Andrew - continuing his effort to end the Monarchy

[TheHaplessWit]

Another new story on Andrew today. Photo's have emerged showing that on Epstein's desk, there were emails regarding Epstein paying debts owed by Andrew/Sarah to staff:

https://people.com/epstein-had-emails-staff-ex-prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-new-photos-show-11880419

Why on Earth was a Prince of England having his staff paid by a sex trafficker?
Doesn't seem "too honourable" to me.

Absolutely agree. This is spot on.

There have been so many threads with posters on this board saying;

“of course there’s no need to comment further on Andrew, we all know he’s a rotter, there’s nothing more to say”

really because this suits a monarchist agenda and some people are always trying to take the focus off Andrew to take the heat off the RF as a whole.

Well, unsurprisingly, there is plenty more to say now.

Absolutely, and this is not just about Andrew. This is about what the Palace knew, when they knew it, why they didn't act, and what they are going to do now.

So far, all we've had is... Andrew has moved out of Royal Lodge.

That is just not good enough. The Palace chose to shield him for a very very long time. Now is the opportunity to come clean. Sticking him in Norfolk out the way is putting a tiny plaster on a deep wound.

Unseal the Trade Envoy records. Bring it all out into the open.

There’s something not right with this family and not right with the culture that produces them and their peculiar friendships and friendship circles. Their inability to close down friendships with known child abusers, and their ability to turn a blind eye, are really bloody strange - like they find it normal or even to be sympathised with. This goes way beyond ‘running with a fast set’ and being a bit ‘fruity’. These people have warped values. The royal family can’t live like this any more in an age of social media, especially when the Head of State also is the head of the Church of England
Because instead of listening to advice and being open their first instinct is to surround themselves with people who are going to aggressively keep their secrets and sweep everything they do under the carpet. Their much admired (by some) never complain, never explain mantra is nothing of the sort. They leak to the media 'complaining' all the time. They just never explain, preferring to use PR puff to cover it up. They are not that bright, probably partly due to never having to exercise their brains but are vulnerable to flattery and surrounded by yes men. People like Epstein and Saville were evil, but they were also clever and manipulative, and the RF are easy prey because they have an overinflated sense of their own ability and importance and have employed people to take the blame whenever they do something stupid/ unethical or worse.

Somebody needs to ask the question of why aren't the Trade Envoy records unsealed on BBC Question Time tomorrow.

What a great post, you've nailed it there

I think Fiona Bruce might need smelling salts if someone asks that!

This is a really excellent post. But it's also scary somewhat. Sinister definitely.

The thought of AMW actually being a malevolent mastermind and not just a nefarious tool is...not nice, but the implications are more far reaching.

But suffice it to say I keep questioning how our intelligence services have been seemingly dumb, deaf and blind about a potential heir to the throne being enmeshed with not just a sex trafficker but one involved with foreign intelligence services and the Queen allows it. The newspapers, bar the odd indirect inference, are largely silent about it all. Newspapers still not calling for TE papers to be released. Why?

Something not right. Impossible to speculate without going into tin pot theories (which I think must have some credibility now that we know what we know, and consider, we're not even seeing all of it)

When one thinks about it, it's impossible to wholly escape your conclusions.

So these hundreds of millions that the tax payer spends annually on security for the Windsors - and there’s no evidence of Andrew’s activities ?

I've also asked my MP but not holding my breath...

Curious.

Andrew was very friendly with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, Colonel Gaddafi's son. He has just been shot dead by masked assailants.

Dear god.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/

Presume you mean this story?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgkjj5e28ko

Good point

Exactly. MI5 must have known what both Andy and Mandy were up to. They must be pretty useless if they weren’t.

Yes, the list of agencies who should have known what was going on is a long one: Royalty & Specialist Protection (Protection Command, Metropolitan Police); MI5; MI6; GCHQ; The Cabinet Office; and Defence Intelligence.

So what happened? Do they, in fact, have big fat secret dossiers they’re all sitting on? I imagine so. Which means the secrecy is approved by the monarch and enabled by the PM.

@ThePoshUns
Lord Louis Mountbatten was a serial child sex abuser in Kincora Boys Home in East Belfast in the 1970s. MI5 covered it up. I would have no faith in them to investigate anything.

Someone needs to ask every politician why they think we live under an absolute Monarchy, and why they think they exist in the first place.

Wonder what the late Queen thought about that! Probably stuck to their motto “Never complain, never explain”

She was in charge. She either didnt know and should have, or she did know and refused to care/do anything about it.

What did she actually speak to her Prime Ministers about during their weekly meetings? Was nothing unpleasant or difficult about her own family ever mentioned? When Mountbatten was killed he was lauded as a war hero. Not a hint of his criminal activity ever seeped out.

No one knows apart from the two people in the room. Blair described it as very helpful to hear her thoughts on whatever was going on in politics at that point.

So I’ve always assumed it’s more of a weekly briefing on what’s happening in Parliament plus a run down on what requests the government has for upcoming Royal visits / state banquets etc.

I’m sure Andrew is being discussed by Charles and Starmer though right now.

I thought PE's handling of this question was really poor actually. The whole exchange was as follows:

'Asked “how are you coping” with the fallout, Edward, peaking at the World Governments Summit in Dubai, tried to play down the issue for the room, telling a CNN journalist: “Well, with the best will in the world, I’m not sure this is the audience that is probably the least bit interested in that. They all came here to listen to education, solving the future, but no, I think it’s all really important always to remember the victims and who are the victims in all this? A lot of victims in this.” '

In the actual recording this sounds even worse, he appears tetchy and irritated at being asked this question. Why did he assume the audience wouldn't be interested in a story involving trafficked exploited women and girls? Why did he not think that his vague 'who are the victims/a lot of victims in this' might be open to negative interpretation?

Not only did it come across as arrogant; it is so amateurish. Why did nobody anticipate that a question like this might be put to PE and ensure that he was briefed with an appropriate statement which conveyed empathy? The RF can't even be bothered to pretend they care can they?

The interesting aspect to the Clintons testimony is they want to do it as a live public hearing so that everyone can hear everything they say.

But the Republicans in charge of the depositions want to do it behind closed doors presumably so that they can edit out anything that embarrassed or implicates one of their own.

As I said I doubt there will be much said about Andrew although his name might come up if he was on the planes/island at the same time as Clinton.

Edited to add that I thought I was replying on the other thread where we had already mentioned the Clintons.

I thought it was terrible- what on earth does he mean ‘no one there would be interested’??

He seems to be trying to say that there other victims .
Funnily enough I’ve seen some of that deflection on here today too

Well I hope the apologists for the Royals on here are proud at how they are representing us on the world stage. But I sure as hell am not.