle for her replacement. The task of reforming the institution and enacting real change is a mammoth one and raises the ultimate question of whether or not it is realistically possible.

Crucially it has become clear that current standards and culture around recruitment, screening, and disciplinary action are in dire need of an overhaul, however, such a level of change requires years, not months. Regardless, with public confidence in the Met at a dangerously low level, action will need to be swift and substantive to start the process of regaining trust at all levels.  

Finding the right replacement is crucial, so it’s far from ideal that the process will now be rushed due to Dick’s sudden forced departure. This serves as another reminder that Sadiq Khan must accept some culpability for the Met’s ineptitude, given that he is the person responsible for policing in the capital. 

Khan’s decision to withdraw support from the Commissioner in the midst of the investigation into the Downing Street parties – fuelled by a perception that the weakened Dick was too dependent on the government’s support to properly investigate – has left the Met rudderless. It displays Khan’s short-sightedness in his attempt to out manoeuvre the government and further his own political ambitions. To be more precise, his decision was a calculated play, which is bad for the citizens of London, and lacks a contingency plan for the consequences of his actions.

Under The Radar – 11 February

Photo by Amanda Vick on Unsplash

This week we discuss:

1. Last one out turns off the lights

2. Argentina finds a chum in China

3. Things go from bad to worse for Meta

Last one out turns off the lights

What happened?

Thousands of UK homes could be paid to ration their electricity usage during peak hours under a new scheme being trialled to reduce pressure on Britain’s energy infrastructure. What does it mean?

Octopus Energy and the National Grid’s trial program aims to both reduce pressure on energy supplies whilst putting money back into the pockets of Brits – a win-win?

Up to 1.4m households have the chance to earn money by cutting their power use by between 40% and 60% during two-hour peak periods. If consumers meet their electricity reduction targets, they could earn up to 35p for every kilowatt-hour of electricity saved.

Demand for electricity is set to soar in the coming decades as millions ditch their gas-guzzling cars to go electric whilst swapping gas-fired boilers for models that run on renewable electricity.

At the same time, coal and gas-fired power stations, which are currently used in accordance with demand, are being replaced with wind and solar power. The issue remains that these energy sources can be sporadic, and as such, greater management of the grid will be required to ensure that demand and supply are matched.

The pilot scheme will therefore serve as a data collecting exercise for consumers’ electricity habits, as well as whether incentives can be deployed to change these habits. This experiment in frugality is just the start of a broader overhaul of the grid system as we look ahead to a fossil fuel free future. 

Argentina finds a chum in China

What happened?

With all eyes on Ukraine, the Falklands is flying under the radar. China has backed Argentina’s long held belief that the Falkland Islands (aka Islas Malvinas) is theirs, rather than an overseas British territory.

What does it mean?

The two nations traded expansionist compliments earlier this week as China voiced its support for Argentina’s desire for the Falklands and Argentina backed China’s claims over Taiwan.

Any history buffs reading may remember that the Argentines have tried their luck once before against the British in the 1980s, and no, I’m not talking about Maradona’s ‘hand of God’.

The fruitful meeting between China’s President Xi and Argentine President Alberto Fernández also saw Argentina sign up for the Eastern superpower’s Belt and Road initiative. The initiative initially began as a strategy to connect China with other countries in Asia through large scale infrastructure projects, but it has now branched into Europe and Africa with both land and sea routes being pursued.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, who was already performing her best Thatcher tribute act with eyes on a leadership election, has since reaffirmed the sovereignty of the South Atlantic islands.

China is causing quite the headache for the Foreign Secretary, with this being the latest in a series of inflammatory statements. A meeting between President Xi and Russian Premier Vladimir Putin saw criticism of Western “interference in the internal affairs” of other states. By buddying up with peripheral nations such as Argentina, China is looking to further its anti-Western sentiment, gaining support on the international stage.

The potential for Chinese involvement in the Falklands would make things far more complicated for the UK were Argentina to ever sound the bell for round two.

Things go from bad to worse for Meta

What happened?

Meta has warned politicians that it could suspend its services in Europe if they are no longer able to store European user data on its US servers. The warning has seemingly backfired as French and German leaders told reporters at a meeting in Paris that ‘life would be very good’ without the tech giant’s services. What does it mean?

Meta previously relied on a transatlantic data transfer framework called Privacy Shield, but this was annulled by the European Court of Justice in 2020 citing data protection violations. Following the ECJ’s decision, an Irish data protection watchdog warned Meta that its legal mechanisms may not be considered legal after all. Both sides are flexing their muscles but are unlikely to deliver on their threats. Should Meta withdraw from Europe, it could lose out on as much as $29 billion per year – around 25% of its total turnover. After having $200 billion wiped out from its market capitalization last week, Meta simply cannot afford to take such a drastic measure. On the other hand, if the Instagram and Facebook servers suddenly went down across Europe, millions of businesses would be imperilled.

The dispute over data protection isn’t the only front Meta is fighting legislators on. This year started with more bad news: in January it was revealed that Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries is pushing for new legislation that would force tech firms to pay for the news generated by traditional media companies in the UK.

With politicians around the world breathing down their necks, Meta may already have played their best hand and been found bluffing. 

This Week’s Must Reads

1. “We cannot take democracy for granted – this government’s failings imperil us all” by John Major for The Guardian

2. “Special advisers mustn’t become too special” by Charles Moore for The Daily Telegraph

3. “The toxic culture of the Met threatens policing by consent” by Stephen Otter for The Financial Times

4. “Keir Starmer the Nato hawk goes on the offensive” by Steven Swinford and Larisa Brown for The Times

Chart of the Week

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/10/ageing-population-will-turn-britains-economy-germanys/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

Subscribe

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Company

Industry