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.

Wow

You clearly aren’t typing in your phone while doing 199 other things like the rest of us.

So are you stating as fact that Elizabeth Windsor has never excluded herself from laws ? I see you focus on one in particular with no reference to the hundreds of other laws

@prh47bridge

I recognise this approach to trying to slap down criticism of the Windsors .

I’ve no doubt that you are right about the two laws you have selected - you seem to have a great deal of detail at your fingertips - but that does not make you right about the thousands of other laws the Windsors exempt themselves from .

Similarly I’m sure the government does exclude itself - of course it would - handy to try to conflate the governemt with the idea of the crown in abstract . How does that work with for example the Windsors exempting themselves from environmental laws?

But unfortunately for the royal apologists such as you , it is not just the Guardian that you are stating are publishing lies.

I refer you to the book by the former privy councillor Norma Baker ‘And what do you do?’
Is he lying when he writes :

’There are two unelected individuals who, behind the scenes, have acquired the unique right to be consulted on , shape , and even block legislation that affects their private interests….those individuals are the queen and the prince of Wales.

So @prh47bridge are you claiming the also needs to consult lawyers or that he is lying ?

I've mentioned two. I could have listed more.

It is true that legislation affecting the Crown's interests must be approved by the monarch. However, the Guardian's articles are woefully misinformed. They did not identify a single case where the Queen had excluded herself from a law or had a law altered in her favour. Contrary to what the Guardian's journalists think, the monarch routinely grants consent on the advice of the government. A refusal to do so or imposing conditions would provoke a constitutional crisis.

Did the Queen ever lobby to have a law altered? It wouldn't surprise me if she did. Many people lobby the government for changes in bills, and I would expect the monarch's household to be paying closer attention than the average citizen.

Did she ever get the government to alter a law in a way that protected her interests? Possibly, but the Guardian does not appear to have turned up any solid evidence of her doing so. I have yet to find a single one of their examples that actually stands up to scrutiny.

Did she ever have a law altered to exclude her? Absolutely not, if for no other reason that the long standing principle in UK law is that no law binds the Crown (which includes ministers and civil servants - it isn't just the monarch) unless it is stated to do so, either expressly or by necessary implication. That is something the Guardian's journalists clearly failed to understand. She may have had laws altered to include her (if, for example, the Guardian is right that her intervention led to a change in the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act, that would show her doing so), but she had no need at all to get any law altered to exclude her. And, even if we got rid of the monarchy, the Crown exclusion would still stand. Whilst individual members of the government are bound by the same laws as the rest of us, the government generally is not and all political parties want to keep it that way.

Oh you could have listed more ? lol

I could list more abuses than the unelected Windsors picking and choosing which laws they will not follow.

Your reference to the government excluding itself is irrelevant to the point under discussion. Governments can do as they see fit .
Unelected Windsors interfering is an abuse of privilege never mind being proof that they have power over the government when we are fed the lie that they have no power

You seem fixated on the guardian . You have not addressed my quote from Norman Baker - which supports my statements about the Windsors interfering with law making

Is he also lying ?

Who in the royal family (if this thread is still about them), has raped a child, that we know of? They may well have known a child rapist but we all could; life is full of surprises, we think we know people and then sometimes find things out later.

Here is the link to the Guardian article
The guardian states 160 laws , not thousands as I said . Mind you- 1 is too many

Look at this paragraph re one of exemptions is that the police cannot enter the Windsors private estates. How handy for Andrew

“More than 30 different laws stipulate that police are barred from entering the private Balmoral and Sandringham estates without the Queen’s permission to investigate suspected crimes, including wildlife offences and environmental pollution – a legal immunity accorded to no other private landowner in the country.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property

You are using words very selectively here. She has not 'altered laws' but only because they were already altered before they became law, so exemptions were already part of the law before they were even passed by Parliament (undebated, as Parliament has decided their loyalty is to the Crown, not us). So the process very basically is - Monarch had advanced notice of potential legislation. Monarch says ' I dont fancy that, I want an exemption' The government writes the exemption into what becomes a bill. Bill becomes Law after being given Royal Assent. Palace says 'we comply with all laws'. Well yes they do because the law says they dont have to follow it. There are hindreds of pieces of legislation with these exemptions.

No, I didn't address the quote by Norma Baker. What she said is true. However, it overlooks the fact that those individuals act on advice from the government.

I am not disputing that the royal family is exempt from some laws that affect the rest of us, but the point I am making is that it is due to them historically having the same exemptions as the government, not due to them exercising their power to get these exemptions. I am not saying these exemptions are right. I think there are aspects of the system that are long overdue an overhaul. But the reality is that the Windsors have very little actual power.

@prh47bridge

Here’s an associate professor of law who is quoted in the Guardian article .

Unlike other private individuals, however, Elizabeth Windsor has also had personalised carve-outs and exemptions written into swathes of British law, often in areas where she has private interests or investments.
“There is a clear pattern, and they relate largely to the economic interests of the monarch,” said Thomas Adams, an associate professor of law at Oxford University, who examined the Guardian’s findings

I see in your treatise @prh47bridge you seek to restrict yourself to describing the actions of monarch as head of state. But as we all know the Windsors are also ‘the firm’ and have enriched themselves hugely as a result . Off the back of the taxpayers .
Such duty eh?

@prh47bridge

It is Norman Baker - did I have a typo ?

He was an MP and former privy councillor
Are you seriously unaware of his work ?

‘And what do you do ?’Is the title

If you are a serious royal apologist I suggest you read his book . You can’t defend them if you don’t know the truth

Mind you - not knowing and not wanting to know seems to be a prerequisite for royalists these days

Anyway I’m sure mr Environment, William will ensure all those exemptions are overturned first thing when he has the shiny hat !

Oh wait . Didn’t he recently sell mining rights that have environmentalists up in arms ?

But it is not just about the letter of the law is it? Most people find it distasteful to think that a public figure would have sex with very young women who were provided for his pleasure. Might not be illegal, might not even be immoral depending on your view, but it does not look good that someone is having sex with a woman his daughters ages.

Edited to add - this is categorically untrue not due to them exercising their power to get these exemptions

That is exactly what the late queen and KC have been doing for years.

It is distasteful to think of a forty year old man having sex with a seventeen year old girl. However he maintains he didn't. Others did.

Why can we not just leave it alone now? It's doing no good to keep raking it over.

I responded to your claim that they have a lot of power.

Yes, there are areas of law that protect the economic interests of the monarch, but much of that predates Elizabeth and is due to the way the monarchy has evolved.

I am not a royal apologist, but I think debates should be based on accurate information, not the kind of rubbish that the Guardian has published.

@Hotflushesandchilblains - No, it is not. The Guardian's claims on this front are incorrect. Whilst Monarch's Consent is a thing, it is exercised on the advice of the government. If the monarch tried to use it to block legislation or force changes, as the Guardian alleges, it would cause a constitutional crisis.

@LBFseBrom

What a disgraceful attitude .
Leave it alone ??

Andrew Windsor has been enriched by the tax payer all his useless life

His accuser is dead.

He pledged to help the police .
Instead he hid and the Windsors protected him- they even attempted to rehabilitate his image several times !

When he helps investigators and answers their questions maybe then it will ‘left alone’

No, I am not using words selectively. If you prefer, change the word "law" to "bill" in my post. I still stand by what I said.

@prh47bridge

Changing your words from law to bill changes the meaning substantially

That is exactly how it’s done - hidden and secretly and that was @RainbowBagels point I suspect

What a disgusting attitude. Shall we leave all rapists and sexual predators alone now or does that only apply to the Windsor Family.

It does no good at all to keep raking it over, agreed, especially as Andrew said he never met the trafficked girl he was photographed with and most certainly did not do anything to her worth compensating more than £12,000,000. Let bygones be bygones. He has been banished to Norfolk where he will continue to live a life of privilege, ease and no accountability, while Virginia lies in her grave. Hasn't he suffered enough?

No but the point is, nothing has been proved against Andrew, only that he knew Epstein. So did loads of other people and they aren't vilified. There's no evidence of him being a rapist or sexual predator.

Well said and as for the £12m, there's no evidence of that. We know he paid her something but not how much, the figure grew daily. He sold the ski chalet he and Fergie owned for a few million.

I bet you anything he wishes now he hadn't but had instead gone over and counter-sued her. She might have backed down, she did for others. However his family and the people advising them wanted it hushed up. Fat lot of good that did.

We'll never know the full facts now that poor woman has died, unless her husband can be persuaded to speak or if Ghislane Maxwell is allowed to but anything they say will be heavily edited and who would believe them anyway?

It's a sad business but it does none of us any good to constantly have it shoved in our faces, the media rubbing hands in glee.

So why was he stripped of his titles by his brother? If he did nothing wrong?

Public opinion, the media, advice. Guilty or not he had become an embarrassment. The family are not renowned for loyalty. It could be rectified, who knows? I doubt it will somehow.

Things could have been done quietly, behind the scenes, without Charles making a public pronouncement.

However, now it has been done, Andrew publicly humiliated and stripped of everything, why can it not now be left alone.

If the monarch tried to use it to block legislation or force changes

Come on now, you surely cant be naive enough to think this is the way the RF would exercise its power? A few chosen words, and lunch to talk about the advisability of certain actions..... The RF excel at exercising soft power. I agree that the above would cause a crisis. But there are many many ways things can be done so that it never gets to that.

Of course Charles will be doing the same - in fact I wonder if he was doing so even with Elizabeth was in situ.

Princes consent.

Same privilege now goes to pull the wool Wills.

But the reality is that the Windsors have very little actual power

Can you explain then how and why the state broadcaster has agreed to a perpetual edit on what can now be shown of major royal events specifically E2's funeral and C3's coronation?

Alongside W's apparently successful 'demand' that Diana's Panorama interview never be broadcast again?

Both screenings of national and historical significance yet apparently doomed never to be shown in full again on a royal whim.