Prince Andrew sued by Virginia Roberts ll

[Blossomtoes]

Continued from previous thread

Your assertion that “they are duty bound to report back. If they suspected that criminal activity was taking place they should have been reporting.“

see above

What do you do as PPO if you attend a function and observe children of 13/14 years old engaging in sexual activity with middle aged men? I would have thought as employees of the Met police they would have basic safeguarding training and responsibilities. Surely it is irrelevant whether the men in question are PA or not - there are girls without parents or guardians engaging in sexual activity.

I would have expected that concerns would have been raised to their line managers. It makes the non investigation by the Met of the Epstein claims even more peculiar. Maxwell was a main procurer of trafficked girls and was often in the UK and Met PPO were eyewitnesses. The flight logs show these underage girls were in the UK.

Cross posted with @roussette

Criminal activity is one thing that needs to be reported but child safeguarding doesn't require a crime to be reported. The PPO should have mentioned it just because they were children engaged in sexual activity

The Met PPO's would have no jurisdiction in America regarding criminal activity.
Nor would their superior officers.

@Roussette

If so... here...

Dai Davies, a former head of the protection unit, said the prince's bodyguards might be able to corroborate his account that he never had sexual relations with his accuser in 2001.

But he added: 'I would have expected Prince Andrew to have been severely warned on the dangers of liaising with Epstein. This is an extraordinary case. I would have expected officers in royalty protection to bring matters to senior officers' attention far earlier.'

Caroline Pidgeon, Lib Dem deputy chairman of the London Assembly police and crime committee, said: 'If royal protection security staff ever suspect that criminal activity is taking place at a venue they are present at, they have an obligation to take action. Turning a blind eye should never be an option.'

We don't actually now that the officers didn't report back or advise. As far as I am aware there has been no public comment or information at all from the Royal Protection set up, (whatever they are called). I doubt very much that pa would have taken any notice if he was told something that didn't suit him.

The bottom line is... PPO's to the RF are not just there to stop lone gunman or someone punching a member of the RF

They would naturally go ahead and check out venues and places to stay in advance, It's all about planning and preparation. There would be a lot of screening and watching and observing.

The Met PPO's would have no jurisdiction in America regarding criminal activity.Nor would their superior officers

They should be advising the member of the RF they are protecting to not be at a location where criminal activity is taking place.

Virginia and the other girls came to the UK.

Safeguarding reporting doesn't require an actual crime to take place. Girls of 13 or 14 drinking alcohol without their parents behaving in a sexualised manner, that should be passed onto line managers.

Cressida Dick is in a bit of a hole because I reckon at least a few of the PPO will have reported to line managers safeguarding concerns. The refusal to investigate seems odd when you consider the general safeguarding issues and ignore PA. The FBI case was about Maxwell and Epstein. This is very murky.

One of his PPO's under the FOI act tried to access his own shift rota, notes and timesheets as he had suspicions about the pizzagate night. He was told they were all destroyed
Apparently PA did not have a good relationship with his PPOs.

@OverByYer
🤣🤣🤣 his morphed head on the pizza delivery - genius 😂😂

I would have expected that concerns would have been raised to their line managers. It makes the non investigation by the Met of the Epstein claims even more peculiar. Maxwell was a main procurer of trafficked girls and was often in the UK and Met PPO were eyewitnesses. The flight logs show these underage girls were in the UK.

I think this is likely the big Dan Brown Secret. Interwoven with $$$.

'If I go down I'm taking you all down with me,' screamed PA to everyone, everywhere, hiding behind his mother, while screaming at her too.

I can imagine not all his PPOs got on with him.
But teachers, governors, hcp, police, social workers etc all get safeguarding training and there is typically a specific way of logging concerns. It is one thing to destroy time sheets it is quite another to destroy safeguarding logs.
Again even in PA sat at these parties reading a book ignoring everyone and everything, his PPOs still will have seen things that would and could have been flagged for safeguarding.

In a post Saville and Rochdale world those PPOs would have had the training.

The more I think about it the more I am.confused by the Met

I agree. The whole role of the PPOs is to watch everyone around their charge PA. To be more observant and watchful than anyone, to evaluate people present etc.
I'm confused by the Met too.

But teachers, governors, hcp, police, social workers etc all get safeguarding training and there is typically a specific way of logging concerns. It is one thing to destroy time sheets it is quite another to destroy safeguarding logs

Safeguarding legislation hit the UK statute books in 2006. The London episode was five years earlier. It was pre Saville and Rochdale.

Safeguarding as a concept existed well before 2006. I believe it was first referenced in the childrens act 1989.

So the PPO pre 2006 would have known about safeguarding and the importance of reporting. There were also multiple high profile cases like victoria Climbie in the early 00s where multiple agencies were flagged as needing to improve on child protection. It was highly topical and it was not new.

I stand by what I said re safeguarding.

Safeguarding as a concept existed well before 2006

It may well have done but 2006 was the date when legislation began. 🤷‍♀️

And Roberts was 17 so for legal purposes in London, over the age of consent. And yes, I know trafficking over rides consent. We’re just going over and over the same old ground now.

Well if you do not want to discuss this anymore blossom, ok

But I think we are getting to an interesting point here. The PPO were trained in safeguarding because there was multiple pieces of legislation in the 1990s covering children and safeguarding. This is not about PA. It is about the safeguarding requirements Met officers had because they were police. This is not my area of expertise and I wish a decent journalist would look in depth at this.

Virginia was 17 but the other children involved were not. And from the PPO perspective there were young women and what could have been under aged girls engaged in sexual activity with adult men. They should have reported it, not to get PA in trouble or to protect his morals, but because of their responsibility as Met employees. They had a reasonable suspicion, that's all they had to do. They didn't know how old virginia or the others were.

If you are correct and there was zero requirement for the PPO to report these observations ok. But if they still chose to note what they observed in their shift notes and these shift notes were destroyed - what does it mean and when was that decision made?

@Blossomtoes

Safeguarding as a concept existed well before 2006

It may well have done but 2006 was the date when legislation began. 🤷‍♀️

And Roberts was 17 so for legal purposes in London, over the age of consent. And yes, I know trafficking over rides consent. We’re just going over and over the same old ground now.

I was working in child protection from late 90s, child trafficking wasn’t really understood and at that time certainly girls over 16 wouldn’t have been considered as victims of they were consenting ( in the UK). We are more enlightened now thank goodness.

I thought that was the case @OverByYer, thanks for confirming.

But trafficking or not, VG was considered a minor in NY state at that time.

@Roussette

But trafficking or not, VG was considered a minor in NY state at that time.

We know.

Well if we state that the PPO noticed and logged nothing pre 2006 that precludes Virginia. If PA continued attending parties with Epstein after that date the PPO would still be useful witnesses to the FBI for their current Maxwell case. This is why I find the met position so confusing. It's nothing to do with PA and Virginia. It is a more general question about why they have nothing to say to the FBI at all. If even to say that PPO were satisfied that there was nothing to note.

Sorry to frustrate you Blossom.

I just don't think we should be minimising this, in any way shape or form.

Yes, I agree I'm confused by the Met position too. At least they have re-opened the investigation says Cressida Dick.

Also why were the shift notes destroyed. Is this standard behaviour?