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.

Sane here. My mum says I was always a cold baby and cried alot when left outside because of the cold.
We've moved on from that one and we joke about it now, especialy when I don't switch the heating on when she visits😂

Eleanor Williams would be a notable exception and of course Amber Heard

No

Not given the connection and mentoring he gave our king. And the influence he had on our royal family.

Ok… so murdered is not enough, what would you like to see happen?

Yes, she is. But there are numerous examples the other way, so the default position should be that we believe the women.

i’d like to see our King accepting that this absolute hero to him was fallible. He hero worships a child abuser.

Or perhaps he does not care.

Yes we should start from that point but that doesn’t excuse the need for verifiable evidence - or that starting point can be abused as in Amber Heard’s case.

That event killed 3 other people and seriously injured with life changing consequences 3 other people. Even in his own violent death other innocent people suffered, which was the theme of his life. Violence to achieve an aim and the death of innocents was the price that was worth paying. He had no empathy to humanity, so abuse for sexual gratification wouldn't have been a big deal.

In case I’m not clear. This man Lord Mountbatten of Burma was a really prolific child abuser of small boys. That is on the public record. Meanwhile our King has always said that this man is a mentor and he has never ever criticised him. Or said anything against him. What on earth is that all about?

How does King Charles get away with that then?

I think we get back to what Mairia Cahill wrote about when history is rewritten to protect organisations and institutions.

Just remembered another one of my generation that was young boys not believed, not girls or women.
Cyril Smith Rochdale.
Those too young to know about this deviant might Google him.
He managed to close down all allegations for 20 years based on his status and the perceived status of those making the allegations. They were, of course, all completely true.

You understand the IRA were responsible for the explosion, not Mountbatten? That he was targeted for his military service and close links with the Royal family? Why on earth would King Charles wash the family’s 100 year old dirty linen in public over events he had no hand in?

He gets a mention in a Northern soul book I read that young lads that snuck off to all niters were put to him for corporal punishment ..spa kings.
Seemingly it was an open secret in the area.

Spankings.

I'm aware that I was put out in my pram to get fresh air...but I wasn't left to howl.
The relative that I mentioned upthread was a father and appalled at the baby being left to cry.

When I was about 9, and playing outside I'd be asked to keep an eye on a neighbour's baby. There was certainly no question of leaving her to 'cry it out'.

Apart from anything else, some of the dads in our block were on shift work and trying to sleep during the day.

Maxwell is perfectly safe in my opinion. She struck a deal with the current US administration to make a public statement that Trump wasn't involved in any of this. After which, she was moved from her high security prison to a low security prison camp.

I'm sure the agreement is that she will either be quietly pardoned in the next couple of years or at the very latest, just as Trump leaves.

She won't be talking about anything to anyone with the prospect of an early pardon ahead of her.

There was also the fact that the Liberal Party didn't want the scandal.

She did, no doubt aided by an upbringing that taught her to think of and treat everyone below her in the social scale with utter contempt.

Have you any examples of Princess Anne treating everyone below her on the social scale with contempt?

I can believe she does do contempt, but reserves it for people she thinks are slackers and spongers (eg her younger brother, who technically was above her in the social
order…)

That certainly wasn't my relative's experience when he worked at Balmoral. (He worked on the forestry side and as a ghillie. He was brought up on the estate since his father worked there.)

He wasn't fond of Philip, but the one person that he actively disliked was Anthony Armstrong Jones. I don't recall that he ever had a bad word to say about the rest.

He mainly encountered Anne as a child, but recalled dancing a Paul Jones with her at the Ghillies' Ball when she was older.

ETA Our family still has the letter of condolence that the Queen Mother had sent to my relative's mother when his father died. Yes, it was written by an equerry, but there was certainly no contempt there.

“The firm” didn’t bury Virginia’s allegations; stop spreading conspiracy theories. The King has taken robust action - as robust as is possible to take given Andrew has never been to court.

Princess Anne has had numerous speeding fines, failed to control her dogs and has spoken to plenty of reporters pretty rudely. She wasn't too pleasant when she met a group of students my family member was supervising either. Very brusque and clearly not terribly happy to be there. Perhaps having a bad day.

I think there is a huge danger at times like this of demonising someone like Andrew while trying to cling onto the idea he is simply one bad apple in a barrel of sound fruit.

He is uniquely repulsive, but his character and behaviour didn't come from nowhere. I think it's about time we started behaving in a grown-up manner and regarding the entire royal family with a far more questioning, if not completely sceptical, eye.

We like to fondly imagine we know all about their characters and personalities and private lives so we can create our own private little soap opera about them. The truth is that we don't know them. We will never know them. All we know about them is what they choose to tell us. Why do we keep falling into the trap of assuming they are all wonderful when time after time it is demonstrated to us that the reverse is very much true?

It may well be a result of the ridiculous gilded cage we build for one obscenely privileged family in exchange for them publicly performing in ways we find pleasing. That's enough to warp anyone. But it's interesting to see on these threads how people are finally accepting Andrew's awfulness while desperately trying to cling to the theory that the rest of the extended family is wonderful.