Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - you have blood on your hands

[Muffinmam]

Am I being unreasonable to say that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor - the Duke of York and member of the Royal Family has blood on his hands following the tragic suicide of Virginia Giuffre?

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has faced zero consequences for his role in Virginia Giuffre‘s sexual abuse and trafficking because he’s rich and his powerful mummy paid off the victim and the British police failed to pursue charges against him. To be clear, while the age of consent in the UK is 17 years old this does not apply to trafficking victims and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has never faced criminal charges.

He probably thinks he’s got away with it now she’s gone.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14649791/Virginia-Giuffre-suicide-perth-mansion.html

If you are addressing that at me, which you are clearly, it's absolute nonsense because I have not said or supported any of those things.

😚

No it is not relevant. This thread is about PA his potential culpability and the connivance of the RF; the extent to which he & they tolerate sex offenders in their company is relevant to that. We are not discussing the Obamas here.

Maybe we should be, there are many top end American names that can be linked to Epstein and Weinstein.

The imprisonment of Maxwell and death of Virginia Giuffre means the only people who’ve been punished in relation to Epstein's rape island are women as several PPs said. All the men got away with it, not just this bloated royal buffoon whose rich mummy made it go away.

No-one in positions of power and authority should be tolerating sex offenders, but they can't travel back in time if it is later revealed that someone who has been in their company is exposed.

The subtext is less important than the fact Andrew declared to the nation on the national broadcast service the nation pays for that he'd cut contact honourably with Epstein in person when it now transpires he hadn't.

We can add 'lying git' to 'skeevy buffoon'.

Have any of the men who had sex with trafficked girls, organised by Epstein, ever seen the inside of a court?

Jean-Luc Brunel:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60443518

What reason do you think middle aged, wealthy men would take unrelated teenage girls to other countries, without their parents, to meet other powerful men then? If you have a daughter, would you let a rich, much older man take her abroad without you? If not, why?

Thank you. Sadly some will always ignore rape victims no matter the evidence. Some cannot bring themselves to hold men to account.

Yes. And JeanLuc Brunel was the one who arranged for three 12 year old triplets to be flown from Paris to Epstein in NY as a 'birthday present'.
Please don't anyone bleat 'where were the parents'. They came from impoverished families, who knows what they were promised.

Yet Andrew thought all these young girls were just 'staff'. (I am not saying he was there when those poor young 12yo's were but he was there with other young girls and likened it in his interview to a railway station with people coming and going. Yeah right)

The 12 year old triplets story is just an example of how exploitative these men are and how confident they are about being above the law. Andrew is not very bright and he's arrogant. Maybe he thought all these girls and women were "staff", or willing to go with him because he's a prince. However, he was part of this vile circus.

I am sorry to read what you went through.@whippy1981

Yes, there are some people who will always side with a man whatever the circumstances. We see it on this thread. And that is why we must applaud from the rooftops a woman like Gisele Pelicot who shunned anonymity to show the world what some men are capable of... as she said - she wanted shame to swap sides. From the victim to the rapist

I don’t think we understand how powerful the royal family are.

they are untouchable

Parliament is sovereign. Laws are passed by them, not the RF. They are only "untouchable" if the lawmakers are too craven.

Totally agree. They cannot be questioned in parliament under Erskine May parliamentary procedure handbook so yes, they are untouchable.
Questions are tabled and rejected straight off.

There was a time when women couldn't vote. There was a time before equal pay. There was a time when the school leaving age was 14. Things change. Politicians make the laws, they can revise the Erskine ruling, they can put in more checks and balances. It's a Constitutional Monarchy. The King and the RF do not rule.

I agree @Extiainoiapeial - esp re parliament . That situation needs reformed immediately.
It’s all very murky . I believe the remaining royalist supporters blind themselves to the facts because to accept the truth would shake their worldview and / or they accept the facade the Windsor PR creates without question .
Yes parliament is sovereign but the laws are for the little people.
All of this is is part of the reason for the intense campaign against Harry . Like him or not, he’s shining some light on the workings . For example re security the line is an independent government committee decides on who gets security . But there is a sub committee for royals . Who is on that committee? Well Charles’ reps and William’s reps of course .Why ? Can we see how they make decisions ? No .

I don’t want to deviate from the OPs thread . Virginia Guiffree was a very brave woman . I am saddened by her death .
The posters desperately nitpicking to defend Andrew Windsor depress me .

This poor woman had an awful life before Andrew came on the scene.
Incidents as a small child, living on the streets at 14, involved with an older man then going to work on Donald trump's estate while still only 14.
This was in the 1990's or so - but it is still happening around the world - the rich exploiting the poor, men exploiting women and girls, exploiting the uneducated.
It is so sad for her children.

The security issue is a whole other matter. We know who decides security, RAVEC : the Home Office, Met Police and specialist services within. Neither KC nor any other individual has a say.
I think using Harry's security case as evidence against the RF is a mistake, because they have no say. Harry gets taxpayer funded security whenever he comes to the UK, for himself and his dependents. All this shows is Harry's entitlement, petulance and ignorance on a very large scale.
Harry has only "shone a light" on his own perceived discrimination, and to be honest, much of it is risible.
I think, truthfully, if those matters get discussed on here it will be a distraction.

Yes I agree it is a distraction on this thread .

I do not believe it’s true to say the William and Charles have no say on security or for that matter on any other issue . They have representatives on the decision making committee .
There is plausible deniability as there is with every self interested decision that the Windsors have their fingers in .
” Oh the government has decided to give us an extra 45 million a year ! Why what a surprise ! Well if you insist …”

The difference with Andrew is he gave an interview etc so we have other lines of enquiry to explore

@MagdaLenor
”RAVEC is a committee that includes representatives from the Home Office, Cabinet Office, Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, Metropolitan Police, and the Royal Household”

This.

They don't have a say. That is one of the many lies spread by Harry.
Believe me, it's a very expensive process and is done properly and not at the whim of entitled aristocrats. The RF do not have a say on anyone's security level. That is a fact.

Yabu. He didn't kill her. She killed herself