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?!

It’s always very telling that people suddenly become invested in the presumption of innocence when the alleged crimes involve women or children.

In fact that’s a maxim that applies in one place only - a criminal court. It applies nowhere else, anywhere, ever. You are absolutely free
to decide someone is guilty.

He is not someone who would be welcome
around me, or my children. I think those who would be entirely comfortable with him
being around their children are extremely foolish.

No that's not the point at all, if you read the entire thing.

The point is that PA is a public figure who many believe is guilty of having sex with a very young woman, who couldn't consent. This girl was being abused and trafficked due to the power embalance and one man's abuse of that power. PA became a part of that when he became a part of Epstein's world.

When Epstein was arrested the first time (think I've got the time line right) PA insisted on "breaking" his relationship with Epstein face to face instead of all the other ways he could have done it. He just couldn't keep away and didn't have a seconds care for the young girls and women who were victims.

One person on here said that the church should accept any old sinner who wanted to attend. Not really the point of the thread as that was more about PA showing his sweaty face in public at a Royal event. The Royal family going to church on Christmas day has always been a public event. I pointed out that actually the church aren't a soggy wet lot who must accept anyone to any event. That turned into safe guarding and we were off at a tangent.

I want to be clear that I don't think PA going to church is a safe guarding issue. I don't think he is going to rape any 17 year olds amongst the congregation. His crimes were more transactional if you like.

The point is that he has no shame, no remorse and no consequences and that interview was him treating the general public with contempt. Public figures lose their jobs all the time over stuff like this and so should he. People are looking out for any hint of him being inched back into public life and many won't accept that.

I think that sums it up.

Yes, that's what I remembered too.

How can certain people on here explain that away?

Dear? Hahaha

What are you talking about. I am honestly flummoxed. Andrew is going to sue me? And I'm a keyboard warrior for correcting facts about PA knowing JE was a sex offender/trafficker? (He has said he knew in his Maitlis interview, happy to copy and past the relevant bit if necessary)
I now have to check if there's a big brown envelope with a crown on it on the doorstep! I'm scared!
Guilty of what by the way? Guilty of massive misjudgement and mixing with sex offenders (JE & GM) and guilty of most likely knowing, and guilty quite probably of sleeping with procured sex trafficked vulnerable girl or girls. (Probably being the operative word, we don't know because he paid of someone he supposedly didn't know!)

Yes. Here's what he said. Out the horses mouth.

EM: He threw a party to celebrate his release and you were invited as the guest of honour.
PA: No, I didn't go. Oh, in 2010, there certainly wasn't a party to celebrate his release in December because it was a small dinner party, there were only eight or 10 of us I think at the dinner. If there was a party then I'd know nothing about that.
EM: You were invited to that dinner as a guest of honour.
PA: Well I was there so there was a dinner, I don't think it was quite as you might put it but yeah, OK I was there for… I was there at a dinner, yeah.
EM: I'm just trying to work this out because you said you went to break up the relationship and yet you stayed at that New York mansion several days. I'm wondering how long?
PA: But I was doing a number of other things while I was there.
EM: But you were staying at the house…
PA: Yes.
EM: … of a convicted sex offender.
PA: It was a convenient place to stay. I mean I've gone through this in my mind so many times. At the end of the day, with a benefit of all the hindsight that one can have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do. But at the time I felt it was the honourable and right thing to do and I admit fully that my judgement was probably coloured by my tendency to be too honourable but that's just the way it is.

Sooooo honourable to say for days with a convicted sex offender celebrating his release! Good old Andy

That interview gets worse listening to it after time has passed.

I can't help but wonder if he actually believes this inflated view of himself.

So how has she got away with it and Prince Andrew is a pariah who apparently shouldn't walk ro church in public or even share transport with his family. I mean I thought he would have supposed to have had 'white privilege' or something but that seems to have worked in reverse here.

PA guilty by association and complicit, Oprah not. Fascinating.

Though it pains me to say, I presume it's because Andrew is one of ours, as it were. Everyone knows who he is and how he has been over decades.
Oprah isn't. There will be people in this country who haven't a clue who she is.

She is well known globally.

It is just double standards, he is a white British male. A member of the royal family so the condemnation seems to have been almost gleeful by some, like 'ha caught out'.

Again for clarity he is a stupid arrogant man but Winfrey should be held to the same standards regarding condemnation and complicity.

Also Oprah has not been accused of sexual offence herself.

Nevertheless people are free to write about Oprah as much as they want. There are more powerful figures who were friends with JE and probably implicated if looked closely. This doesn’t absolve PA.

In fact (presumption of innocence) is a maxim that applies in one place only - a criminal court. It applies nowhere else, anywhere, ever. You are absolutely free
to decide someone is guilty

Well yes, but it worries me that this can easily lead to folk taking the law into their own hands, and never mind the damage when they get it wrong. It even gets to the point where "paedo" becomes just another insult to throw around, and that's surely not a good idea

In any case I'd have thought there were enough reasons to avoid Andrew like the plague, whether he's guilty of this particular crime or not

Also Andrew saw and stayed with Epstein after he was convicted and was at parties with trafficked girls. Oprah and many, many, other people were friendly with Weinstein and pictured with him before his conviction.

There are many, many articles out there setting how Harvey Weinstein’s conduct was an open secret in Hollywood circles for years and years, with agents and colleagues openly warning young actresses away from him due to his behaviour.

If you are going to take the view that Prince Charles’ friendship with Jimmy Savile is justifiably criticisable as him hanging around a sex offender when he should have known better (as PP on this thread have been doing) then exactly the same is true of Oprah.

Does anyone seriously believe that Andrew would have ever been arrested? It was never going to happen. Not just Andrew either, many extremely powerful men were allegedly involved. What happened to all the video tapes which Epstein allegedly had of all the 'parties?'

As for JS being good friends with Charles, I always thought that anyone like that would have had their backgrounds thoroughly checked out. As for no one knowing about JS, Johnny Rotten knew about it in 1978. Maybe Mr Rotten was just extremely perceptive. Charles has certainly been unfortunate with his choice of friends.

As for people victim blaming VG and other girls, shame on you. Truly appalling.

Oh I definitely criticise them both and Oprah has said she knew Weinstein was a bully- but I think Andrew was worse, and stupid with it for going to stay with him after conviction.

Yeah when Epstein was suddenly arrested the FBI also raided his mansion in NY removing large amounts of photographic evidence, call logs from his private plane etc from his safe, which could not be used because in killed himself pre-trial Presumably FBI still has this evidence.

Many powerful men, academic and cultural institutions - both sides of the political divide - implicated

Epsteins death was convenient to many - except all the victims and the principle of justice

That interview gets worse listening to it after time has passed.
I can't help but wonder if he actually believes this inflated view of himself.

It does and I think he did at least at the time.

Appalling that the buffoon thought the public were just going to swallow his drivel wholesale.

If you are going to take the view that Prince Charles’ friendship with Jimmy Savile is justifiably criticisable as him hanging around a sex offender when he should have known better (as PP on this thread have been doing) then exactly the same is true of Oprah.

Very true. I'm actually quite amazed this hasn't been more widely publicised but maybe it's better known in the US?

As for JS being good friends with Charles, I always thought that anyone like that would have had their backgrounds thoroughly checked out

You'd think but Charles is notorious for not listening to what he doesn't want to hear and given the way he was publicly hissing at his lackeys over a pen it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the bearer of bad news over one of his mates got similar or worse.

You'd think but Charles is notorious for not listening to what he doesn't want to hear and given the way he was publicly hissing at his lackeys over a pen it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the bearer of bad news over one of his mates got similar or worse.

And this was PA's downfall. He was warned many times about JE, his advisors and even the Queen said she was 'concerned' about the friendship years before it all imploded. That didn't stop him.

Whatever else Charles is, he isn't a good judge of character. Jimmy Savile, Peter Ball, Laurens van der Post.

To the Parish Safeguarding Officer in the first place, if you think someone attending a CofE church is a safeguarding risk. Or the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer, if you don't think the individual church is taking it seriously (the Parish Safeguarding role is voluntary, so their response is a bit more variable - but their first point of call would be the diocesan SG team, who are paid professionals).

Honestly your posts are bizarre. I literally have no idea why you keep insisting I need to report someone I don’t know for a concern I haven’t raised.

lovely that you’ve spent time over Christmas researching this information I don’t need though.

Umm… thanks

Every CofE Church has (should have) a Parish Safeguarding Officer, who is a volunteer. The diocesan safeguarding team are paid professionals. All clergy have regular safeguarding training.

If you have reasonable grounds for thinking someone attending church is a safeguarding risk you have a responsibility to report that. Your church should have posters up letting you know who to contact - in our church it is the vicar, the PSO or one of the Churchwardens.

They will take advice from the diocesan staff, and if there seems to be a credible risk (rather than just gossip) they will do a risk assessment - typically diocesan staff are ex-police, ex-probation, or ex-LA SWs with experience of conducting risk assessments, but if necessary they will commission an independent risk assessment.

There is nothing to stop any sexual predator going to church, and no-one would know.

No need for any research - I work in safeguarding and my team works with the diocesan team where there is an individual of concern who wishes to attend church.

Just letting any posters here who have raised the issue of PA being a safeguarding risk in attending church know that (within the CofE) there are established procedures - tightened considerably in the light of past failings - to manage the situation. If you don't consider him a safeguarding risk then these posts aren't addressed to you.

So I can't see any reason why he shouldn't attend church with his family if he chooses to do so.

Then why do you keep quoting me?

you know you don’t have to quote anyone right?

you you just post you PSA as a stand-alone post

Just for fun 😀