How come William chose to ignore the massive elephant in the room and no one challenged him on it?

[Roadtripwithpretzels]

Prince William spoke about the very important subject of mh yesterday on Radio One and while it’s a subject that should be highlighted, does no one else think that his credibility on this issue has now been damaged by the AMW case?

He may not have been personally responsible for the alleged cover up, and he may well loathe Uncle Andrew, but he is still a central player in the institution that helped to pay off and cover up the voices of AMW’s alleged victims? Virginia Giuffre took her own life fhs! He can’t just ignore it!

To me this interview came across as incredibly unintelligent and insensitive in current circumstances. And proof that William himself just doesn’t “get it”.

Why on earth did he not say that in the light of current circumstances and out of respect for victims; the interview couldn’t go ahead?

Or why did his new ex crisis manager PR person not advise this?

And why was he allowed to sit there by the BBC and not address this?

And what about the mh of the Palace staff who have suffered because of AMW’s boorish and inappropriate behaviour for years? The nanny who allegedly left because of AMW being inappropriate and the policeman whose arm was hurt by AMW’s speeding at Windsor? The maids who were screamed at? What about the mental health of the police protection offices who quite recently were, according to Lownie, reminded about their NDAs and the safety of their pensions if they spoke out?

I don’t think it’s good enough any longer for a senior member of the RF to sit there and say yet again in a rather generic way “we all need to talk about our mental health” while ignoring what their own institution has covered up for years and is still allegedly trying to suppress?

And the BBC should hold some accountability about this too!

That is true. I do think they would like to say ' nothing to do with us guv' and carry on with business as usual though. The more that doesn't cut through the more likely that they, and all the other parts of the establishment who allowed this to happen will have to act. Which in the long run will probably mean they are more likely to survive.

Happy to blame any others involved! But he could very easily have withdrawn from the interview himself. It would, apart from anything else, have been a PR coup if he’d said that our focus should be on the victims. It’s a bit like Edward (is he Edinburgh now?) saying last week somewhere abroad that he didn’t think people were interested in the issue…As I said-tone deaf.

@bafta16 when? He would have travelled as a trade envoy. And outside of that it wasn’t like he had a 9 -5 job with 25 days annual leave.

I agree that if it had been a live interview it would have been a very odd choice but the panel discussion was recorded on January 29th - and from my experience of making that kind of programming it would have been months in the planning and arranging.

The scheduling is down to the broadcaster and as they were very unlikely to have had a heads up re Andrew’s arrest I don’t imagine they planned the coincidence.

By the time anyone knew of the arrest it would have been too late to pull even if that was decided to be a good idea.

I'm pretty sure this won't be the end of the monarchy. It may lead to some much needed reform though.

The problem anyone wanting this to be the end has is that our attention spans are so short these days and replacing them isn't a quick job. The monarchy can afford to keep going about their duties and wait until the wheel of public opinion turns.

Was it pre recorded?

He could have withdrawn but the general PR instinct of the palace seems to be to release a statement, and keep going with what they have planned. If they cancelled things is that giving Andrew more power? What about the charities they are highlighting who will miss publicity? Business as usual seems their agreed approach and I don't know whether that is the right approach or not and probably only time will tell. This is new territory and it will be interesting to see if their approach changes.

Firstly, just because one is rich it duesnt make them exempt from poor MH.

re homelessness, he clearly cannot home every single homeless person, but what he is doing is highlighting the issue and getting people talking about it. I imagine he also donates.

interest better than doing nothing?

You are debating semantics and impugning people's reputations who are innocent under the law. Adding the word 'potentially' makes your statement no less disgusting.

Because Epstein was brilliant at sniffing out people’s vulnerabilities and using them to his advantage.

He would offer favours that were on the edges of legality, such as an introduction, a small amount of money, a sought after ticket, a seat on a private plane, the “services” of a young masseuse, all probably in the context of facilitating corrupt relationships, and once you were “hooked” you were then beholden to him.

And because the girls he targeted were already vulnerable and came from difficult backgrounds or were poor and needed the money.

Remember that JE was only prosecuted the first time because the step-mother of a thirteen or fourteen year old girl reported his activities to the local police.

Didn’t VG also say that Epstein threatened her siblings if she did not comply? It was subtlety done but the meaning was clear?

All of the men involved should be prosecuted. That goes without saying.

Sorry but I don’t understand the reason why posters constantly want to deflect away from Andrew! He is a member of our royal family, he was for over a decade funded by the British tax payer to act as Trade Envoy, and his alleged criminal activities obviously fall under British jurisdiction because he was interviewed by British policeman. Ghislaine Maxwell was a fully paid up member of the British establishment. Let’s take care of our own first and lead the way!

And maybe once Andrew has been tried and if he is convicted, he can give evidence to the FBI as part of some sort of non-extradition deal? I don’t know? The FBI have already sent a file on AMW to the Met police in 2022 that they apparently haven’t acted on until now. Let’s see what comes of it!

I gather that UK police will also be investigating alleged accusations of young women being trafficked in and out of UK airports so it will be interesting to see the outcome of that too.

AMW’s arrest yesterday was a good start. but it’s only the beginning. Other arrests will follow I am certain.

Why is it disgusting to think or wonder or question if Andrew's family or the Palace covered up for him?

I have listened to a lot on the Radio and interviews with historians, royal reporters, and others... and this has been asked and discussed repeatedly.
What they knew, When they knew it so I have no idea why this is classed as 'disgusting' when it is being discussed.

See below. From an article on BBC News website
"with more evidence emerging from that era, such as damaging emails showing links between Andrew and Epstein, it raises questions about what royal officials and government departments might have known at the time and what information might still be held.
Did the Palace ever challenge the prince over his account of events in that Newsnight interview?"

Relevant to this thread of the discussion (not just the post I’m quoting), from statement issued by the Met Police today:

“Separately, the Met is identifying and contacting former and serving officers who may have worked closely, in a protection capacity, with Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor. They have been asked to consider carefully whether anything they saw or heard during that period of service may be relevant to our ongoing reviews and to share any information that could assist us.”

That makes it sound like this would be a new source of information i.e. not something on which they already have reports from past RPOs.

I also note that discretion is an essential element of being an RPO and no doubt stringently enforced (there is obviously a risk that they will provide information about the people they are protecting to the press or to foreign or malicious actors, or that loose talk will enable this to happen). They are also employed by the Met to provide protection, not to be nannies or spies. I can’t imagine why they would have a reporting line to the Monarch (as they don’t work for him) and presumably passing on details of what happened on their engagements to a third party (no matter whom) would be a breach of the confidentiality terms on which they are employed.

"with more evidence emerging from that era, such as damaging emails showing links between Andrew and Epstein, it raises questions about what royal officials and government departments might have known at the time and what information might still be held.

Royal officials and government departments are not family members though…

I know that of course 😕
It follows on to think what Palace officials might have discussed with family, they are hardly likely to work completely autonomously.

Then you would be saying " why is William not out there talking about mental health" . That's how it goes 🤷‍♀️

MIGHT

Are you not able to read properly??

So OP are you saying that if your uncle turns out to be a sex offender, and your parents knew and turned a blind eye and helped him out financially, that we should shun you and question your morality for the rest of time?

Any charity work you do is null and void, because you haven't written a public post saying that what your uncle did was wrong.

Despite you not being involved, not seeing or hearing about it for a long long time, and actually as a lot of this was 20 years ago, being either a teenager or a young adult yourself.

What do you actually expect William to do. Will you not be satisfied until they all sit on camera and say Andy is an awful individual. The head of the family has made a statement, we stand by the victims and the law must take its course.

Maybe they are actually waiting for the police investigation to happen and then they will say something.

Makes no sense to me the amount of people tarnishing all of the other royals with this brush when if Jane at number 23 found out her husband was a sex offender they would shower her in support because she has also been affected by his crimes.

That's not the case though is it ? He hasn't been arrested because of that? I imagine the day you refer to was the day the Epstein Files were released surely? You're getting excited about something else.

YES

NO

Your turn lol

I'm having ...

Maybe have a lie down or a nice cup of tea, then you might feel better!

No, he hasn’t been arrested because of that. But it was certainly a very live news issue and one that Andrew was very connected with-what with him being de-princed and all. “Optics, dear boy, optics” as Harold Macmillan nearly said.

No I wouldn’t. Apart from anything else, it wasn’t a scheduled appearance. Or he could have chosen not to focus specifically on men’s mental health-that would have looked better.

Careful you don’t want to be attacked by “friends”!