Just asking this, given the current reporting seems to suggest Andrew Winsor is incapable of understanding what he has done, who he has associated with and other actions are wrong.

In the old days we may have used terms such as 'Stupid', but that was then and not in 2026. I just wondered if some of what is going on here is an indication there are some underlying reasons why he seems to deny all wrongdoing, and fail to understand the seriosness of the allegations against him.

I am NOT trying to justify his actions or make the victims experience any less serious, this is more a question to see if anything he is demonstrations is an indication of being on some sort of Spectrum (Which I know is the wrong term, but I think people here will understand what I mean)

On a wider note, this hardly seems isolated, Mark Zukerberg seems to be in denial that his products are addictive, despite enough evidence to bring the issue to court, Elon Musk is similar in that things have to go his way, same for President Trump.

Autism has a wide range of traits,

Paul

50 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

Just asking this, given the current reporting seems to suggest Andrew Winsor is incapable of understanding what he has done, who he has associated with and other actions are wrong.

In the old days we may have used terms such as 'Stupid', but that was then and not in 2026. I just wondered if some of what is going on here is an indication there are some underlying reasons why he seems to deny all wrongdoing, and fail to understand the seriosness of the allegations against him.

I am NOT trying to justify his actions or make the victims experience any less serious, this is more a question to see if anything he is demonstrations is an indication of being on some sort of Spectrum (Which I know is the wrong term, but I think people here will understand what I mean)

On a wider note, this hardly seems isolated, Mark Zukerberg seems to be in denial that his products are addictive, despite enough evidence to bring the issue to court, Elon Musk is similar in that things have to go his way, same for President Trump.

Autism has a wide range of traits,

Paul

I don’t think so for a minute. He’s just had a lifetime of entitlement and is now trying to minimise as much as possible the opprobrium that has finally caught up him. Nor do I think Zuckerberg is on the spectrum. He’s just talking his own book, as these guys always do.

48 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

Just asking this, given the current reporting seems to suggest Andrew Winsor is incapable of understanding what he has done, who he has associated with and other actions are wrong.

There's a significant difference between failing to recognise social cues and dismissing them with contempt.

I'm not a psychologist, but I might wager a modest sum on entitlement mentality and narcissistic personality disorder. A lot going around just now it seems.

Sim-post with @exchemist

Sim-post with @exchemist

4 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

There's a significant difference between failing to recognise social cues and dismissing them with contempt.

I'm not a psychologist, but I might wager a modest sum on entitlement mentality and narcissistic personality disorder. A lot going around just now it seems.

Funnily enough, I've just been reading bits from an article/book about him called 'Entitled'. He's a complete twat. He deserves prison, no less.

2 hours ago, paulsutton said:

On a wider note, this hardly seems isolated, Mark Zukerberg seems to be in denial that his products are addictive, despite enough evidence to bring the issue to court, Elon Musk is similar in that things have to go his way, same for President Trump.

I think you're confusing autism with psychopath/sociopath..

There were cases of mental illness/disabled in this family:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerissa_and_Katherine_Bowes-Lyon

Thanks for this, I think the suggestions here are great and make a lot more sense than what I suggested, I agree Andrew has to serve time, ironically for him at His Majesties Pleasure.

He is still innocent till proven guilty under UK law, so if this is sexual crimes, being complicit, or passing on sensitive documents to people. The law has to be followed as does due process, any actions could easily impact the legal case, which is the last thing any of the victims would want.

I wonder how one picks a jury for such a case.

There’s literature supporting the idea that some people on the spectrum can’t form criminal intent (mens rea) but I have no idea how one makes the argument for him in particular. Reading his biography in wikipedia I see he served in the Royal Navy as a pilot and commanded a warship, and held many positions of responsibility.

Denying all wrongdoing seems to be a common tactic that we here in the US are seeing all the time with the Epstein class currently in charge. But the feeling I get is it’s not a matter of having the capacity to know right from wrong, it’s not caring, reinforced by a life of being shielded from consequences

28 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

Thanks for this, I think the suggestions here are great and make a lot more sense than what I suggested, I agree Andrew has to serve time, ironically for him at His Majesties Pleasure.

He is still innocent till proven guilty under UK law, so if this is sexual crimes, being complicit, or passing on sensitive documents to people. The law has to be followed as does due process, any actions could easily impact the legal case, which is the last thing any of the victims would want.

I wonder how one picks a jury for such a case.

I would be quite surprised if this goes anywhere. It is notoriously hard to prove the offence of Misconduct in Public Office. My guess is that on paper he may have done something arguably similar to what Mandy did. But then Mandy was a government minister, who would have signed the Official Secrets Act. And the material he passed to Epstein quite clearly gave him an opportunity to make money on the markets via insider trades. In Prince Andrew's case he probably had a loosely defined mission to grease the wheels of trade and all he passed on to Epstein seems to have been some piece of analysis of business opportunities in Afghanistan (good luck with that, eh?).

I suspect the cops did what they did as a piece of due diligence and to avoid any accusation of special treatment for a member of the Royal Family. I expect the Director of Public Prosecutions will in due time find there is no prospect of securing a conviction and the whole thing will be dropped.

As for the sex stuff, yes it's very sleazy but I cannot see that he has broken any law of England. This looks to me like a classic media feeding frenzy - always easily set off when the Royal Family is involved. There are even hysterical articles asking whether this could mean the end of Charles as king (why?), or possibly even of the end of the monarchy. What balls. 🙄

Edited Saturday at 07:18 PM1 day by exchemist

Good point, the BBC have already said how hard it is to prove misconduct in public office, as for the sex crimes, the photos prove nothing really, It is about who knew what and when.

The vultures are circling however, I have already had an e-mail from change.org asking me to sign a petition demanding he is removed from the line of Ascension to the throne, as the BBC have already said, this is not easy and the whole commonwealth needs to be involved in that process too, so could take months.

I would much rather the government got on with running the country and making our laws stronger to protect people going forward in the future.

You are right, due process has to be followed, that starts with investigation and going through any and all collected evidence to decide what is relevant to the case.

Let's hope that happens, and they are left to do that.

Paul

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I would be quite surprised if this goes anywhere. It is notoriously hard to prove the offence of Misconduct in Public Office.

You may be right, but I'm hoping he gets scared enough to start naming names, and some other people, who also seem to want to hide their past offences using their personal Department of Justice, are dragged into the spotlight.

The Andrew formerly known as prince's problem is that he got too many people upset. It seems to me there is not enough people ready to throw him in jail for either soliciting underage prostitution or passing government secrets because a whole lot of them only care about one issue and not the other. However, when the two are combined, a "critical mass" has been reached where action is taken. We will see the outcome in due course, one way or the other.

Edited yesterday at 12:13 AM1 day by npts2020

5 hours ago, npts2020 said:

The Andrew formerly known as prince's problem is that he got too many people upset. It seems to me there is not enough people ready to throw him in jail for either soliciting underage prostitution or passing government secrets because a whole lot of them only care about one issue and not the other. However, when the two are combined, a "critical mass" has been reached where action is taken. We will see the outcome in due course, one way or the other.

That isn’t how the law works, though, is it?

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by exchemist

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

That isn’t how the law works, though, is it?

Indeed, he got the wrong people too upset to ignore him...

8 hours ago, exchemist said:

That isn’t how the law works, though, is it?

It’s how politics works, though, and law enforcement is partly political.

It's possible that Andrew can't tell right from wrong.
But, if that's the case, how come he was allowed to fly military helicopters?
How did he serve as an ambassador?

Seriously, we all know autistic people- and some of us are in that group.
In what universe would you employ us for our diplomatic skills?

On the other hand, who would be surprised that "Randy Andy's" exploits would get him into trouble?

Yes, he counted some pretty evil people as friends.
Unfortunately, people typically form friendships with people who they have lots in common with.
And he's a rich guy with no responsibilities and nobody to say no to him.
That gives him a lot in common with a whole bunch of dictators and "nice" dictators are in short supply.

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It's possible that Andrew can't tell right from wrong.

Indeed, but should we just let him choose bc he is entitled to do so?

Who gets to choose the depth of the turtle's???

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s how politics works, though, and law enforcement is partly political.

Not when it works as it should.

There is no reason to think the police arrest is because of some combined public pressure, regarding the combination of his sexual exploits and his behaviour as a trade envoy, as was being suggested.

The Epstein files apparently suggest he may have passed a government document or its some of its contents (about business opportunities in Afghanistan) to Epstein, when perhaps he shouldn’t. That’s it. So he’s been arrested, questioned and released without a charge being brought at this point, while investigation continues.

As someone observing from across a large puddle, I wonder how much of the Andrewvian ferment reflects a general fatigue with royals. But maybe that's an American bias, which tends to see royalty as irrelevant to a modern world. Or as some wit once described celebrity, "famous for being famous."

41 minutes ago, TheVat said:

As someone observing from across a large puddle, I wonder how much of the Andrewvian ferment reflects a general fatigue with royals. But maybe that's an American bias, which tends to see royalty as irrelevant to a modern world. Or as some wit once described celebrity, "famous for being famous."

I don't sense any collective fatigue towards the working royal family. Andrew is turning out to be a proper bad apple. He's just starting to get his comeuppance. It's all good.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

  5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It's possible that Andrew can't tell right from wrong.

Indeed, but should we just let him choose bc he is entitled to do so?

I didn't suggest that we should.
I was pointing out that, while it's possible, it seems very unlikely.
The OP's question was "could-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-be-on-the-autistic-spectrum?".
Well, he could be.
But I doubt it.


And if he were , that wouldn't be a "get out of jail free" card.