Queen's speech on IWD

[bluegreygreen]

I have been surprised, given the calls on this board for someone in the Royal Family to 'say something', to see no mention of the Queen's speech to the Women of the World organisation.

The Queen has been active with charities in the area of domestic and sexual abuse for years, and has been patron of WOW since 2015. She held a reception for them in St James' Palace on International Women's Day. Part of her speech is on Facebook, with the full text on the RF website.

Link

RF website

Probably because when people say they want the RF to ' say something ' they don't mean talking about VAWG in general as if it's nothing to do with them but Buckingham Palace apologising for putting out a statement calling a specific victim of abuse a liar and and for covering up for a member of the RF using the foremost State building in the country as a knocking shop.

Perhaps you're right, but given that they can't put out any statement like that for fear of it being used to prejudice a current legal case, I thought this was worth looking at.

I'm not aware that the Queen's speeches are usually posted in full on the website. I may be wrong.

The police investigation is about passing confidential information to Epstein not the sex offences. The things I mentioned- them putting a statement out saying AMW hasn't done anything wrong and discrediting VG, and waving prostitutes through the gates of Buckingham Palace with no vetting is already in the public domain and to do with procedures within the Palace. They are, however, conveniently hiding behind the police investigation and desperately pretending this whole shitshow is nothing to do with them, so they don't have to change anything that may inconvenience the rest of them, or mean they have to be more accountable or employ fewer sycophants.

As I understand it, AMW was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, as you say.
At the time of his arrest, it was reported that multiple police forces continued to investigate allegations, including of sexual misdemeanours.

Any direct reference to him or his behaviour could be used in court by either side as prejudicing a trial (if we get that far), given that a trial would be in the King's name, in HM Courts, etc. I don't think anyone sensible would want that.

As far as palace procedures, etc are concerned, they clearly have a lot to look at.