Prince Andrew Was Lying (and Sweating) From The Start, Wasn't He?

[TallerSally]

So now we have it, the abject and in all likelihood criminal behaviour of Prince Andrew, still titled Duke of York and still eighth in the line of succession to the British throne, laid out for all to see.

Settled out of court as part of a grotesque cover-up.

Still denying knowing Virginia Giuffre, and presumably Johanna Sjoberg whose breast he allegedly fondled, who are undoubtedly the tip of the iceberg of the girls Prince Andrew and his paedo friend Jeffrey Epstein abused.

Still protected by Buckingham Palace who have gone out of their way to state the accusations as "categorically untrue", as if anyone believes them.

Still supported by the British Royal Family who seem desperate to "rehabilitate him" (and his grifter ex-wife), still living in a Royal Palace presumably at taxpayers expense (i.e. Grifter in Chief), still prancing around at official functions, still oozing a sense of arrogant entitlement, with no-one including King Charles having any sense of courage or moral rectitude to deliver to make him face the consequences of his repugnant actions.

Still being defended by the royal palaces briefing operations and the British media, and by those at ease with shameful double standards on various boards, including this one, who are happy spending their time posting 100'000+ messages a year attacking Meghan and Harry while turning a blind eye to a likely real criminal.

No amount of covering-up will ever rehabilitate Prince Andrew. All it'll do is drag the royal family further down in the esteem of folks with any sense of decency.

The attempt to excuse and minimise CSA from a few posters is disturbing
Agree, but I'm sadly not surprised.

The dominant rhetoric on many threads about safeguarding children is to say nothing, don't judge, if you speak to the school safeguarding lead or seek advice from social services then you think you're a 'perfect parent', look the other way, maybe the parent is struggling and you reporting concerns makes it worse.

There's also regularly threads and posts where people insist that it's totally normal for teenagers to be in relationships with men in their mid-20s or older because girls are more mature, they dated a man in his 20s/30s as a 16/17 year old and it was fine, anyone who suggests otherwise is infantalising girls when they're old enough to make their own decisions.

Combine the two and it's not surprising you get the sort of victim blaming this case attracts.

I don't know if you're doing it deliberately. This isn't about Charles knowing who the Sex Pistols are. It's the fact that a Sex Pistol knew about Savile. If he knew then it is extremely unlikely that the British Intelligence who advise The Royal Family weren't aware.

Why are you not commenting on the other part of m post about Peter Ball?

Rousette - But there's a difference between knowing of someone and following and paying attention to what they are doing/saying.

I used to watch Jimmy Savile as a child, loved Jim'll Fix It. As I grew up and he was less in the news I can't ever say I read or heard about rumours, and didn't really pay attention to any news articles about him. There are lots of clips of interviews with him over the years on You Tube but I can't ever remember watching any of them when they were televised. I would probably have been early 20s for some of them. I never thought he was creepy, I didn't really have an opinion of him.

But there's a difference between knowing of someone and following and paying attention to what they are doing/saying

But you're not the heir to the throne!

Rockybooboo - I haven't watched the documentary so will comment after I have seen it.

It is astounding to read the level of incompetence being claimed for the Royal Family security staff.
And the utter naivety being claimed for King Charles.
Still better to claim utter incompetence and naivety than to accept the truth that King Charles has no issues with rich paedophiles who are friends.

I watched an interesting youtube interview, may have been linked on this thread or another thread, with an author who is writing a book about Andrew and how he is blocked from legitimately getting access to files, he said the Met police are the worst, telling him things have been lost or destroyed, nothing has been categorised, decades of security information 'lost' or buried. When he asked when were some documents destroyed, he was told 'immediately after you asked'.

He suspects that Epstein accompanied Andrew on several of his trade envoy jaunts, but he can't prove it because he is being stonewalled when he tries to get details of who accompanied him , where they went and who they met up with. It is good this is being exposed and hopefully it will gain traction. The government really has to step in and ensure the FOI act is applied to everyone and that no one is protected from any sort of illegal or shady dealings.

He had quite a bit of information on Dickie Mountbatten too and has been trying to get a programme made about his links to child abuse, he said there is finally some interest in the programme being developed. He believes Mountbatten himself was abused by one of his tutors.

The author was very credible and measured, he did not come across as someone who seemed to be exaggerating or flinging mud around hoping it will stick somewhere along the line.

On a side note, this author likened Harry and Meghan to Andrew and Fergie, entitled and impressed by wealth and flattery, he was quite scathing of them. He also listed off all the similarities in how Harry and Meghan operate outside the RF and how Edward and Wallis Simpson operated once they left the RF. I don't think he likes H&M too much.

BBC have always been for the establishment.

@User135644 so you are claiming the royal family security force are utterly incompetent?

@Alalain
Was the author Andrew Lownie ?

https://www.thebookseller.com/news/lownies-battle-to-make-mountbatten-diaries-public-costs-him-inheritance

I watched an interview with Andrew Lownie so it could have been the same one, he discussed the difficulties in obtaining details on the Royals due to their exemption from the Freedom of Information Act which applies to everyone else. Apparently Prince Andrew records are sealed until 2065,105 years after his date of birth, as applies to all royals; Lownie has criticised the absurdity of this.

I can't believe that the police records of Prince Andrew's movements haven't been examined already?? If he wanted to prove his innocence, surely all he needed was to produce the records from his security officers showing he was elsewhere at the time of the alleged offences; no need for absurd stories about non-sweating and Pizza Express birthday trips.

Lownie is very critical of Harry & Meghan it is true. I don't say he is wrong though will point out the potential inappropriateness of criticising them alongside an alleged traitor (Edward VIII) and alleged rapists (Andrew and Mountbatten). Nothing H&M have supposedly done approaches crimes like these, so juxtaposing them is risky. I also point out that Lownie is a monarchist.

Anyone is entitled to dislike H&M all they want, however they are no longer working members of the Royal Family and are not living off taxpayer funds - it is the ones that are, whom we should be concerned about now. Another H&M-bashing post on MN today I see. I do think that at this stage the hatred against them is a distraction from where our focus should be: on the grave concerns about some remaining members of the family.

Yes you are right .
Distraction .

Mountbatten was named in a court case in Belfast by a brave man who has given up his anonymity ( he had to , to tell his story I think) .
I haven’t heard any more about the case though .
Boys in a children’s home .
Heartbreaking .

Just a disgusting family .
I do believe Harry is relevant here though.
Look at what Andrew has done .
Where is the relentless bashing in the media of Andrew ? Leaks and smears ? Bot farms to swarm the internet with hate ?
Instead he is paraded along with the other ridiculous Windsor peacocks in their dress up .
Because he can do what he likes as long as he keeps his mouth shut
It’s called omertà

Yes it was, and thanks for the link.

Apologies for posting a DM link https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12681497/EDEN-CONFIDENTIAL-Lord-Mountbatten-sexual-abuse-scandal-TV-probe.html

It is alleged that this was one of the reasons the IRA targeted him.

Whilst he's on his horse outside of Buckingham Palace or wherever there are countless threads on here from people who are struggling to heat their homes. They are not warm enough. Threads on how to save money, eat lentils, shop around, use Olio , food banks, etc etc.

Yet we still keep the Royals?

Am I missing something here???

Why are they still there???

The propaganda in the uk has been subtle in the past ( the most effective kind). We are one of the most propagandised populations in the world . Most people accept the official line .

’Royal’ propaganda is much more obvious now - I don’t think they know what to do . William had to film his burger flip in a closed set . What does that tell you ?

posted too soon
The young don’t buy the ‘royal’ bullshit

The usual propaganda ( tv news , tabloids ) doesnt reach them -hence the Twitter bots etc but they are easily spotted .

Apparently Prince Andrew records are sealed until 2065,105 years after his date of birth, as applies to all royals; Lownie has criticised the absurdity of this.

It's the trade envoy records that are disgracefully sealed.

Goodness knows what's in them when what we do know of his off-piste activities in the role is shocking enough:

Prince Andrew accused of exploiting trade envoy role to help wealthy friend | London Evening Standard | Evening Standard

Oh yes. I knew about the banking crony, I think it was very dubious

And he travelled all over the globe going to the best golf courses in the world on the taxpayers tab whilst a 'Trade Envoy'

People on twitter have been vocal about Andrew in spite of attempts to derail hashtags trending.

Thank you for your heartfelt account and it's devastating to hear not just the harrowing experiences your acquaintance went through, but that the denials, victim-blaming and cover-ups by the royal family and their supporters continue to be a source of anguish.

It seems clear that the wilful ignorance is far more widespread than just the royal fam et all - it's as if people are absolutely desperate to deny that their royal heroes have behaved in the most abject manner - condoning multiple rapes of children just because they were perpetrated by royalty, aristocracy or their butlers etc (as it's obvious what Prince Andrew was doing for weeks on end chez Epstein in Palm Beach - Epstein's island was even known as "Paedophile Island").

It is completely unacceptable that in this day and age, the message to mothers of girls everywhere should still be: if god-forbid your daughter is ever targeted, you and her will face utter hell, you will be doubted and blamed, get no support from the Police and no justice from the courts, and will be made to relive your ordeal over and over again to no avail.

And to think that the conduct of the British Royal family is what is helping to perpetuate this sorry state of affairs...

It's the trade envoy records that are disgracefully sealed.

Unsealing and not 'losing' these records would be a very good start, wikileaks at least threw some light on what he was up to and how badly he performed in his role, he was totally clueless in diplomacy and certainly gaining personally from that role..

I do think the unsealing will happen sooner rather than later.

... not to mention the message to teenage boys, who are already being drawn in by the likes of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson. I'm not saying they advocate child sex abuse, but what they are advocating is just a step away. What should teenage boys think, when they hear that trafficked girls are really "party girls" and "massages aren't a crime"?

And Camilla is supposed to "be passionate about domestic abuse and violence against women". What a joke! Maybe she should start by cleaning up in her own house...

I'm no fan of Jordan Petersen as he presents himself as a visionary while repeating other psychologists ideas, however, it's unfair to him to compare him to Andrew Tate.