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.
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 2085. 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 reportedthat ‘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 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.
There is also a very good blogpost by Craig Murray. The Four Mentors of King Charles Craig mentions a fourth paedophile in Charles' life, his 'spiritual mentor' Laurens van der Post. Craig makes this point:
To the best of my knowledge and belief, I do not know any paedophiles – but none of us can be absolutely certain we do not. Of one thing, however, I feel extremely confident. The four most-valued advisers in my life, the people whose advice I have most craved and to whom I have turned in times of crisis, are not all paedophiles. I should be astonished if any of them were.
You just can’t have your four closest non-official life guides as paedophiles by accident. You just can’t. It has been put to me that Charles, by nature of his role, knows vastly more people than ordinary folk. That may or may not be true (there is a counter-argument about privilege and protection). But it if were true, it does not improve things. If there is a much larger-than-normal pool from whom Charles could have chosen, it makes it even weirder he chose four prolific paedophiles.
To be clear, prolific paedophilia is extremely abnormal behaviour.
