Andrew was on the church walkabout this morning

[meh2022]

I was surprised (and not in a good way) to see Andrew join the rest of the royal family at the Christmas service at Sandringham church this morning. He even shook hands with at least one member of the crowd. Surely he should be kept away from the public if the royal family have any desire whatsoever to keep the monarchy going? What is Charles thinking in allowing him to join them?!

The defence of Andrew on this thread is disgusting.

Do you seriously think the parents of children at the time were aware of Savilles sick behaviour? He had access to children enabled by parents, carers, organisations and not least the kids themselves . You act as though you at the time would have seen through him?

This line is bang out of order.

They were children, they were vulnerable. You clearly did not see the documentary where the kids were so irked by him. One wore tampons (even though she was not on her periods), pads and mutliple panties just to stop him from fingering her.
A disabled one actually called him out best she could on telly, she was in bed.

I suggest you go and watch it, hopefully you will stop coming out with these ridiculous statements.

Also, he was charged twice. Police did not gather enough evidence - though I believe he was found to have done it after his death. So yes, money and influence buys freedom.

They rot themselves by covering up and accepting all these scandals.

And the 'he's family, his children are there' argument doesn't wash.

Autumn Philipps, Sarah and Serena Armstrong have their children there and they themselves have been. part of the family and attending these services for years and the no longer go. You can bet, they have been forbidden.

If you think Charles has no control over who goes, you are delusional.

@notanotheroneagain

Or maybe they just have the decency/intelligence/self awareness to stay away?

Obviously DBS checks etc are required for anyone working with children and the vulnerable and some services like weddings are generally considered to be for invited guests only but I am struggling to think of any church activities where someone who just wanted to attend an event would be turned away. I've never been in a situation where I have attended a service alongside a known paedophile and I can imagine that if it happened other people might choose to leave and it would lead to some heated discussion at the PCC meetings but to turn anyone away would seem to me to completely go against the teachings of Jesus.

Of course the church would not turn away a known paedophile., But the other parishioners would not exactly be making him welcome either.

There is big difference between some of the individuals mentioned on this thread. In the case of individuals who are not longer living when a crime is thought to have been committed no action can be taken - there are questions there are clearly if crimes have occurred over a long period.

In this case we are talking about someone who is alive who has not been prosecuted - yes we were told some payment was exchanged but we have also heard again via the press that he did this due to pressure from his family. The point is he has not been found guilty of a crime, he hasn't even been charged with a crime. If one of my relatives was treated as if they had committed a crime when they had not been found guilty I would feel rightly furious. I have no feelings toward Prince Andrew but I do feel that is not right to assume guilt - everyone has the right to be assumed innocent and treated as such.

@twelly Genuine question. Do you really in your private life treat people as innocent unless they have been convicted of a crime?

He shook hands with a man who spoke to him .

@antelopevalley

I don't think the royal family were making him welcome either. There was an obvious distance between them and him, and he has been kicked out of Buckingham Palace.

As I said in an earlier comment, if Charles had banned him from attending, people like you would have slated him for preventing someone from attending church on Christmas day and abusing his supreme governor of the Church of England powers. It was a catch 22 situation.

@antelopevalley
Yes.

That said I might have an uneasy feeling about people for varied reasons and choose not to associate with them and clearly I would not leave me children with someone who I did not trust and limit contact.

@twelly So rightly you do not treat people in your private life as innocent unless convicted in court.
We all know that many paedophiles and rapists are never convicted. In our private lives anyone would keep their teenage girls away from a man known to go to parties with convicted paedophiles, older men and young teenage girls. We would all recognise that asa very dodgy set up and all recognise the men attending such a party are not to be trusted.

@purpledalmation

You state she was willing and 'threw herself' at Andrew. How in god's name do you know this. In legal papers it was stated JE arranged for her to sleep with PA.
Nice bit of blaming of trafficked girls by you.

Decency.........self awareness.....

What on earth are you talking about ?
They did not do or been accused of anything !

@notanotheroneagain

So why would Charles ban them? Its far more likely that they have moved away from the Royal family and have busy lives of their own and therefore have no reason to go to Sandringham, and not because Charles banned them like you implied.

@Roussette I missed that! That is sickening.

What lots of you do not seem to realise is that Epstein was simply a rich version of the taxi drivers in Rotherham grooming girls. The only difference is that Epstein transported the girls in private jets instead of taxis and that the girls were stuck on a private island instead of flats above takeaways.

The point is not Saville per se it's the building picture of connections and repeated associations with pedophiles and sex offenders

Exactly

To be caught out once by a plausible offender could be regarded as unfortunate, but to keep on doing it looks rather different - especially when the family have sources of information denied to most of us

@purpledalmation
I never once said he paid her for her services, nor did I say he was a paedophile. I said he paid her, which he did, despite insisting he never met her. If she was trafficked he committed a criminal, sexual offence, regardless of whether he knew about it or not.

Quite the coincidence that all divorced spouses are too busy every year at that time to attend church with their children - especially as it's something they have traditionally done for years and some of the children are small. 🤔

He has been kicked out of Buckingham Palace ...

Again, Prescottdanni123, let's not assume something reported by the Sun of all places to be fact - unless there's some official source I've missed?

All manner of things are "reported" by media scum, but it doesn't necessarily make them facts

@Puzzledandpissedoff

If I was referring to a news report about Prince Charles supporting Andrew I have no doubt you would be encouraging me to believe it. Because any news reports that disgrace the royal family are gospel truth, right? And anything that makes them look upstanding is complete bollocks?

Maybe because the past couple of years of lockdown Christmases (i.e. the extended family didn't get together), plus the death of the matriarch, have created new habits and traditions?

I’m no fan of Andrew, but the only relevant fact is people are innocent until proven guilty.

@notanotheroneagain

If I was divorced, I don't think I would be going to a church service with the exes family, no.

My sister is separated from her husband. For various reasons, he has them on Christmas day. My sister does not attend church with them or go over to her Ex MIL's for Christmas Dinner purely because her children are small. They are separated and they find it better and easier to do Christmas celebrations separately.

You really don't know the situation so suggesting that they don't attend because Charles banned them is a massive stretch. They are no longer part of the royal family so they don't feel the need or desire to attend. But are happy for their kids to go as kids are still part of the Royal family.

@HappinessAlley I do not believe you really think that. No parent really puts that into practice.
A man who goes to parties with known paedophiles and lots of middle-aged men and lots of young teenage girls is someone any decent parent would keep their kids well away from.