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.

No, it is setting out the law. I know you think the law should be disregarded so that you can see what you want, but that is the law and applies to everyone. I'm sorry the law isn't what you want it to be. By all means campaign to get it changed. But don't criticise government departments for following the law or claim that following the law means there is some kind of cover up.

I repeat it is in the public interest that these files or even parts of these files be released

Agree entirely.

We are being fobbed off with the public stripping of meaningless made up baubles and velvet cloaks in respect of one scandal while another scandal remains resolutely under wraps.

@prh47bridge

Are you familiar with the 7 principles of public life ?

It states in black and white in the trade envoy guidelines published by Parliament that all envoys must abide by these .

Has Andrew?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2

Yes, I am. That has nothing to do with whether the civil service should release files to Lownie.

@prh47bridge

Im not talking about Lownie .

Im talking about misuse of public funds and misconduct in public office

These files need to be examined

I wouldn't argue with that but, unless Andrew is charged, we won't know if they have been examined. That is a matter for the authorities.

@prh47bridge and @Catullus5 you both bring a breath of rationality and knowledge. Thank you.

It's interesting that the 20 year rule ( which replaced the 30 year rule in force in my day) is trumped ( for want of a better word) by GDPR.

@prh47bridge
The same authorities who repeatedly informed Elizabeth about Andrew’s behaviour and who were ignored ?

Andrew was only removed as trade envoy once he was named in the international scandal .
He’d been doing as he pleased in the taxpayers money for over a decade up to that point despite repeated warnings to the Windsors .

Perhaps they've all been sold Cathy?

Fawcett may have gone (or has he? ) but that doesn't mean others wouldn't be prepared to step into his shoes

That’s how I read it.

It’s only the secrecy that keeps the monarchy looking like it’s honest.

What integrity???

Upon reflection, I think ‘integrity’ used here was meant it in terms of strength or grade, like we talk of the integrity of steel for example. I think he meant to ‘keep the monarch strong and whole.’

I don’t think he meant integrity as in being ‘honest’ which is what we most commonly mean when we talk of people having integrity.

I’ve started to notice that the people who fashion some of the Royal statements have a way with words, in that they seem to manipulate words - double meanings, and often make things not quite clear enough.

The integrity of the power structures which allow the RF to get away with it all!

That means the same thing with regard to human beings though, rather than metal. If hiding things away is the only way to keep the Monarchy strong and whole then the truth would presumably make them weak and expose them as the fractured family they are. Personally I think it is the truth that will keep them stronger. At the moment it seems they think they are untouchable and that because people kow tow to them and do their bidding all the time that they must be amazing and always right. They then do what they like and dont listen to advice because they know that they can just get one of those disposable 'subjects' to take the fall/enable them/make excuses for them if it all goes to shit. If they were accountable in any way, as the rest of us are, there is a chance they will think about the consequences of their actions before they are forced to do something they should have done decades ago instead of brushing yet another thing under the carpet ' to protect the integrity of the Monarchy'

Yes Ive noticed that too . Slippery .

Another technique is they appear to answering a question but are in fact only giving a partial answer . For example , when critics say Charles and William need to pay their taxes as the rest of us do, the reply will be ‘They do pay tax!’

But that’s not the whole truth. They pay some income tax - based btw on an amount they themselves decide on! . But they don’t pay capital gains tax, corporation tax or most unfairly of all - inheritance tax . Elizabeth did a deal with the Tories I think - pay the self declared income tax amount mentioned above to keep the masses quiet but NO inheritance tax.

Royalists will say ‘their books are examined by a committee!’ Again that’s not the whole story - the are but these books are based in what Charles and William decide to declare as taxable income. Do you see the difference?

The other wheeze is one the royals themselves use. Confuse public and private. You can see examples of that in this thread when Windsors’ ability to opt out of laws was defended by saying ‘the crown is exempt’ ie the government
But I wasnt referring to the crown as governmental concept , I was referring to the Windsors personal freedom and wealth . Both of which they protect by choosing which laws they will not recognise.

Public when it suits them , private when it suits them .

Like the Duchies. ‘Oh but they must charge market rent , they are obliged to! Say the royalists
If that is true- and it’s a big if- what is preventing the billionaire Windsors from immediately donating all the profits back to the government? Nothing .

@BeeWitchy

Oh I was talking about posters here but I get your point

I interpreted ‘integrity’ as meaning ‘stength’ - the less common use of the word because I thought the statement was referring to the the ‘crown’
What was in that will that would threaten the stability of the monarchy?

I thought at the time that it was odd though I had only seen the media interpretation- that the queen would be embarrassed. IE the media referred to Elizabeth as a woman - this nonsense private / public embodiment of the country/ needs to stop.
It’s yet another medieval remnant

Integrity is indeed quite an amusing word to arise in connection with this family.

There will be a lot more scrutiny of the late Queen and her role in all this.

Defender of the Faith and staunch Christian, upholder of British values, beloved mother of nations lauded for her "powerful humanity" and "devotion to public service."

It doesn't quite marry with the reality of what she enabled various members of her family to get away with.

Email records indicate that Virginia wasn't the only young woman trafficked to Andrew Mountbattern Windsor by Epstein, and despite being hampered at every turn there are still journalists (not to mention American congressmen) chip-chipping away at the truth. Both the former Duke and his ex-wife appear to been stupid enough to leave an email trail for some of their shenanigans, which makes it harder for the Windsors to lie, deny and obfuscate their way out of. The royal family tried very hard to make this story go away but it sometimes feels as if the floodgates are about to burst. Here's hoping.

@APTPT

I predicted a while ago that Elizabeth would be thrown under the bus re Andrew ( not that I think she shouldn’t be) . I can’t believe how quickly it is happening.

It seems that once dead the previous monarch can be used as lightning rod in order to protect the current incumbent . Same will happen when Charles goes - the truth will tumble out and they’ll try to protect William’s secrets.

How sick is this pantomime ?

Get rid of the lot .

Britain needs renewal . Change is healthy .

I think some are taking 'integrity' to mean 'moral integrity'.

Deleted. Tried to post a photo.