Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

[StrongandNorthern]

Finally.

Works for me, WishimaywishImight, but I can't see broadcasters getting their tongues around that either

I’m going to take one for the team and go to the Sandringham Estate today for a recce, complete with trench coat, fedora hat, notebook and binoculars. Anyone got any requests for intel? 🕵️‍♀️

I’ll keep a lookout for any Bishops Move lorries.

I just read the Times article. Apparently before the phone call to Andrew, Charles asked, “Will he cope?”

Reading between the lines in the Times, there seems to have been some concern about Andrew’s mental welfare at play in the phasing of the announcements

I've said all along that an "illness" would be introduced if necessary, @NOTANUM, though I really meant if there was any chance of Andrew having to appear in court

As we've always seen the real priority for the RF is self presservation and shutting things down, so if this rumbles on I guess some such claim was always inevitable

Nip round with a cheese scone, please, when you've finished.

Do you know the book about HMTLQ solving a crime, based when she's at Sandringham, with help from her lovely secretary, who's having it off with one of the equerries?

No. There is enough misinformation out there already. Andrew has been accused of sexual assault - not being a paedophile or a rapist. The situation is bad enough on its own without people exaggerating it. It’s important to stick with the facts.

There is more than a hair’s breadth difference between either being a paedophile and not being a paedophile.

Yes, let's stick with the facts: the allegation is of child sexual abuse.

Paedophile and child sexual abuser are strictly speaking two separate things. Paedophilia is a psychiatric condition. Child sex abuser is a description of a behaviour. Not all paedophiles abuse children and not all abusers are paedophiles. But in modern everyday language they have become synonymous, which is fine, most people understand what is meant.

I think this is pointing to a Huw Edwards type move. Claiming mental health issues to quell the press/public.

But Virginia Giuffre was not a child. She was 17 - which is over the legal age of consent. The allegation is not of child sex abuse. Andrew is accused of having sex with a 17 year old trafficked woman. Not a child.

Which if proved would make him a rapist. Victims of trafficking cannot consent.

At that time it was not illegal to have sex with a trafficked woman in the UK. The law has been changed and it is a crime now, but it wasn’t then. So, legally, Andrew is not a rapist.

If it isn’t illegal to have sex with a prostitute why is it illegal to have sex with a trafficked woman and how do you differentiate between the two? The lines are very blurred.

I think it’s to do with consent. A trafficked person cannot consent to have sex, but a prostitute can.

Essentially VG was a prostitute with a pimp :
Epstein. She wasn’t paid but ‘kept’. Although perhaps she was given money too. She was preyed on and was vulnerable and exploited, but so are many prostitutes.

VG was not in a position to give consent. She was not a free agent bestowing sexual favours on people she liked, fancied, or believed herself to be in a close relationship with.

Like it or not, there is a legal term for the sexual relations with women who are not in a position to give consent.

I was responding to the absurd claim that he is not a rapist.

"Fergie" will sell the secrets for big bucks, then the whole lot of them, including the late Queen, Saint William and his wife, are toast.

I thought one of the incidents Virginia Giuffre outlined in her book took place in the US Virgin Islands where the age of consent is 18?

An adult man having sexual with a 17 year old in the US Birgin Islands commits second degree rape.

The other incident happened in New York.

Edited to add: Sorry, seen this point made a few times upthread

The UK Modern Slavery bill didn't come in until years after AMW committed these acts, so trafficking charges over here seem hard to use. Obviously VG was over the UK law of consent, so that's not a viable charge, either.

Unless something else comes up in this country or the USians actually do something.

If he gives evidence in the US (in person or online), could we have a situation where the brother of one head of state provides material compromising another head of state (one with an orange complexion)? Would that make the UK government a bit jittery? The orange one can be very vindictive.

I'd been thinking more of Andrew, but you could easily be right about Sarah doing this instead ... after all neither of them have any discretion and she might have the least to lose of the two

It would be a hateful thing to do of course, but right now I'm not sure I'd mind if someone burned the whole lot of them down (metephorically, naturally!!)

Could have been Heat magazine I was reading today and their take is that Fergie will stab A in the back to save her skin.
Another magazine says that Kate the huntress is doing everything in her power to keep the RF on the road …

It is an interesting thought.

There are a lot of powerful rich men, and some women, involved in the Epstein scandal. Andrew could do a deal and tell the UK police and FBI everything.

Ironically Andrew’s Royal status could, and maybe still does, offered him a level of protection from retribution for telling all to the authorities.

I always think it is a good idea to break things down.

KC is The Crown and as such has a duty to protect it. Removing titles etc. achieves that.

KC is also a brother and with his personal wealth he can offer Andrew a place to live and an income. Sandringham is KCs private property, Windsor is part of the Crown Estates. Sandringham should not be a drain on the public purse and KC funding Andrew means he no longer is reliant on funding from wealthy backers who are also embroiled in the Epstein scandal.

KC funding Andrew can also be contingent on not doing a tell all book.

KC can afford to pay for Andrew’s private protection so there is no drain on the public finances. It gives Andrew a level of protection from assassination etc., a real possibility if he talks.

I am not in favour of plea deals but Andrew getting one in return for telling all might see far worse offenders prosecuted.

As plain Andrew there is also a question of should there be a complete reset with the press and media. No photos, no reporting, he is just an ordinary man in the street. The exception would be, just like an ordinary person, the press could report if charges are brought or there is a court case. There are a lot of men who use prostitutes, some of which will have been trafficked, who don’t appear in the press. Personally I would like the same to apply to Harry and Meghan. (Added to say as in they are treated like ordinary people and not everything reported on)