Andrew breaking the law

[Gizzagizza]

So, can I just get this straight - at the time Prince Andrew slept with the 17 year old Virginia Giuffre - was it illegal in the UK to have sex with a prostitute who was under 18? Was illegal to have sex with someone who had been trafficked? I know it is now.

Thank you @Kalpitiya . You make a very important point
She was a teenager when first groomed .

Virginia Guiffre in more recent years took on the Windsor industrial complex ( it’s a machine) to try to get justice , despite the Windsors using their position to try to silence her ( their public statement calling her a liar ).

Did we know at that point that Epstein had been back and forth to the Windsors for over a decade after his first conviction for solitication of a child or was that information a result of the the partial release of the Epstein files ? I’m not sure

But we do know that as soon as the Windsors paid Virginia off , the PR machine attempted a rehabilitation of Andrew.

William photographed with Andrew beside him. Headlines about a ‘united family’ .
They were testing the waters to see how far they’d get with the gullible . Admittedly they have got away with horrors over the years .

But it didn’t work . So next strategy was try to convince the gullible that it was only Andrew . The rest have clean hands ….

They’ll allow Elizabeth to take a lot of blame as she’s dead . They’ll maybe allow
some to taint Charles as he’s literally ensconced . The vulnerable one is William .
Hence the intensive PR trying to say he’s different

They say that about each heir . Every time . They said it about Charles, yet he’s done nothing except take more from us .

They still have not answered the basic questions we as taxpayers are entitled to an answer to :

William and Charles , what did you know about Epstein and when ?

@Ukisgaslit
"William and Charles , what did you know about Epstein and when ?"
it is a very interesting question, but remember none of them have lived with Andrew, or at Buckingham Palace.
Charles lives at Highgrove, or Clarancee House.
Highgrove has been a permanent home since he and Diana were married, and while still married to Diana, I think they lived at Kensignton Palace (London Home). After divorce, I believe Charles lived at St James Palace until the Queen mother died, and then moved to Clarence House.
Not really anywhere near Royal Lodge which is at Windsor.
Andrew was stripped of his titles, etc, because emails came out which showed he had lied, certainly to the public, about ending his association with Epstein.
Did he also lie to other family members?
William is 43, and most of these events occurred over 20 years ago, and ceryainly before he was married. Therefore he would have been splitting his time between Charles' home at Highgrove, etc and Diana at KP, plus Balmoral and Sandringham at Christmas and summer.
I have read the palace (that is the staff, etc), have tightened up security and non family members have to be 'signed in', which clearly did not happen when Andrew was inviting Epstein and Ghislaine there.

@milveycrohn fair points.

One of my friends only found out her husband was a rapist when the police turned up. How many wives and children find out their husband/partner/Dad has obscene images on their computer when the police turn up. They often live in much closer contact than the RF.

It has nothing to do with where the Windsors lived , that is pure deflection.
No attempt to say ‘I didn’t know about my husband’s crime’ is relevant here .

We now know Epstein was using RAF air strips . That was not ok-ed by Andrew alone .We also know that Charles was reportedly running things behind the scenes .
Epstein was first convicted in 2008. There was nearly a decade of back and forth trips etc with the palace since then. Plenty of photos of William laughing it up with Andrew and family over that 10 year period.

They all knew before we did about Virginias court case . They all knew about the pay off- in fact we told more individuals than Elizabeth contributed ( she used Duchy- ie our - money)

Post the well publicised Andrew running from men trying to deliver papers and post Andrew’s insult of interview William took part in staged photo ops with Andrew beside him . He knew what Andrew had been accused of . William was part of the rehabilitation attempt .
It failed thankfully .

Someone else could produce a better time line as I’m dashing this off but they all knew long before we did .

I see Epstein himself or a close associate donated to charities associated with William, one being 1 million to Earthshot. We await the result of the charities commission investigation .

Again , what did you know William and Charles and when ??

I’d add that you don’t need to take my word for it - the US House of Representatives have said that the Windsors have not been ‘transparent‘

The Windsors have had this knowledge since at least Epstein’s first conviction - unlike the ‘husband’ example above - they have a entire machinery of security and 100s of staff. They knew .

They tried a PR rehabilitation of Andrew . Failed .
They have only acted more decisively thanks to the partial release of the Epstein files .
If it wasnt for that information being internationally available , the Windsors would still have Andrew in royal lodge and they’d be fiddling around at the edges removing his ‘order of the garter’ bullshit .

William’s insult of a statement re victims before he went off to the Middle East was a pathetic and hypocritical response to the Epstein files release.

Not a word from him before then .

Have any of them apologised for the official statement calling Virginia a liar ?

@Ukisgaslit
"in fact we told more individuals than Elizabeth contributed ( she used Duchy- ie our - money)"
there is no evidence that VG was paid 12m. This comes from the amount the Andrew sold his swiss chalet for. And therefore rumoured to be the amount he paid VG.
And that the late Queen loaned him the money until the chalet was sold.
But it is speculation!
it has actually not been made public
I knew VG would settle, as soon as Andrew's legal team asked for the photo original, and her legal team could not provide it.
It is not what happened, but what can be proved and what was illegal.
And there is also confusion between what might be a moral wrong doing (hence the civil case VG brought against Andrew), and what is a criminal activity.

I sound like an apologist for Andrew, but actually I do think he is an oaf, since the time he sprayed photographers. He did not seem to understand that their professional cameras were hugely expensive.
However, crimes need some evidence and proof and normally the Crown prosecution only order a trial when they can see there is some evidence.

An ‘oaf’ is not how I’d describe a family who protected a member with decades long close ties to a prolific pedophile , sex trafficker and abuser like Epstein.

The Windsors would be protecting Andrew still were it not for the release of the files

Yes you do sound like an apologist for Andrew .

I agree. Ruining a few cameras is pretty mild compared to decades of absolutely disgusting behaviour