This leaked off-air recording of ABC News anchor Amy Robach is much more revealing than anything the BBC is going to air about Andrew Saxe Coburg Gotha.
Buckingham Palace has been “threatening” journalists to bury the story for years – which is all very reminiscent of Jimmy Savile, who was of course, ahem, popular at the Palace. Robach also states they were scared of losing interview access to folically challenged William Saxe Coburg Gotha and his underweight wife. She does not explicitly state that was one of the “threats” Buckingham Palace employed, but it does follow directly as her next observation.
Amy Robach very probably realised this “unguarded” moment would get out to the public, and we should be grateful to her for lifting the lid on how the protection of the crimes of the powerful operates, on a global level. Alan Dershowitz, whom Robach mentions, was not only a Lolita Express passenger, he is the celebrity lawyer who defended the CIA‘s use of torture as legally and morally justified. One might speculate on the psychological parallels of torturing the defenceless and inflicting sex on the young.
There is overwhelming evidence that Virginia Roberts Giuffre was trafficked into the UK by Epstein for sex with Prince Andrew. There are flight logs. There is that compromising photo in Ghislaine Maxwell’s flat. Both are entirely consistent with, and strongly corroborate, Virginia’s own testimony. This instance occurred in the UK.
It ought to be a matter of deep national disgrace that neither Ghislaine Maxwell nor “Prince” Andrew has been questioned over by the Metropolitan Police over this sex trafficking. That Virginia was over 16 is not the issue. She was sex trafficked into the UK and not legally adult. Why is there not a massive media clamour for Scotland Yard to investigate?
Amy Robach has the answer to that question.
Hat Tip to projectveritas
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
I’m actually inclined to think Andrew is telling the truth. Would he so stupid as to volunteer to face a tough Newsnight interviewer and tell lies, knowing that the people who trapped him would be very likely to have further evidence?
Also, he would surely realise there could be witnesses or records that could contradict what he was saying, exposing him forever as a liar. Yes, Andrew’s activities look very suspicious but then I guess that would be the idea.
The immediate, over-the-top media reaction is strange too. Why are they all rushing to denounce Andrew without giving him the benefit of the doubt, as would be usual with someone in that situation, not least a Royal? There is perhaps the sense that Andrew has thwarted some power game here and that the intelligence agencies aren’t happy.
Maybe time will tell.
trapped into staying four nights in a convicted child molester’s pad.
All these Andy Pandy stories are doing a wonderful job in distracting from those who created and maintained Epstein, and why.
There is certainly precedent for propagandists for one member of the royal family (“Prince” Charles) to build up or at least maintain their guy’s image by encouraging negative stories about other members of the royal family.
Certainly there is a lot behind why this film was made and why it was broadcast at this time.
Can he be so stupid? That’s a good question. “No, so he must be telling the truth” avoids the question even if it does start with “No”. I don’t think for one moment that he is telling the truth, but even if he were this would still be a very stupid way to conduct himself – saying nothing would be much wiser. I haven’t watched the interview but the alternatives to 1) “Yes, this guy is in fact the moron he seems” are 2) he was tricked or forced or obliged into doing this, and 3) he’s actually super-clever (because you’d have to be pretty clever to be able to appear to be such a moron when you aren’t one). 1) and 2) overlap, and perhaps their intersection is where the reality is.
Remember a) there’s an election on, b) Jennifer Arcuri. And Arcuri is only one case in a huge basket of stories regarding Boris Johnson not being able to keep his knob in his pants, and not only that but he has forced a number of women to sign “non-disclosure agreements”. Johnson is a massive security risk and I deeply hope the Labour campaign is going to bring this out in the days that remain before the vote. In my experience many intelligent and critical people haven’t wrapped their brains around how this “security risk” thing works. Apologies to those who have, but it works like this: if you have access to secret information and you conduct yourself in such a way as to have a skeleton in your cupboard – you cheat on your wife, or a photo of you smoking crack is “out there”, or whatever – then this makes you vulnerable to blackmail, including by foreign intelligence services: “supply us with info or otherwise do what we tell you, or we blab”.
Now go back to the sentence I started this comment with.
To repeat what I said elsewhere: during some of the time when he was in a relationship with Jennifer Arcuri, Boris Johnson was regularly attending cabinet meetings. ITV didn’t mention that in the film.
Want me to be even more blunt? Arcuri may well be Mossad, that’s what.
To be honest with you, cheating on your wife is not really blackmailable any more. Much easier to come clean to the wife to stop the blackmailers.
Quite the opposite. MSM moved away from the Epstein story within 48 hrs of his “suicide”. This preposterous attempt by the prince to exonerate himself has resuscitated something the US establishment in particular desperately wanted to stay dead. It will only help renew questioning of who was running Epstein and to what end.
‘a tough Newsnight interviewer’
Are you having a laugh?
Good grief!
Sneering at bald people “and his underweight wife” while equating consensual sex with 17 year olds with molesting disabled children.
Of course the Epstein story stinks to high heaven and needs uncovering, but this is sleazy tabloid stuff.
Very sad to see a commentator of Mr Murray’s calibre go down this path.
The “consensual” is very debatable. It is not as if Virginia Roberts met Andrew Windsor at a nightclub and decided to go back to “his place”. She was instructed by her Madam (Maxwell) to have sex with a middle-aged balding rather boring married man. She should have been at high school not trafficked by an evil couple.
Just take a look at photos of Epstein’s New York apartment. How could any reasonable person not known something was amiss? Of course Andrew was aware of what was going on.
No he wasn’t. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001544/Prince-Andrew-questioned-knows-truth-billionaire-U-S-paedophile-claims-victim.html
In 2011, Virginia Roberts was saying how she wished that Prince Andrew would tell the truth about Epstein to the FBI which is a rather unusual thing to request of someone whom you later alledge raped you just 4 years later. From the article “She was asked to examine a list of Epstein’s friends and identify any who would have significant information about his sexual exploitation of young girls if required to testify under oath. Prince Andrew’s name was suggested by lawyer Jack Scarola and Miss Roberts replied: ‘Yes, he would know a lot of the truth,'” and even if she was the subject of legal action in this respect, it does completely discredit her case to seek help from someone whom she accuses of rape.
Consensual? Wot? You think 17 year old forcibly flown across the Atlantic to a country she doesn’t known and locked up in mansion she can’t leave has any say in this matter? Most adult women would be hard pressed to say no in such circumstances, never mind still growing up girl saying anything to a bunch of billionaires surrounded by armed thug “security”. Just look at Boris and his sleazy exploits against adult women, and he has nowhere near the influence and ability to force anyone to do his bidding compared to Epstein and co.
“This instance occurred in the UK. ”
Ummm, there may be a problem. I don’t want to defend either Epstein or Andrew, but how old was Virginia Giuffre when she went to England? And what is the age of consent there? My understanding is that it’s 17, and maybe even 16. If so, she was quite likely legal in England.
That doesn’t make the situation or the adults involved any less slimy, but it would mean that Andrew is pretty safe from prosecution. But it doesn’t help Epstein at all, or Maxwell.
Oh, and: where the hell were those girls’ parents?
Did you read Craig Murray’s original post? That Virginia Giuffre may have been 17 years old at the time she had been trafficked is not the issue. The issue is that she had been lured by people working for Jeffrey Epstein (people such as Ghislaine Maxwell), with offers of money to help with their schooling or to help their families, into a virtual prostitution ring.
Most of the girls lured by Maxwell and others working for Epstein came from poor or dysfunctional families and the girls needed money to continue their education (because in the US, to continue with what in Australia is equivalent to Years 11 and 12 schooling, one needs to go to college, and in most parts of the US one needs money to attend college if community colleges are not available). Maxwell and Co (nearly all of whom were women, by the way) played on these girls’ need for money or security by making promises they knew were lies to the girls.
If Prince Andrew is to be charged with anything, he is most likely to be charged with obstructing justice if and when police do manage to find and arrest Ghislaine Maxwell and those other women who supplied young teenage women to Jeffrey Epstein’s prostitution ring. Because that’s what it was.
“.. she had been lured by people working for Jeffrey Epstein (people such as Ghislaine Maxwell), with offers of money to help with their schooling or to help their families, into a virtual prostitution ring…”
And what do you think that Royal Marriages are generally about? And not just royal marriages either.
The problem here, which is the reduction of millions of relationships of all kinds into varieties of prostitution, lies in capitalist class society not in the individual ‘moral failings’ of those not clever enough to keep the doors to their bedrooms shut, and the neighbourhood gossips paid off.
You like the market place? This is what it looks like. Its one up from the rape which is the droit de seigneur, only much more widespread.
“The problem here, which is the reduction of millions of relationships of all kinds into varieties of prostitution, lies in capitalist class society not in the individual ‘moral failings’ ”
It takes a lot more than “capitalist class society” to induce the depravities we see all about us today, at least on a mass scale.
Elites have always been degenerates of course, but the masses seemed to hold to family and community quite well until the 60s/70s.
They’d been living with “capitalist class society” for quite some time prior to that.
We could link it to the onset of mass Consumerism, with a nod to the decline of the artisan and skilled worker.
But still, I think that’s not the full picture.
IS not the point here that “prostitution ring” or “greatest pedophile in history” isn’t actually what the Epstein-Maxwell ring was about? Wasn’t it reported that video and recordings of the compromising activities were made so that the rich and influential could be encouraged to act in the interests of the Zionist entity, or risk exposure? Is it possible that Andrew’s “expose'” has been delivered at the insistence of some persons as a prime distraction, both from Epstein and from the real corruption eating at the heart of Britain’s democracy?
The question many are asking is – can the stress of being shot at during combat cause some later inability to sweat presumably through a stress / ptsd combo. Anything’s poss in that arena….
So the question I’m asking is – was he ever shot at in the Falkland confflict?
Tis nigh 40 year ago and my brain is addled but as I recall they didn’t or weren’t able to threaten with any air force and allegedly his role was rescue, y’know, sunk ships have rafts but no guns and all.
And would they really, I mean really, allow the second in line to the frone a life threatening front seat role in real warfare beyond PR value?
I certainly don’t know, can’t remember, or much care for that matter. Just wondering really.
Andrew’s role in the Falklands war as a helicopter pilot was to fly above UK warships that were targeted by the deadly exocet missiles, in order to confuse the missiles’ ship-detecting radar and throw them off course. You had to hover above a ship at exactly the right height so the missle would pass between you and the ship. If you got it wrong either the copter or the ship would be hit. The exocets were frightenlngly effective and could and did sink an entire ship.Whatever you can say now about Andrew, at the time he did his bit for his country, which as you can see literally involved him being shot at.
The Queen’s favourite son hovering his helicopter above a warship at “exactly” the right height in order to “confuse” the missile, which then passed in between the ship and the helicopter, despite the fact that the ship was plunging up and down randomly in the “furious fifties” of the south atlantic…
that’s some special skills there
sounds about as believable as flying across the atlantic to spend 4 days with someone who isn’t a close friend (and is a convicted paedophile) in their house, surrounded by pretty young girls, with the sole intention of telling them that you can’t be their casual acquaintance any more
please, credit us with some ability to think critically
Got a reference for that, Ben?
But anyway, it is actually arguable that some of those who spent time with Epstein were more interested in his business and financial connections.
He had some top top notch connections.
Epstein was quite the “philanthropist”, particularly when it came to the sciences.
The weirder the science, the more he liked it.
He wanted to impregnate 20 women at a time at his “baby ranch”.
https://www.thecut.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-baby-ranch-transhumanism-scientists.html
I’m sure some of the tech billionaires would like the idea – with their own “superior DNA” of course. They’re a scary bunch.
Did they give his sweat glands a medal?
Well, I do recall the TV news reports of the time – I watched them assiduously.
Andrew flew in a Sea King helicopter and was, according to one of the report, engaged in rescuing crewmen from one of the taskforce ships which caught fire, even to the extent of flying into the smoke billowing from it.
But I don’t recall any reports of the aircraft he flew getting shot at.
However, the ships he served on might have received some fire from Argentinian aircraft.
If anyone could truly “not sweat”, they would have to live in a refrigerated room to avoid very quickly dying of heat stroke. Yet Andrew Windsor seems to have flown all over the place to many hot and humid climates.
It’s a whole load of crap like all the rest of his story.
I’m afraid that isn’t true
https://www.gchq-gov.org/2019/11/06/prince-andrew/
Several times during the interview Andrew relied on his memory, he had no recollection of this or couldn’t remember that, and I’m thinking doesn’t he or any of his staff keep a diary or a day book? He’d be very foolish to rely on an alibi that could be disproved.
If he did visit Tramp nightclub where is the evidence? No member of the Royal family can venture outdoors without being snapped by 100 paparazzi and MoPs with smartphones. There ought to be some images of Andy entering, leaving or inside the club. Same applies to the piazza restaurant.
I’m sure the alibi is solid. I mean, you’d have to be a complete idiot to present a false alibi on public television.
And really, no one is that stupid, especially those who are advising him.
Wouldn’t be at all surprised to see evidence of the visit emerge at some stage.
I’m sure they went through Andy’s credit card/bank records looking for transactions on that date.
The trouble is proof that he bought something at Pizza Express at 7 pm doesn’t meant he wasn’t a hurry to get to the nightclub at midnight to meet that sexy young girl dear friend Ghislaine had told him about.
It doesn’t even mean he used the used the card himself. It is unlikely there is any CCTV footage after all these years. But, surely the “lowly staff” at Pizza Express would remember a member of the royal family visiting their establishment? I don’t suppose it happens often.
The story is promoted by Simon Shercliff, the director of national security who is in charge of IOPS, who is on the DSMA committee and who went to the same college as the founder of Pizza Express, Peter Boizot.
What will have happened is (because the girl is a proven liar) that information will have been passed on about the dates when he did go to that restaurant, whereupon the girl will have stated that that was the date on which it occurred.
The staff at Pizza express will thus keep quiet and “not remember” his visit because of who the founder is. which college he went to and because there will be loyalty amongst the management.
In any case who works in such a place for 20 years? The only people who could really know are the management.
No member of the Royal family can venture outdoors without being snapped by 100 paparazzi and MoPs with smartphones.
No camera phones in 2001 🙂
First commercial camera phone launched in 1999.
OK it was pretty dismal by today’s standards and there wouldn’t have been many of them around but people had point and shoot disposable cameras.
“pretty dismal by today’s standards”
Really, really grainy.
Perfect.
First commercial camera phone launched in 1999.
… in Japan.
Well pointed out, Node. It’s a crap attempt at siding with authority.
Even if he did go to pizza express during the day, what did he do afterwards?
Nasty old lizard that I am, I can’t help wondering who has more to gain and more to lose: Virginia or Andrew? Sorry, but follow the potential money. That said, Andrew claiming that he was being misguidedly “honourable” in sticking with Epstein, raised another question: what was it that Epstein had done for Andrew? Put him up for a night or two at Epstein’s various properties? I don’t think Epstein, Andrew or anyone in that circle would see that obligation as preventing them from putting as much distance as possible between them and a convicted sinner. There’s more to this than anyone is prepared to admit, including Mrs Roberts.
Still, “honourable” was inventive, given Andrew’s various dealings in the ‘Stans and with Arabs, eg – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunninghill_Park
Many years ago before Andrew married Fergie and around the time he was associated with Koo Stark I was told that he had a foot fetish. Apparently this was gossip in high end escort circles rather than published anywhere. When Virginia made her allegations she said Andrew “licked her toes” . This makes me think she is telling the truth.
It was Fergie who made front page headlines around the world for enjoying having her toes suckled. Public interest story, of course
What WAS published, of course, was John Bryan sucking the toes of the still-married Fergie (pics provided to the reptiles by saintly Princess Diana). Was the fetish Fergie’s or one she had been introduced to by Andrew? Regardless, a reference to toesucking would be equally as good in confirming Roberts’ truthfulness as it would be in suggestive but spurious detail embellishing her mendacity.
I wonder if the truth doesn’t come closer to this hypothesis:
Epstein has always cultivated the rich and influential to support what may be a rather thin account of his own importance and influence. Ghislaine is the procurer for these, as for underage girls (allegedly). Andrew is telling the truth: he did not sleep with that woman – perhaps. But that photo alone, or the threat of its publication, might be very useful in ensuring Andrew’s continued support of Epstein. In it Rogers, although she’s smiling radiantly, has a posture which suggests to me she’s not entirely happy with Andrew’s proximity. This may not be a faked picture – it may just have been posed….”Hey, Andy, young Ginny’s always wanted to be photographed with royalty, c’mere Ginny…”
And that’s the sort of photo-op a slightly pissed royal might easily forget.
Andrew’s support, therefore, continued.
The victim in all this is Sir…. like it!
Or the victim in all this is automatically the woman, eh? Very woke of you. I don’t pretend to know, and I am not sure how anyone else can, but I don’t think Roberts was dragged kicking and screaming to Epstein’s pads, whatever happened subsequently. Was she held by force? Come on. She knew what her position was, and she said f***-all about it at the time The Mail today (so sorry, wokesters) has a pretty good spread on Andrew’s partying habits, from which you can derive the comfort of knowing that he liked young women quite a lot, and nowadays that appears to be the ultimate sin.
I simply decline to be Outraged.
How butch and macho to be an angry apologist for old royals preying on teenage girls trafficked across the oceans by paedophiles.
I wish you SJW snowflakes could manage to see that nobody really knows a damn thing about what’s going on, and certainly won’t find it in the Guardian or Wings Over Scotland. You’ve made your mind up. I haven’t. That is because there is more to this than thick, entitled, Andrew’s involvement, and the only proven criminal to date is Epstein. Do you seriously think Roberts was in that position because she had been drugged and enslaved? I think she’d been made an attractive offer, a promise, perhaps, of mingling with the great and bad, and she had ignored any sensible advice she may or may not have been given, and taken it. And she wouldn’t be the first (male, boo, or female, hooray) to embellish her story subsequently for a bit of the folding stuff.
Andrew is evidently an a—hole of the second order, sure. He’s all that without the dodgy liaisons. But Epstein headed the first order, from what is currently available. I’m only suggesting he set up the scenario, whatever it was, and Andrew was dim enough to go along with it.
PS: (Trigger warning) These lovelies weren’t trafficked as far as we know. With that on tap, would I look twice at Roberts? I think not.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7695233/Videos-Prince-Andrew-partying-nightclubs-beautiful-young-women-French-Riviera.html
I fear you probably have an equally logical take on his 4-day goodbye to said criminal.
I refer you to my previous response. I don’t know, and neither do you. Our judicial system tends to stall when it comes to the upper echelons – and no wonder, following the Yewtree fiasco – and we may never know. My logical conclusion is that all parties are lying through their teeth, and hell mend the lot of them.
Wow! It’s page 3 and the apologists arrive. Will they be out waving their little red, white and blue butcher’s aprons (union flags) and cheering when there is the next ‘royal’ wedding or some other state occasion?
Oh. I forgot. There IS another royal wedding coming up. Princess Beatrice’s. She is a daughter of the said Duke and will be marrying an Italian ‘property tycoon’. He already has a son with his ex fiancee. It’s better than EastEnders. The royal cast list lengthens.
Talking of apologists, who was it who leapfrogged to the defence of Salmond (about whom more will shortly be known)? Merely an apologist for a differemt establishment.
So Rosie.. You Ignore all the details leading to the Alex case…
Disgusting comparison.. on the topic.
No not really. I recognize who the real aristocracy are though and I don’t like them
https://www.gchq-gov.org/2019/11/06/prince-andrew/
”I’m actually inclined to think Andrew is telling the truth. Would he so stupid as to volunteer to face a tough Newsnight interviewer and tell lies, knowing that the people who trapped him would be very likely to have further evidence?” -Tom74-
Well it seems that he would Tom74 because there was a picture circulating of him today coming out of another London Nightclub around the same time with just a plain pink shirt (no collar and tie) and he was literally covered in sweat.
Fraid not.
That was a shiny silky top to the back of his shirt.
lol
Big brass from Craig given his own history.
Craig is the first one to admit he was never perfect.. You have read his books.
Child sex rings / Trafficking among the Elite.. Are a different matter entirely.
Something else that caught my mind was the explanation about Pizza Express. A bit of a coincidence considering the Pizzagate episode and the ‘Lolita Express’. Was it possibly sticking two fingers up to the public baying for blood or a subtle hint that he will bring others down with him if the whole thing goes before the courts. There is obviously no love lost at the moment between certain factions of the US political circus and some of the ‘elite’ from the UK and so a lot of this sabre rattling and washing the dirty linen in public makes for interesting times.
Funny nobody else noticed this. So this so-called prince was attending a children’s party at a pizza place, was he?
(..”I suppose”..)
Just to be clear, the 2016 “pizzagate” affair has NEVER been debunked. Ridiculed by all the usual suspects, yes. Debunked, no.
And there are more than just a few connections to the Epstein case. Perhaps this little royal slip was a threat across the Atlantic.
But maybe it was just sticking two fingers up to everybody, meaning: “I will continue doing and eating what I like (and that is “pizza”..) and no laws will ever touch me.”
Crowleyans love adding insult to injury, just saying..
Unfortunately I haven’t seen the entire interview given by Andrew. But looking at the clips I’ve seen promoting the interview did bring out something interesting. In my previous employment I dealt with many people who were trying either to conceal information or to mislead me/lie to me. Over the years I learned a few things about those who were trying to conceal/lie. Ultimately most people (apart from compulsive liars) WANT to tell the truth. They will do their best not to actually lie whilst trying to mislead you. eg if they want you to believe that someone is not at the address, they won’t say that they moved away, they’ll say something like ‘they’re not here’ which could mean they’re out at the moment or they’ve moved away – not a lie, just misleading. And that’s the kind of behaviour I saw from Andrew. When asked about having had sex with Virginia Roberts he didn’t say ‘no’ he simply said he couldn’t remember meeting her. And THAT statement COULD be true, he might not remember meeting her (for the first time) but I’m sure he remembers having sex with her, in particular the orgy (i’m not being salacious, I’m simply saying that something like that WOULD be memorable even if you were quite promiscuous) He didn’t feel he could deny having sex with her and THAT was the question. He kept answering questions he wasn’t asked and avoided, therefore, lying about the main issues.
After many years dealing with people who could be lying I can spot when someone is avoiding the issue, and Andrew was definitely doing so. The only reasonable excuse for doing so was to avoid lying directly. I am convinced (on the interview alone) that he has in fact had sex with Roberts and knew of her circumstances (that she was trafficked and he was, therefore, raping her)
On top of this has been Andrew’s poor reputation over the years as a man who ‘didn’t take no for an answer’ Also to be remembered is the history of this case. I remember reading of this some years ago, perhaps when the newscaster refers to) The case was at court but the names of those involved were ‘sealed’ I’d read online that Prince Andrew was involved but this could not be confirmed. The court papers were then unsealed and it was indeed confirmed. However, not long after it became public, mysteriously and for unknown reasons, his name was removed from the case.
Of course this was only the Civil Case brought by the victims, their case was that they were not consulted, as is required under US law, and that the case had been mishandled as a result. And it’s very hard to disagree. Dershowitz had a conflict of interest, he had been one of the men involved and yet he was allowed to act on Epstein’s behalf? The case was dealt with in a different jurisdiction which was felt to be more favourable to the defendant too. He was only convicted of the most minor of offences, with NO mention of many of the well known names that were associated and his sentence was likewise unduly lenient. The amount of interference in the case would seem to indicate that someone at the very highest level moved mountains to ensure that this case, and Epstein, went away. It’s hard to say how high up this went but I have no doubt that Buckingham Palace would be involved and perhaps even our PM interceding on their behalf. If that was the case I can only imagine our PM would intercede with the President (who else)
If that IS true then it’s no great leap to imagine that his cell mate, a former police officer, would have been able to attack him, twice by the sounds of the film, and for the US state to ‘look the other way’ Perhaps we should keep our eyes on this man to see how much of his sentence he actually serves?
I realise that this truly DOES sound like conspiracy theory BUT there’s already been a conspiracy. Epstein has already run a paedophile ring and we know who some of his customers were and they were truly the highest in the land. It would be impossible to be a ‘close friend’ of his and not realise that all of the young girls willing to have sex (seemingly) weren’t “servants” after all. Andrew ISN’T that stupid but he obviously thinks WE are.
There are just too many times when those who have power are allowed to be above the law. The Royals have a particularly bad reputation in this, friendship with paedophiles, Savile and Epstein for example and the shadowy ‘Man in the Mask’ aka Prince Philip on whom the records are to be sealed for many years after his death – I simply can’t remember if it’s 50 years or 75 years!
If I had committed one tenth of these heinous crimes I would, rightly, be in jail now and for a long time to come. The same rules should apply to both the highest and the lowest in the land – but they don’t…
Seriously, can anybody be as stupid as “Prince” Andrew appears to be? I ask in all seriousness.
There’s another big scandal story which may be getting less space because of this Andrew crap: Jennifer Arcuri. I’m listening to the ITV film right now. What they don’t mention is that Johnson was in the CABINET when the relationship with Arcuri was ongoing, when she was developing a “CYBERSECURITY” venture, and when she flitted to ISRAEL where she got lots of support for her venture.
Surely politicians who attend Cabinet have to report such relationships with foreigners?
If Johnson didn’t report it – and I don’t mean in respect of the Mayor’s office, but in respect of the national secrets he was hearing at Cabinet – then he was a massive security risk.
Oh and Arcuri’s laptop was stolen in Britain in September.
What’s she trying to say when she says she called Johnson’s personal number and someone answered IN CHINESE?
C’mon Seumas! I want a workers’ Zinoviev letter, perhaps even four days before the election in memory of when the Daily Mail destroyed the first Labour government in 1924.
Very easy for everyone: JOHNSON – ARCURI – SECURITY RISK.
You mention Israel. Think of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Suggestions of a Mossad involvement there and remember that Robert Maxwell (aka Jan Hoch) was described as an agent for ‘the little democracy in the ME’. He was buried in Jerusalem in the Mount of Olives with a large gathering of the Israeli government in attendance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell
Was P Andrew set up to be Israel’s patsy?
Epstein must be dead.
It was in the Guardian.
The Guardian always tells the truth.
Proof If proof is needed
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy
It’s worth pointing out, I think, that ABC News is owned by The Walt Disney Co. And it’s worth asking how many children may have been abused over the years since the story was spiked by ABC News. We might expect that some children might have been spared their abuse had the story not been spiked, seemingly at the behest of Buckingham Palace.
All of the above points and questions have been raised in the mainstream US media, by Fox News for example; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjwf9F_v5cI
It’s interesting that the British mainstream news doesn’t seem to be taking the same sort of approach. The BBC’s recent interview didn’t address any of these hard issues and instead presented the whole thing, including the Prince, in a very soft light.
It’s almost as if we are discussing Saudi Arabia — no offence to any Saudis who happen upon the site and read this.
You really, really, have to laugh at the Guardian. Today it carries an article (I’m not going to bother linking to it) by renowned fembotist Suzanne Moore, excoriating Prince Andrew for his role in the Epstein affair. It’s headlined Prince Andrew showed what true power is: turning a blind eye to abuse. Even if you have no doubt as to the guy’s guilt it’s an unpleasant article, full of ugly innuendo and self-righteous posturing.
Over the past few years in the UK there have been dozens of trials involving hundreds of men convicted of bestial levels of abuse of vulnerable gitrls, some as young as 11 or 12. For periods extending to years, the victims have been groomed, threatened, beaten, raped, pimped, impregnated, aborted, assaulted and beaten some more, then threatened again,. They’ve been ridiculed in court by their abusers.
A couple of years ago, when I did a check, the Guardian had covered fewer than half of these cases. It’s quite probable that the figure is now somewhere between a quarter and a third, as the current policy seems to be that the best way to deal with the matter is to turn a blind eye altogether. In the most recent cases, there has been no coverage whatsoever of any arrests, charges, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences.
I don’t disagree in any way with the Guardian’s claim that “true power is turning a blind eye to abuse”. Some of the most powerful people in today’s society are those who control the mainstream media megaphone. I wonder that Guardian journalists don’t gag on the stench of their own hypocrisy when they look at themselves in the bathroom mirror every morning.
This story isn’t about the Guardian.
This story isn’t about the Guardian…
Says who? And how isn’t this story about the Guardian, when they have published five articles on the subject today, including the one I have referred to? Boasting and flaunting their moral superiority for all the world to see, while they turn a blind eye, to use their own words, to far more egregious incidences of abuse.
Sorry Hatuey, but if my post makes you feel a little greasy and squeezy and uncomfortable, and if it makes you squirm a little, then problem is with you, not my comment.
It isn’t about me either. And your comment didn’t make me feel anything — slightly annoyed but I wouldn’t describe it as a feeling.
It’s not often we see the House of Windsor squirm like this. One of their princes has been hanging around with a serial paedophile, a man described as the most prolific in US history. It’s extremely serious and his interview did nothing towards resolving the issue.
I’d prefer to see the focus stay on that, as it should in line with posting rules. Additionally, most sensible people threw the towel in with the Guardian years ago. It isn’t news that the Guardian is junk or hypocritical, it’s just a distraction.
Hatuey
Stonky has a point in that the press by being selective in what they report are the gatekeepers. They also often sit on stories and only react when the knives are out. In other contexts Weinstein and Saville and others were hushed up until fully exposed finally and by a massive effort resisted by the establishment.
He is not guilty of rape or using her as a sex slave. That cannot be doubted
https://www.gchq-gov.org/2019/11/06/prince-andrew/
“She was asked to examine a list of Epstein’s friends and identify any who would have significant information about his sexual exploitation of young girls if required to testify under oath.
Prince Andrew’s name was suggested by lawyer Jack Scarola and Miss Roberts replied: ‘Yes, he would know a lot of the truth,’ ”
Yes he does lack judgement perhaps but that’s why he has private secretary
You’re thinking about this wrong. Rape by A of B doesn’t require that A overcomes B’s physical resistance while he’s raping her. B might be a slave held prisoner by E, who maybe has made it clear to her that if she doesn’t act in “friendly” fashion towards A she will be killed. A might even present himself in “friendly” fashion, perhaps perceiving himself as a guy that all the girls want so much to be with. He might not care a toss what vile methods E uses against B in his absence, to ensure that B will do whatever A wants. I can easily imagine B despising E far more than she despises A in those circumstances, and even (perhaps for screwed-up reasons, but B is the victim here of horrendous crimes) believing that A might help her against E. (This is a form of “hard cop, soft cop”.) A is still a rapist.
Isn’t having sex with a minor classified as rape anyway?
Sex without consent is rape. Since a child cannot legally give consent, then it’s child rape.
The age of consent in Britain is 16.
@ N_ November 18, 2019 at 04:17
A, B and E: just like one of the Kray’s who is reputed to have told a young East End youth, a boxer, that he would get hurt unless he did what a certain Lord wanted him to.
Still hadn’t crossed Sir’s mind to mouth some concern for Epstein’s victims…..Just Sir being Sir.
Just too Damned dutiful, U Watt, to damned dutiful
And. after all, raping school-aged girls is just “unbecoming behaviour”.
He used the word “Honourable”. Lol. It reminded me of Mark Anthony’s use of the word in Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar’ and we were left wondering what he’d call dishonourable.
We are to believe the prince flew all the way to New York to tell Epstein he couldn’t hang around with him any more after Epstein was released from jail having served time for having sex with a minor. He decided to stay with Epstein another few days on that occasion and “coincidentally” that’s when the famous photo of them walking in the park together was taken.
A pack of blatant lies that assumes we are all exceptionally thick.
Oh, and btw, he was never very close with Epstein…
Sir thought it was the most honourable thing to do was to go and stay for four days with his dishonourable old friend in his house for four days and attend a dinner party. This was done because of convenience.
Would you say that the use of the word honourable in this context is rather meaningless.
Meanwhile the @Arc of resistance, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran are undergoing the neoliberal regime change riots whilst we are concerned with our royal prince.
Just saying.
Fergus, who’s riding horses for charity in Saudi Arabia, conditioned Andrew into believing that true love was totally unconditional.
There’s always van easy way and a hard way in life. The easy way is the well known established Christian morality which was not practised by the royals.
The hard way is to try it and see if it works.
I will never forget a Scottish female psychiatrist advising me after my marriage broke down to follow my desires ( which she opined on my medical notes as being gay) but always wear a condom. I thought, You bitch, you want to me to take the blame for the martiage break-down.
Unlike the frenzy of feminist barking at Andrew on radio 4 s Westminster Hour, I can see plainly that Andrew was not brought up by his parents and his parents were – even as head of the C of E – unable to advise him to take the easy path.
So he took the hard path, relying on the fairy tale promises of his story book princess of undying unconditional love. He didn’t read the small print that this was to be unconditional love from him to her and not vice versa.
Where is she when her unconditional support might be needed? Unfortunately unavailable. But she has managed to not only put the noose round his neck but kick the chair from under him.
As a Muslim I never despair of God’ s vast Mercy. If I was Andrew I’d kick out the bad advice he got from his mother and her fake religion of devolved power. And I would ask Allah to guide him to a straight path. Let’s get rid Royalty in all its manifestations, boarding schools and right wing politics. With the will of Allah.
For me the bigger story is Alan Dershowitz. Always has been in this affair.
Also, ‘unguarded mike’ mmmmmmmmm ….
Especially if you read about Dershowitz’s role in getting Epstein off with a minor sentence.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/perversion-of-justice-cops-worked-to-put-serial-sex-abuser-in-prison-prosecutors-worked-to-cut-him-a-break/
I really don’t see the need to make personal comments about Kate Middleton and her weight. Seems a little beside the point.
John, might I suggest you consider re-writing the story on your own blog without reference to her weight?
Agreed, John. Such cheap nasty comments about a person’s appearance are unjustified and they also weaken the force of the criticism.
The inescapable issue here is that people of such monumental power and influence so grand that they are not one percent, but more like one in 10 million are actively involved in the exploitation of socially very vulnerable young girls of questionable age for personal sexual and probably perverted gratification. And that’s just the ones known about. When such moral-less self serving behaviour is covert, everybody should be raising an eyebrow at what is being hidden, and that it is there can be no doubt. When people are above the law – and to argue they are not would be both legally moot and inane, then they are most assuredly, going to do things contrary to the law, and the bigger the pass…….?
Doghouse
The issue for me is feminism. The queen is asking a whole echelon of society to behave as if she is different from other human beings who need privacy love and an occupation that interests them. Walking backwards in tights or being hounded by the media for a fantasy of a royalty is pure female megalomania. Idol worship. Druidism. Boadicea.
The feminists should be complaining about the Queen’s unacceptable preservation of a totally defunct ritual which her ancestor Henry VIII would have abolished in Toto as polytheism.
If of course he was her ancestor. Hitler was quite keen on building fake stonehenges.
Couldn’t we get a new blood line in with less gothic in it? I have a feeling I would have got on with Henry fine. He certainly wouldn’t have put up with MI6 funding Al Qaida
@Giyane – Where were the fake Stonehenges? Or where were they planned for? Are you referring to places such as Wewelsburg?
Then there’s the “Round Square” at Gordonstoun.
I fear Hal would have found a lot in common with a gang of misogynistic, warlike head choppers.
Sorry I can’t provide a link. There’s a short article in Zerohedge about the interview. Broad opinion appears to be that it has been catastrophic, and Andy would have been better advised to keep quiet. Article also quotes Sky News stating that HRH’s adviser a Mark Stein has since resigned, which to my mind asked did he jump or was he pushed. Another little snippet from the interview that may have been missed by many, was when he said he was a Patron of the NSPCC at the time. (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children). Ycnmiu.
NSPCC..
This is truly sick. And telling..
Another case of hiding in plain sight.
All “child protection” organisations and NGOs should be thoroughly investigated, as should Disney and Nickelodeon.
@ wonky November 18, 2019 at 13:59
Disney is known for it’s links the MK-Ultra Monarch Program, as well as putting out barely-disguised pornographic children’s’ ‘cartoons’ (lots of stuff on the web; one example: https://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/12-hidden-sexual-images-in-disney-movies/83782825/ ).
Organisations like the NSPCC, The Finders (notorious in the States), child protection agencies, schools and churches are obvious targets for paedophiles to try to get involved with.
Trouble is, the ‘investigators’ will tend to be of the same persuasion, like ex-mining or oil people becoming heads of the EPA, or other ‘revolving-door’ Industry/Regulator scenarios.
What on earth has happened to the Historic Sex Abuse investigation? Talking about ‘kicked into the long grass’. And Boris Johnson calls money spent on it ‘spiffed up the wall’ (he wasn’t another ‘friend’ of Savile and Epstein, was he?).
“he wasn’t another ‘friend’ of Savile and Epstein, was he?”
I know that doesn’t mean much, but he certainly looks like one of ’em..
Maitlis was infinitely softer on Andrew than she was in her disgraceful interview with the Hungarian foreign secretary – who, unlike Andrew, is democratically elected
Radio commentor hinting that Prince Andrew’s car crash of an interview was hurriedly set up by his advisors to get in first because charges from the US authorities are thought to be in the pipeline.
To be fair, if the US can stop one of its citizens being prosecuted for causing a fatal road traffic accident because she is a CIA operative or somesuch, the British would never extradite a member of the Windsor clan.
She may yet face charges, and Prince Andrew is not above the law.
https://www.thelist.com/141536/laws-the-royal-family-doesnt-have-to-follow/
John A
The entire MI6 British foreign policy under the Tories and Blair is a car crash.
Hoping for better under hero Corbyn next year.
Tomorrow there’s a Corbyn-Johnson debate on TV. So long as the Tories don’t do a Viktor Yushchenko on Corbyn, it’s likely to go disastrously for the Tories, even if their “experts” in the media say otherwise the next day.
On Thursday, the Labour manifesto comes out. If they promise to abolish private schools, I send in my party membership application the same day.
The polls will swing in Labour’s direction this week and next week. The Tory manifesto supposedly is not coming out until close to the end of November. Then they will shout from the rooftops “If you want a Romanian for a neighbour, vote Labour” for the final fortnight. It won’t surprise me if a video is found of swarthy-skinned immigrants sneaking on to a British beach from a dinghy, or something like that. This is all about Enoch. Brexit equals “Enoch was right”. They will want to shout down all the Labour policies regarding education, dental treatment, vocational training, etc. etc. etc., so that all that swing voters hear is an almighty crescendo of shouting against foreign immigrants.
Then we need a socialist Zinoviev letter about four days out! Revenge at last!
We also need more on Jennifer Arcuri. There’s a lot of damage limitation here. When Johnson was under her influence, and she was being “helped” in her “cybertech” efforts by Israel, Johnson wasn’t only Mayor of London – he was also a Cabinet minister in all but name. He was regularly attending Cabinet meetings. He is a huge security risk, and it doesn’t take a genius to guess which foreign intelligence service Arcuri was working for.
Tell me who isn’t working for Israel in this benighted country. Try the lists for CFoI and LFoI at Pugin’s Palace aka the Augean Stables.
Q. Where is Hercules when he’s needed?
@ Mary November 18, 2019 at 17:49
Holding up the ceiling in Gt. Queen Street (‘Pillars of Hercules’).
Three policies I’d like Labour to adopt:
1. Abolish private schools.
2. Abolish the monarchy.
3. Leave NATO, close all US bases, end all military cooperation with the US.
And I propose working class louts who beat up middle class intellectuls in state schools get sterilised.
State Schools have some really really disgusting things take place to blameless children who cannot choose who their parents are.
The problem is that the work class never get properly held accountable i.e. punished for it….
@ N_ November 18, 2019 at 13:13
I agree with points 2 and 3. 1 is too draconian, IMO. There will always be groups who want to educate their children separately, for religious or other reasons.
And who can blame them, given the PC and ‘sex orientation’ BS they are pumping into children.
Well there you have it if ITV lose the court case against the SNP and Lib/Dems, they’ll pull the whole show altogether.
British media bias in action.
Update.
The Great British bias High court has come down on the side of the Great British bias media as the SNP and the LibDems lose their appeal against ITV to have a fair crack of the whip along side Labour and the Tories in a televised debate.
Christ we need out of this union ASAP.
it would have been pointless, the LibDems are plummeting in the polls, very few wants their undemocratic crap.
Plummeting in the polls
You can get the same sensation by driving too fast over a hump back bridge and flying into the trolls.
What’s undemocratic about 17 .5 million voting to Remain and a young generation that didn’t vote because they thought it was a waste of time and space?
giyane, you are misrepresenting the U.K. voters.
The seventeen and a half million votes were for leaving the E.U.
I took to thinking about P Andrew’s place of residence and what goes on there?
The National Audit Office were very helpful to him when it came to the cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Lodge
Philip Cross.. As I said it’s a case of ‘they’ rather than ‘he’.
Philip Cross
AUTOPATROLLED, EXTENDED CONFIRMED USERS, PENDING CHANGES REVIEWERS, ROLLBACKERS
161,512 EDITS. !!!!!
Ex Wikipedia.
As they say, autism is a superpower, not a disease.
Prince Andrew must be something of a minnow in the Epstein cesspit, successfully distracting from the really big players. The question is, just how useful could Andrew (and, of course, Fergie) have been to Epstein (and/or his minders) and were they being blackmailed? Was the four day visit to sort out something relating to this? Does Andrew have Protection Officers? Where were they?