New allegations against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

[Muffinmam]

Last night an episode of 60 Minutes (Australia) aired and an allegation was
made that it wasn’t just girls who were trafficked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor by Ghislane and Epstein - there were also young boys.

I’ve included the link below:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-9SfptZlU&pp=0gcJCR4Bo7VqN5tD

This allegation never made it into the book because the writer never had a second witness to concur. However, he revealed it in the 60 Minutes interview last night and 60 Minutes aired what is a defamatory allegation - which makes me think that 60 Minutes felt confident it was true (otherwise their lawyers would have killed the story). It was a very short reference but British Police need to interview Ghislane as to Andrew’s other victims.

Further, AIBU to think that the Royal Protection officers should be made to answer questions as to criminality involving Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor?

Also, how can Beatrice & Eugenie still support their disgusting father after everything we know? Do they not care about their own children? Particularly Beatrice’s young step son. Hopefully Andrew is not allowed anywhere near this boy.

Prince Philip maintained a close friendship with Penelope Knatchbull but not sure this was a FWB situation. She was one of the few people invited to Prince Philip’s funeral service, in my view, they were just friends.

The boys in Kincora never did (or will) get justice.

I wrote something positive not at all claiming that Penny and Phil were fwb and it's automatically being reviewed and censored.

I can see it right below this post?

My opinion is that the press should have some proof before putting about these rumours. (An example would be a journalist from a reputable publication saying that they were told such-and-such by a watertight source who wishes to remain anonymous.)

I want SOME evidence before believing every lurid rumour that's served up. Only in the cyber-world is that considered a bad thing. 🙄

There's a lot in Lownie's book that would suggest various offences though more fraud / corruption than sexual. The difficulty is that nothing was ever investigated when it should have been, but that doesn't mean anyone in particular should presume his innocence. Some years back Fergie got stung by the Fake Sheikh asking for money for access to AMW. That would suggest an offence by her and investigation might have provided evidence of collusion by AMW. We will never know. It was never looked into. Their practice of crying poor to avoid creditors or pay then less looks awfully close to fraud too, given that they always had money when they wanted it.

I am getting very tired of being called naive. It's called critical thinking. The media spreads all these lurid rumours about Philip and no journalist has EVER been able to produce a source to corroborate it, even anonymously. It's called critical thinking - ironically, the opposite of naivete.

I know there's speculation about Uncle Louis and that establishment but AMW?

I honestly wonder whether that's actually why the IRA went for him.

If it's delusional to want the media to supply some proof for their allegations before I believe everything they peddle online to get eyeballs, then yes, I'm delusional.

And it doesn't have to be absolute proof - it could be a source that the journalist knows but keeps anonymous. But they've never even had that where PP is concerned.

Oversexualised behaviour is a known response to sexual trauma (and non sexual trauma) but we are more likely to see it as an aberration, moral failing or a sign of something being wrong in women than in men.

A lesser interviewer might not have exposed him so effectively for the repulsive liar that he is? PA was quite obviously rotten so they had nothing to lose and lots of ratings to gain by broadcasting that.

My point was really that the BBC only does what suits it and when it wants to protect individuals or present a certain angle, it will do so. When she stated a bald fact about Cummings "he broke the rules" she was accused of flouting impartiality guidelines 😂. Cummings broke the lockdown rules, it's a fact.

I’m not at all convinced by the teflon status of York daughters. They are not private citizens - they have royal titles and benefit from subsidised royal perks, and with that comes responsibilities.

Lownie alludes in his book to them having accepted money and gifts (as adults) from some of their father’s dodgy business associates. If this can be stood up, I think they are in trouble. Ferguson also allegedly bought and recently sold some expensive property in Belgravia for their benefit - I would not be surprised at all if some or all of the funds for that came from dodgy sources.

They also both have very nice central London properties within the royal palaces that they pay peanuts for, even though they don’t live their full time and don’t do any royal duties. I think those arrangements - previously brokered/insisted on by their grasping parents - are going to come under question.

Finally, the moral issues. It’s unclear whether they take their father at his word and believe his is innocent of everything, despite all the evidence to the contrary, or whether they know he’s done some bad things but want to support him anyway. However they are going to come under increasing pressure to say whether they have empathy towards the victims of abuse, particularly if it’s proved they have directly benefited from Epstein money. That is going to be tricky given their parents have thus far resolutely refused to consider the victims.

This latest attempt to get him distanced is because of shit that is about to come out, not shit that already has.

Absolutely.

I think I’m going a bit softer on them because I once worked with a lady (professional/ client) who was still being raped by her father in her early 20s.
The extent of the control an abusive man can wield is beyond most normal people’s comprehension.

Is he going to face prosecution now / in the future?
This would surely register him as a sex offender with a sentence and at least wont be allowed access to kids , including his grandchildren?

Oh, that is awful. And yes, if they are blameless and were oblivious (and who knows that their parents sex life is like, really, especially when there are nannies to put you to bed, and fuck off huge houses to live in) its very sad. And who wants to believe the worst about family members? Most of us dont if we love them. BUT, if it is a case of being raised to be entitled and take dodgy money then they have to face the music. It seems like there are lots of ties from dodgy regimes to the RF (I have been watching youtubes about famous jewelry and the amount given by Middle Eastern kingdoms is astounding). If they are accepting money that is less than whiter than white, they wont be unusual. But just like the MPs who got caught up in the expenses scandal years ago, that is no excuse.

I wonder what the York princesses think of their mother taking them to epsteins house AFTER he was released from prison? Can you imagine the AIBU thread on here???

They dont seem bothered

No argument from me. (Although I might quietly feel a little sorry for them) 😂

I haven't read it. Does he have credible sources? At least, sources that he considers credible, even if they remain anonymous to the reader.

At a very frail 99 I doubt Phil would be up for much extra marital rumpy pumpy 😆

I am reading Lownie's book at the moment. Yes it is very well sourced.

Psssssst, you will evoke the 'poor York girls' genie.

What could it be?

Exactly, and she didn't live with him.

As soon as you post a message with that name, it gets automatically hidden for review. I guess it gets reviewed and then released if deemed acceptable?