Prince Andrew no surprise

[Pixxie7]

No surprise that the met have stopped. Their investigation into PA.

No one is defending him julieca ,

He is extremely unlikable and a creep,

but you must look at things objectively .

@BoredZelda I have come out at that junction. The low sun is not an excuse, if you cant drive with low sun and the issues it causes, you should not be driving. But they don't tend to prosecute extremely elderly people for driving offence unless someone is killed. Instead they usually just insist they give up their licence.

You know full well I don't have access to letters written by Prince Charles saying he knew what Jimmy Saville was up to and continued being friends with him.

In which case, smearing him publicly probably isn’t a good idea.

But it simply defies belief that the security forces did not know and would not have advised the RF to distance themselves.

You’ve answered your own question here. If security forces knew, and advised him to distance himself, it defies belief that HM wouldn’t have been involved and insisted he had no more to do with him. If that had happened, you could suppose he would have done so. Publicly at least. One could just as easily assume the security forces did no such thing. But that doesn’t fit your narrative that the entire family are a bunch of peado lovers, huh?

I have come out at that junction. The low sun is not an excuse, if you cant drive with low sun and the issues it causes, you should not be driving.

Well done you. Plenty others have found it a problem. But don’t be ridiculous, low sun can be a problem for anyone given the right circumstances. My dad was a driving instructor for 40 years and had an near miss with a motorbike due to low sun. Thankfully no-one was hurt. If it can happen to him it can happen to anyone.

But they don't tend to prosecute extremely elderly people for driving offence unless someone is killed. Instead they usually just insist they give up their licence.

They can’t insist, but in any case, Prince Phillip surrendered his after that crash.

SpindleWhirl

What do you actually want the Queen to do?

Asking questions is not smearing.

Whatever, the net's closing in and it is just a matter of time, even if all this does drag on for a few years.

The queen has had far too many opportunities to distance herself from scandal and has not seized any of them.

Why are basically all of Andy's mates either sex offenders, arms traffickers or Middle Eastern despots with abysmal human rights records? Why are/were some of Charles' cronies also sex offenders? Why are these suitable contacts for a head of state? Why was PA given taxpayers' money to do all these things? How has PA helped to improve his country's reputation? Why has the queen not distanced herself from his activities?

BoredZelda the police do insist people give up their licenses, or they will prosecute them.
Of course, the low sun at a junction is not an excuse. Low sun can stop you from seeing clearly. You don't come out until you can see clearly. If a junction is an ongoing problem you wear sunglasses when coming out.
Yes minor accidents are very common, and virtually always down to driver error.
I don't think it would have been reasonable to prosecute Philip as he did give up his licence. But neither do I agree with the narrative that he was not to blame.

I don't know the facts of the case, anymore than anybody who is not directly involved does know.

I don't agree with Royals using their position to secure television air time to speak about matters unrelated to their royal job. Andrew was wrong, just as Prince Harry was wrong to go on the Oprah Show to parade his grievances.

I suspect Andrew may not have spoken truthfully in the Emily Maitliss interview. After all, there is a photo of him standing with Virginia Roberts, so the likelihood is that he met her and remembers it.

Preamble: I am definitely not a royalist and if I could redesign the British State I would have no place for the royal family whatsoever. On top of my systemic reservations, many individual members are unpleasant and stupid and not fit for public life. So, I don't wish to defend the royal family in any shape or form. BUT!

Why do people keep trotting out this weird 'fact' that Prince Charles and Jimmy Savile were 'good friends' and weirdest of all, that JS gave him and Diana marriage advice? That just cannot possibly be true at all.

Of course, Charles and most members of the royal family are forced to socialise with celebrities most days of their their on duty lives and occasionally I guess they follow up public meetings with private ones too, because it's their job to keep their finger on the pulse and network. That does not mean they are friends, let alone good friends, with these people.

As well as having a large extended family and plenty of real friends Prince Charles has a wide ranging set of interests eg. architecture, painting, organic farming, conservation, classical music etc. etc. not one of his interests could have possibly overlapped with JS' interests. On what basis could they have been friends? Also, Prince Charles has access to the most highly respected counsellors, therapists, philosophers, gurus and clergy in the world to discuss his emotional life. Why on earth would he value the judgment of a sleazy, creepy DJ who ever managed to make any relationship work?

It makes no sense at all!

What exactly is the evidence for it? Daily Express articles from 15 years ago or weird websites don't count. If you believe JS and Prince Charles were good friends please share the real evidence.

@CommonRoom it was widely reported from many sources that Charles and Saville were good friends. The palace pr did not deny the stories, they seem to have gone down the route of trying to convince the public that Saville "groomed" Charles.
But it is not the only sex offender that Charles socialised with.
And no, it was not about meeting Saville in an official capacity. It was about socialising with him.
Of course that does not say that Charles is a paedophile. It does show at the minimum incredibly poor judgement. My own view is that Charles probably ignored any rumours and with his other friend, refused to believe the accusations made in court, or at worst thought they were unimportant.

Cressida Dick was at school with Ghislaine Maxwell, then at the same Oxford college. I don't think the Met were ever going to 'investigate' this too deeply.

source please @Aspiringmatriarch

Princess Diana was recorded telling James Gilbey on the so-called "squidgygate tape": "Jimmy Savile rang me up yesterday, and he said: 'I'm just ringing up, my girl, to tell you that His Nibs [Prince Charles] has asked me to come and help out the redhead [the Duchess of York], and I'm just letting you know, so that you don't find out through her or him; and I hope it's all right by you.'"

This was taped, there is actual evidence, not just rumours. I remember all this at the time.

julieca

it was widely reported from many sources that Charles and Saville were good friends

Which sources exactly though?

Prince Andrew clearly met Virginia Giuffre, there's a photo of them stood next to each other, but does he remember every single person who's ever stood next him to and said 'Can I get a photo?' Probably not. It's convenient if he doesn't remember meeting her, but then again, he's Prince Andrew, he must have met thousands of people in his life and I don't suppose he remembers them all.

Did he have sex with her? Who knows? She says yes, he says no, but having sex with a 17-year-old in the UK isn't a crime, even if it is distasteful and creepy when you're a 30-something man. She claims she was 'trafficked' the UK and told to go and have sex with him, but there is no suggestion that he actually knew this. Again, he's Prince bloody Andrew, I'm sure he's had hundreds or even thousands of women throwing themselves at him his whole life.

His interview with Emily Maitlis was a car crash. It was cringe-worthy and he came across as tone deaf, shifty, creepy and just thoroughly unpleasant, but did he commit a crime? I doubt it. Much more likely that VG, off the back of her payout from Jeffrey Epstein and with the support of her no doubt greedy legal team, decided to hit up PA in the hope of another nice out of court settlement to keep this grubby story out of the press.

There was a programme on recently about Saville, with information on him being close to Charles. Its not a new story. And Mountbatten has serious rumours around him too. The British royal family have never been known for their upstanding morals. Look at William and his friendship with their close neighbour.

The RF preferred the days when we lined the streets to clap them. They were never questioned then.

Lots of newspapers reported it. And people quoted.

A former senior royal aide has revealed that Jimmy Savile's behaviour when he visited Prince Charles's official home at St James' Palace was a cause for "concern and suspicion". - that was Arbiter

A spokesman for the Prince of Wales confirmed the prince and Savile formed a relationship in the late 1970s after coming together through their work with wheelchair sports charities.

Prince Charles met Savile on numerous occasions. In 1999 he accepted an invitation to a private meal at Savile's Glencoe home which was this week daubed with graffiti reading "Jimmy the beast". Savile asked three local women to dress up in pinafores emblazoned with the letters HRH and Charles subsequently sent the television presenter a Christmas card with the note: "Jimmy, with affectionate greetings from Charles. Give my love to your ladies in Scotland."

Charles reportedly sent him a box of cigars and a pair of gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday with a note that read: "Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that."

Prince Charles paid tribute to Jimmy Saville after he died.
A Clarence House spokeswoman said: "The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall were saddened to hear of Jimmy Savile’s death and their thoughts are with his family at this time."

One person Saville grew incredibly close to was the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, to the extent it's claimed he could "wander at will" around St. James' Palace and could get into parties at Buckingham Palace. It's also been reported that the sex offender would turn up unannounced at Kensington Palace and committed a "creepy" act on Princess Diana which left her feeling "unnerved". This is from Arbiter.

@VladmirsPoutine

Apparently the logs from royal protection officers seem to have been misplaced from the night in question. I hate when I lose important documents.

I dispose of documents after 7 years, other than things like marriage/birth certificates. I thought that was normal.

@julieca

Andrew is guilty under English law. Nothing will ever happen though. In fact, the pr firms will try and rehabilitate him after people have forgotten about this. Just as people had forgotten about the very close friendship Charles had with Jimmy Saville.

Really, has there been a court case to test the evidence?

@zafferana your post is full of excuses. How could he possibly have known that a 17-year-old girl is trafficked? I mean he was introduced to her by Epstein who was pretty blatant about his interest in young teenage girls. And Andrew is a fat middle-aged man. Nothing at all dodgy to see here.
Everyone seems to forget the RF have multiple advisors whose job it is to advise the RF about their associations.
And how can you believe Andrew about anything after that car crash of a TV interview?

@julieca

Andrew is guilty under English law. Nothing will ever happen though. In fact, the pr firms will try and rehabilitate him after people have forgotten about this. Just as people had forgotten about the very close friendship Charles had with Jimmy Saville.

Really? What is he guilty of?

He is not guilty of having sex with someone below the age of consent - on her own testimony, Giuffre was not below the age of consent.

He is not guilty of paying for sex with someone who has been trafficked - Giuffre has not suggested he paid. Even if he did, it was not an offence at the time of the alleged encounters so he cannot be guilty under English law.

He is not guilty of having sex with someone who has been trafficked - that is not a crime under English law and never has been.

He may be guilty of rape but Giuffre's filings in the US court case fall a long way short of proving that he knew she did not consent. And, of course, he denies having sex with her at all. If he did not have sex with her, he is clearly not guilty. If he reasonably believed she consented, he is not guilty.

So do please tell us what crime he is definitely guilty of under English law.

The Queen had Trump to stay and he's a dodgy character. I felt sorry for her but maybe I should have assumed she was involved in some of his scandals.

You know that is z very different scenario. She was not friends with Trump.

@julieca because PA has been a loose cannon his whole life! His shady business dealings, his poor choice of friends, even being friends with Jeffrey Epstein. If his 'multiple advisors' were so on the ball, why did was PA allowed to fly to NYC, stay in Epstein's house and be photographed walking with him in Central Park?

Andrew is thick, naive, careless and entitled. Does he think that a 17-year-old would just throw herself at him because of who he is? I don't doubt it for a second. I'm not apologising for him at all, but I can how someone like him wouldn't bat an eyelid. Famous men of all types have women lining up to have sex with them. Look at all the fat, middle-aged men who are in relationships with much younger, much more attractive women. Look at a picture of the woman who was married Harvey Weinstein before all the stuff about him came out.

I don't believe he's innocent, in all likelihood with a number of those girls. The image of him letting Epstein and that young girl (who looked about 14) out of Epstein's front door, then sneakily looking up and down the street, will stay with me.

I suspect that Virginia Roberts' situation was a terrible one and she was vulnerable due to her age and maybe a need for a job. It's a shame her parents didn't talk her out of going in for the masseuse line of work, but perhaps they felt that role would offer her job security and a better life than otherwise. I think that Epstein's role was likely an horrendous one. I suspect that he might have wanted to have something on his male clients, to use as a lever later on, or for blackmail. I suspect he set out to strategically use Andrew.

I think that most royals must have potential girlfriends brought to them. I think they put out the word that they like a famous person's photo, or even a less famous person, and a contact known for making introductions, goes to have a word, and to see if there is interest in a rendez- vous. I expect that is how Harry met most of his slim, lithe- limbed beauties before Meghan. They were a pretty face and a pair of endless pins on a magazine cover or on TV, and he put out that he wanted a meeting arranged. That would be the only way they could meet someone who took their fancy - discreetly. So being set up with someone would be normal for Andrew. Would he see it that trafficking was involved? Did Virginia tell him that she was unhappy? Could he have shopped Epstein to the authorities for suspect behaviour?

I think everyone has to assume that a teenager involved in anything sordid needs protecting, whether they recognise that, at the time, or not. I don't know what happened between Andrew and Virginia, but I feel that if you see unescorted young girls in older adult company, that you should ask the authorities to do a welfare check.