Andrew Was The Tip Of A Royal Iceberg – The Question is Why Hasn’t He Been Prosecuted for Rape & Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice?

 Charles Too Covered for a Child Abuser - The Crown & the Monarchy is the Human Face of a Corrupt Establishment

VIDEO: Leaked ABC News Insider Recording EXPOSES #EpsteinCoverup "We had Clinton, We had Everything"

On 16 November 2019 an interview with Andrew Windsor by Emily Maitlis, was broadcast. I blogged on it at the time and thought that Maitlis had been too deferential. Nonetheless the interview proved a disaster. It was the snowball that triggered the avalanche.

Why did he do it?  Sheer arrogance. Andrew wanted to clear his name of the allegations that had surrounded his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. He denied the allegations of abuse made by Virginia Giuffre and even denied having met her, despite a photograph that was widely circulated. We now know that he asked his police bodyguard to dig up dirt on Giuffre.

He asked us to believe in his ‘honour’ and thought that that was the best strategy to put an end to all the rumours and gossip. He was advised against doing the interview by his press adviser Jason Stein and his media lawyer Paul Tweed but his arrogance and stupidity carried the day.

Andrew was overconfident in his ability to handle the interrogation despite being unable to explain his four day stay with Epstein after he had been convicted. He even thought the interview went well. Aides noted his "lack of understanding of what had just happened was pretty profound". Andrew ‘was so pleased with how things had gone that he gave the Newsnight team a tour of the palace afterwards.’

In my blog I wrote that ‘It’s not a carefully controlled, softball interview with the BBC but an interview under arrest which is required’. It is clear that having sex with a girl of 17 who is being trafficked and unable to give consent is rape. To date however the Metropolitan Police prefer to arrest elderly ‘terrorists’ than royal rapists. However that too may have to change.

If you were to listen to the ever loyal BBC then you might be fooled into thinking that King Charles was straining at the leash to put clear blue water between him and his younger brother. Prince William, we are told,  would have Andrew carted off to the Tower.

But as the video above makes clear the Palace made strenuous efforts to kill the story including pressurising ABC News to spike an interview with Virginia Giuffre.

"Nobody's Girl": Virginia Giuffre's Memoir Details Sex Abuse by Epstein, Maxwell, Prince Andrew

One result of his interview was that in August 2021 Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit against Andrew, alleging he sexually abused her on three occasions in the early 2000s when she was 17, a minor under US law, after being trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

In January 2022, after a US judge ruled the case could proceed to trial, Andrew was stripped of his honorary military affiliations and royal patronages, and he ceased using the style "His Royal Highness" in any official capacity.

In February 2022, Andrew and Giuffre reached an out-of-court settlement , reported to be around £12m. He made no admission of liability but acknowledged that Giuffre had suffered as a victim of abuse. It was clear to most people that if he had nothing to hide then Giuffre would not have been paid off.

Andrew was previously an arms salesman to all the world’s most unsavoury regimes. However his friendship with Epstein led to his role ending. He was also criticised for his use of private jets and helicopters rather than scheduled flights and for his close links with foreign dictators and businessmen.

Andrew has now been stripped of his Dukedom and ‘prince' title and will move out of Royal Lodge, albeit not for some months. However it would be a mistake to see the behaviour of Andrew Windsor as anything  out of the ordinary.

He will also move to lodgings at Sandringham in Norfolk and receive a stipend from his brother Charles, which is in effect a subsidy from the public. Andrew is not  the  only one with skeletons to hide.

Lord Mountbatten, Charles’ great uncle and a man whom he called his ‘honorary grandfather’ was an active paedophile. He preyed on boys in the infamous Kincora children’s home in Belfast which was run by MI5 in conjunction with Ulster loyalists as a honey trap.

The Belfast Telegraph carried a story ‘I was raped by Mountbatten in Kincora at age 11; he wasn’t a lord… to me he was king of the paedophiles.’ A former BBC journalist, Chris Moore, described in his book Kincora: Britain’s Shame

a detective, contacted by concerned social workers, secretly photographed VIPs visiting Kincora and logged their car registrations.... The visitors included NIO officials who worked for MI5, lay magistrates, police officers and businessmen.

William McGrath

Moore said it was possible MI5 planted Kincora housemaster William McGrath, an Ulster Loyalist who founded the far-right Tara, in the children’s home as part of an intelligence-gathering operation. Either way McGrath raped an 11 year old boy Arthur Smyth and then introduced him to Mountbatten who also raped him at least twice. McGrath was later was gaoled for four years in 1981

The government has decreed that the files on Kincora and MI5’s involvement will remain under lock and key until 1985. Clearly they wish to protect MI5 and not for reasons of national security.

But Charles too has not behaved very differently himself from Andrew. He too covered up for a paedophile, Peter Ball, the Bishop of Lewes and subsequently Gloucester.

Kincora Boy's Home

Ball boasted of his role as “counsellor to royalty” according to Cliff James, one of his victims. Ball was friends with Thatcher, peers, senior judges and headmasters of leading public schools.

Ball was investigated by police in the early 1990s resulting in a police caution. In 2015, he was convicted of sexual offences against 17 teenagers and young men and jailed for 32 months. He was released in February 2017 after serving half his sentence.

Charles and Ball had a long-standing friendship and Charles supported Ball for many years, believing him to be the victim of a malicious campaign. 

Ball was the local diocesan bishop when the prince lived in Highgrove. Ball was described by the prince as a "loyal friend".

In a 2018 written submission to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), Charles stated he was "misled" by Ball, who claimed to have engaged in a minor "indiscretion" that prompted his 1993 resignation as Bishop of Gloucester. Ball presented himself as a victim of a "malicious campaign".

In letters read to the inquiry, the prince expressed strong sympathy for Ball. In a 1995 letter, he wrote:

I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated. It’s appalling that the archbishop has gone back on what he told me, before Xmas, that he was hoping to restore you to some kind of ministry in the church. I suspect you are absolutely right — it is due to fear of the media.

 In another letter, he described an accuser as a "ghastly man" and said he would "see this horrid man off if he tries anything"

When questioned as part of the inquiry, Prince Charles played down the significance of their correspondence, saying he answered Mr. Ball’s letters, “believing it the polite thing to do.”

Investigators, who pored over a large file of correspondence between the two men, said “the replies are suggestive of cordiality rather than mere politeness.”

They noted that Charles’s private secretary had made inquiries about Ball’s reinstatement with a top aide to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Within six weeks of his resignation, the Archbishop publicly said that he hoped to see Mr. Ball returned to the ministry.

The inquiry concluded that Ball’s supporters failed to consider that someone they knew and liked might also be an abuser. They found:

It is likely that they genuinely believed in Peter Ball’s innocence. These individuals could not conceive of the possibility that someone like Peter Ball could be guilty of such offending behaviour (they) thought they knew more than they did and, in fact, knew nothing about the extent of the allegations faced by Peter Ball,”

Ball’s victims, many of them teenagers, described approaching him for spiritual guidance and being asked to strip naked, take cold showers while he watched, masturbate him, submit to beatings, or sleep naked with him.

One cleric, who had asked Ball to support his ordination, said he refused to remove his clothing at Ball’s request. Ball subsequently withdrew his recommendation for ordination. The cleric was later rejected for ordination, told that there was “a big black mark against him in the Church of England.”

Ball was eventually arrested as a result of a complaint by Neil Todd, who began to visit Ball at the age of 17, and became fearful when the bishop began speaking of beating or whipping him as part of their religious practice. Neil Todd attempted suicide at age 19, and subsequently made reports of Ball’s behavior.

Neil Todd killed himself in 2012, days before the case was officially reopened.

Lord Carey, the former archbishop, has since said that he and other church officials underplayed Ball’s conduct because it did not involve penetration.

“I think all of us at the time were saying, ‘Well, he wasn’t raping anybody, there was no penetrative sex,’” he said.

He acknowledged that he attached more importance to Ball’s testimony than to Neil Todd’s.

“I actually believed him for quite a time, because who else were complaining about him? I didn’t know these people,” he told the inquiry.

The Telegraph reported that ‘Charles refused to provide a formal witness statement to the child sex abuse inquiry.’  His lawyers used human rights law to block efforts to compel him to send a witness statement, instead sending a signed letter. 

Fiona Scolding, lead counsel to the investigation, said that his lawyers argued that compelling him to give evidence was outside its powers. 

Despite Ball’s caution in 1992 he was later allowed to officiate at events including at schools and confirmations. 

"Despite lengthy correspondence, including assertions from the Prince’s solicitors that the Inquiry’s requests for evidence were outside its powers, i.e. 'ultra vires', there was never any suggestion at any point that the statement would be provided by letter," she said. 

The inquiry made several attempts to compel the lawyers to provide a witness statement with a formal statement of truth, which is essentially equivalent to swearing on oath. Charles’s lawyers argued that asking for a witness statement was "unfair", and constituted a request for "intensely private and confidential" personal data. 

The inquiry was forced to treat the letter as equivalent to a witness statement. The Prince refused to give evidence in person. His statement was read out at the hearing. 

Richard Scorer who was representing victims and survivors, expressed "surprise and concern" at the decision, saying. 

This will inevitably raise concerns that the letter may be less than entirely frank about his relationship with Peter Ball and that it contains matters to which he s reluctant to attach a formal statement of truth

Ball was first reported to Gloucester Police by Neil Todd and others in 1992. But no charges were brought against him after police received supportive telephone calls from "many dozens of people- including MPs, former public school headmasters, JPs and the Lord Chief Justice", the court heard.

It was also revealed that there had been "two thousand letters of support...including letters from cabinet ministers and Royal Family". The member of the Royal family was not named by Ball's barrister. Anthony Lloyd, who was then Lord Justice, described Ball as a "saint"

A Freedom of Information request by the Telegraph has led to the release of the letters written by some high profile figures in his support, they include former Lord Justice Anthony Lloyd, former Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan and David Cameron's late godfather Tory MP Tim Rathbone, who gave Cameron his first work experience in the House of Commons.

Rathbone wrote that he found it "literally inconceivable" that Ball would ever become involved with anyone in the way described. You can see how the Establishment protects its own here.

                Alan Dershowitz - Zionist lawyer and friend of Epstein

In what the New York Times described as ‘an unusually tough rebuke of the future king’ the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which was led by a professor of social work, Alexis Jay, concluded that “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided.”

He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace

Mr. Ball, 87, was close with the archbishop, George Carey, and Lord Lloyd of Berwick, an appeals court judge. But the most powerful of his friends was Charles, the Prince of Wales. After Ball's resignation, Charles arranged for the Duchy of Cornwall to buy a house that was then rented to Ball and his twin brother from the late 1990s — after he had been forced to step down — until 2011, and preached at the funeral of the prince’s second father-in-law, Bruce Shand.

Wayne Murdock, a police detective assigned to the investigation in 1993, anticipated early on that the suspect’s powerful friends would try to quash it.

“The jungle drums will start going and the phone calls will start,” he said, according to the report.

The report quotes correspondence suggesting that, after Ball was forced to step down as bishop of Gloucester, the prince lobbied for him to be returned to the ministry.

Charles denied attempting to influence police investigations and stated he ceased contact with Ball after his conviction in 2015.

The prince conveyed his "deep personal regret" that he was among many who were deceived by Ball over a long period, and his heart went out to the victims of the abuse. The inquiry ultimately found that the Church of England prioritized its reputation over the needs of victims and that the support from high-profile figures, including the Prince, was a factor in the decades-long cover-up that allowed Ball to evade justice.

The argument against the Monarchy and the Crown is not about the failings of individual members of the Royal Family.  It is about the fact that a hereditary monarchy is inherently undemocratic. They are unelected and yet have enormous reserve powers. The monarch interferes with legislation and at a time of constitutional crisis has enormous powers.

If there was ever an army coup then it would be legitimised by the Crown.  The Monarchy is, as Shelley said ‘the string that ties the robbers’ bundle.’ They personify class oppression with their palaces, unearned income and way of life. They symbolise the idea that merely because of an accident of birth you are destined to rule.

There is no more logic in having a hereditary ruler than having a hereditary historian or mathematician.  Today they symbolise nothing so much as a dysfunctional family that nonetheless absorbs hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidy. They are the icing on a very rancid cake.

Tony Greenstein