Prince Andrew Windsor Arrested on Suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office - The Real Question is 'Why He Hasn’t Been Arrested for Rape & Trafficking'?

The Time Has Come to Get Rid of This Dysfunctional ‘Royal’ Family and Have an Elected Head of State

Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The Newsnight Interview - BBC News 

It is understandable that people will be delighted at the arrest of ‘Prince’ Andrew (I don’t think Charles should be allowed to get rid of his embarrassing relative just like that – he has to live with the discomfort).

In a way so am I of course. Anything that discomforts and embarrasses this obnoxious man, who was an arms salesman for Britain, is to be welcomed. [See Arms and the Royal Man, Scottish Left Review]

Questions however need to be asked.

Last November I wrote that Andrew Was The Tip Of A Royal Iceberg of paedophillia.  Charles had also covered for a series of child abusers –  Bishop Peter Ball who was later gaoled despite Charles having provided him with a house as well as Jimmy Saville and Lord Mountbatten The real question was why Andrew wasn’t prosecuted for rape & conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

Bishop Peter Ball sentenced to jail for child abuse

This is not a case of no one being above the law. Andrew has been treated with kid gloves for the past decade by the Metropolitan Police. They have steadfastly avoided questioning him over sex with a minor who was being trafficked.

Andrew was not arrested for rape or for trafficking in women. He has been arrested for allegedly handing over confidential government documents. That is a very different thing. And whether he is guilty of this we have no idea.

Prince Andrew's BBC Newsnight interview is back in the spotlight - watch key moments

What is really outrageous was that as soon as he settled the lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre in 2022 he should have been arrested on suspicion of rape. He wasn't. It beggars belief that he handed over a reputed £12 million to someone lying about having sex with him.

But the Metropolitan Police showed no interest in pursuing it just as its shown no interested in more recent revelations about Andrew ordering, as if in a takeaway, girls from Epstein. 

This is the real scandal not the trifling matter of a few government documents.

In February 2022, after the settlement with Virginia Giuffre, I posted a blog asking whether or not rape had now been officially decriminalised. The Met chose to ignore this somewhat obvious observation.

In case Cressida Dick, the previous Commissioner of the Met before the present incumbent racist Zionist, Mark Rowley hadn’t got it, I posted a meme involving a queue at Buckingham Palace on news that Andrew was giving away money to people he had never met.

Andrew had only agreed to settle with Virginia Giuffre after his bid to prevent the case that Virginia Giuffre had launched failed. See Bid to dismiss sexual assault lawsuit. In other words he paid up to avoid a court case in front of a jury.

Andrew & Epstein in the Royal Enclosure, Ascot

In November 2019, after the interview with Emily Maitlis, I posted a blog saying that

It’s not a carefully controlled, softball interview with the BBC but an interview under arrest which is required.

I was interested in the Police statement that they had ‘arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk’. When I was arrested, for a ‘Hamas related terror offence’ i.e. saying I support the right of the Palestinians to resist the occupation, the Police issued a statement naming me and the street where I lived.  I guess it’s one law for the Royals and another for Commoners. [see Argus 31.1.25]

Andrew was detained for a very few hours today under questioning. Now I’ve also been arrested on many occasions and the first thing that happens is that you are put in a cell for a few hours before being questioned, finger printed, photographed and DNA taken.

I would be interested to know if Prince Andrew was also kept in the cells before being questioned. I suspect not.

And the other question is why Jeffrey Epstein was allowed to roam, almost at will, the various palaces and royal establishments as well as attend the Royal Enclosure at Ascot.

One thing is for certain. This circus of the Royal Family and the Crown should end. This dysfunctional family is an embarrassment. What we need is an accountable, elected head of state.  Not someone who owes his office to the misdeeds of his long forgotten ancestors.

We don’t have hereditary scientists or mathematicians and we certainly shouldn’t have hereditary office holders and heads of state.

Tony Greenstein

No Tears, No Joy –Elizabeth Windsor Faithfully Served the Rich, the Powerful and the Privileged Throughout Her Reign – She was No Friend of the Working Class or Oppressed

The Death of A Monarch is the Ideal Opportunity To Be Rid of the Monarchy – No one is Born to Rule Over Us

James Connolly on the occasion of George V's visit to Ireland in 1910

The Monarchy is, by definition, a reactionary institution based on the hereditary principle not merit. It is there to bind the poor to their fate, to give us the illusion that however rich or poor we are that we have something in common. In the inestimable words of Percy Shelley the Monarchy is “the String that Tied the Robber’s Bundle” (Shelley)

The Monarchy is the human face of the British Establishment in all its horrors.  An Establishment which, at this very moment, is forcing millions to choose between eating and heating as the energy companies are awash with money.

The idea that we have anything in common with the parasites who rule us, who steal the few assets that we had to hand over to their City friends, is cockamamie.  Patriotism is, in the words of Samuel Johnson, ‘the last refuge of the scoundrel’ and our rulers, as Boris Johnson amply demonstrated, complete scoundrels.

We are told that Liz ‘never put a foot wrong’ and it is true.  She did a wonderful job for those whose job it is to exploit the working class and poor.  Although even that is not strictly true. During the period immediately following Diana’s death, Elizabeth and her coterie were in danger of being seen to rejoice in the death of this uncontrollable former member of the ‘firm’.

Despite never having met Virginia Giuffre Andrew handed her over £10m

Not once, ever, did she express any sentiments in favour of those who are homeless, poor, destitute and without means but you can bet your bottom dollar that she and the other royal parasites expressed their contempt, behind closed doors of course, for those whom she reigned over.

The Queen was of course herself a very rich woman so it is natural that she should sympathise with fellow aristocrats. A tax dodger to the last, where she led others followed. She was happy to lobby the government to replace the Royal Yacht even whilst her subjects were sleeping on the streets. The idea of using her own wealth to purchase it probably never even occurred to her.

The Royal Family as they like to be known are a bunch of misfits, dysfunctional to the root. Not only the Prince of Paedophillia, Andrew but the racist Princess Pushy Michael of Kent who

sparked fury when she arrived at the Queen’s Christmas lunch in 2017 wearing a Blackamoor brooch on the day Meghan Markle was formally introduced to the Royal Family by Prince Harry. Blackamore brooches usually depict an African male as a servant, and are widely considered racist.

But it’s not about the Royals as individuals but what they represent.  The icing on the very ugly cake that is the British Establishment. In Ireland the Crown represented Unionism and the subjugation of the Catholics. In the Empire the Crown represented the super exploitation of India, Africa and Malaya. Not once did the Queen or her predecessors give voice to any criticism of the atrocities in India, Kenya and the West Indies.

Prince William IV defended the slave trade in the House of Lords and was known for his relations with African slaves

With the 200^th centenary of the abolition of the slave trade the Queen failed to apologise either for the slave trade or the Monarchy’s role in opposing abolition.  In her paper, Uncovering Royal Perspectives on Slavery, Empire, and the Rights of Colonial Subjects, Dr Brooke Newman wrote:

Prince William, now the Duke of Clarence, emerged as a vocal defender of colonial slavery and a leading ally of the West India Committee in London. In 1799, in a reprinted and widely circulated pro-slavery speech delivered in the House of Lords, he referenced the long history of European involvement in the African slave trade and drew on his eyewitness knowledge of conditions in the Caribbean islands. According to the Duke of Clarence, the abolitionists had misjudged the effects of the slave trade on Africa and Africans and grossly misrepresented the treatment of enslaved men and women in the British sugar colonies. The abolitionist campaign to end the slave trade, he argued, was not only radical and misguided, like the actions of the fanatical French revolutionaries, but also deeply damaging to Britain’s national interests.

The Duke of Clarence later became King William IV. In her tributes to the abolitionist William Wilberforce, Elizabeth Windsor passed over her own family’s role in delaying the abolition of slavery.

We are told that the Elizabeth kept her opinions to herself. Perhaps but there is no doubt on which side of the class divide she stood.  She personally invited her blood-stained relation, the King of Bahrain to attend the Royal Windsor Horse Show. When his largely Shi’ite subjects rose up against his bloody rule in the Arab Spring, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa not only set the military on them but he had the doctors and nurses who tended the wounded  tortured. Yet Elizabeth Windsor had no problem entertaining King Hamad.

Gough Whitlam, Australian Labour Prime Minister, was ousted by the Queen's man in Canberra

When Australia elected a radical Labour Prime Minister Gough Whitlam it was the Queen’s Governor-General Sir John Kerr who used Royal Prerogative to overthrow him in a constitutional coup d’etat and put in the conservative Malcolm Fraser. When the House of Representatives passed a motion of no confidence in Fraser, Kerr simply refused to see the Speaker of the House.

So we can see that when there is a constitutional crisis the role of the Monarchy can become extremely powerful as it nearly did when the Queen prorogued parliament, on advice from Boris Johnson, during the Brexit crisis.  In that case the Supreme Court overturned her order.

The Monarchy is anything but apolitical. It is intensely political and that is why BBC and ITV are currently boring us to death with interminal programmes about the death of Elizabeth Windsor. Fortunately this is likely to have the same effect as occurred with the death of Philip Windsor when there were a record number of complaints about the saturation coverage which was carried on every TV channel.

The close identification between the monarchy and the military is itself a threat to democracy. In times of crisis, as was signalled during Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, the Generals could declare their loyalty, not to Parliament or the people but the Monarch.  After all their oath of loyalty is not to the people but the Crown.

However lest this blog be considered unduly critical even the most hard hearted would have sympathised with Elizabeth sitting alone in Westminster Abbey after the death of her husband Philip while Boris Johnson was throwing parties in Downing Street.  But that incident in itself demonstrates that our present rulers lack any gravitas or substance. They are as cheap as the alcohol that they packed into that suitcase smuggled into a Downing Street Party.

It says a lot about the times we live in that Boris Johnson has been succeeded by ‘thick Lizzy’ whose meeting with Elizabeth seems to have given the coup de grace to Elizabeth.

As King Charles III ascends the throne we should perhaps remember what happened to the first King Charles!  A Republic is in sight.

Tony Greenstein