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 is
Booed in Cardiff and Celtic Fans Chant ‘If
you hate the Royal Family Clap your Hands’ as the Wheels Begin to Come Off
the Royal Pantomime
UPDATE
A loyal tribute to Elizabeth Windsor by British singer song writer Leon Rosselson
If you hate the Royal Family clap your hands – Glasgow Celtic
fans
It is often said of the Queen that
she did a good job. And in one sense that is true.She did do a good job but the question is for
whom did she work? Certainly no one who lived in the colonies benefited and it
is difficult to see how anyone who is poor, on the streets or working class is
any the richer.
On the other hand there is no doubt,
judging by the million or so fools who spent 24 hours or more to see her coffin,
that the late Queen performed a very useful function for the class that she
came from. A role not dissimilar to that of religion.
Marx didn’t simply describe
religion as the opium of the masses but also as the heart of a heartless world,
the soul of a soulless world. Royalty performs a vital political and social
function in binding the poor and oppressed to their oppressors in a sham show
of national unity that is underpinned by the honours system.
The honours system itself is divided into ordinary and common
OBEs, CBEs and MBEs (all of which refer to the Empire) up to the the Most Nobel Order of the Garter, of which there are only 34 at any one
time, all of whom are chosen personally by the sovereign. In this way, however rich or poor you are you can
identify with the monarch.
That is why virtually every business
of any size adorned itself with the image of Elizabeth Windsor. The Monarchy
provides social stability as well as a back stop against revolution.
Republican demonstrators greet Charles in Cardiff
Despite all this there is a growing
mood of republicanism amongst the young in particular who are almost
equally divided on whether or not to have a republic. However much the BBC
rams the idea of an unelected monarchy down our throats it offends against
democratic instincts and reeks of class snobbery and contempt.
The Monarchy is depicted as the
ideal family, just like you and me however there is nothing ordinary about the
monarchy from the past-times they indulge in (hunting, shooting) to the company
they keep.
Despite being told that the Monarchy
has no influence politically this is not true. The royals vetted
at least 1,062 laws during Elizabeth’s reign in order to ensure that they didn’t
hurt her interests.
Whereas it is well known that Royal Assent is needed when a
bill becomes law very few people know that the Monarch’s consent is needed
before legislation can be approved by parliament. The website of the royal family describes it as “a long established convention”.
Documents in the National Archives suggest that the Consent
Process enabled Elizabeth Windsor to lobby for changes before legislation was
tabled. Thomas Adams, a constitutional law expert at Oxford University said that
these documents revealed “the kind of
influence over legislation that lobbyists would only dream of”. It gave Liz
“substantial influence” over draft
laws that could affect her. See Revealed:
Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth
We can see their results. The Queen’s
Estate will pay no Inheritance Tax unlike ordinary mortals, saving them
hundreds of millions of pounds. But
there is more to this than mere corruption although there is that too.
The Monarchy in the form of Prince
Charles played
a large part in the canonisation of Jimmy Savile.He was also knighted. In a memo addressed
to the royals in 1989, and titled ‘Guidelines
for members of the Royal Family and their staffs’, Savile claimed he was “in the palaces on a regular basis”.
Under ‘personal observations’, Savile stated
that he was ‘well-placed’ to make
observations and comment on the Royal Family’s image due to the access he had
inside their residences writing:
“Because I get
into St James’s Palace and Buckingham Palace on a regular basis, one thing is
becoming quite obvious. There is a strong movement now towards some members of
the family and their staff towards an… attitude.”
The Netflix documentary Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story showed how
Charles
had gone out of his way to seek out Savile’s advice and help in repairing the
monarchy’s image and reputation. Because if there is one thing the ‘firm’ is
careful about is its image.
‘wherever there is royalty,
there is militarism, organised religion, bipartisan political agreement,
patriotism and, of course, concentrated wealth.’
The
Monarchy is the symbol of all that is rotten in society. Its function being to hide
the nexus of power in pageantry, pomp and mystique. It’s secret weapon is its
insincerity.
A leaky pen
As Walter Bagehot
argued the
monarchy needed mystique. “Its mystery is
its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.” Charles has done quite
the opposite. He allowed cameras into the accession council, where he made his
oaths. He has already had two public hissy fits involving malfunctioning pens,
which have gone viral. Charles finds it difficult, unlike his mother, to keep
his mouth shut.
Power is exercised most effectively
behind closed doors not in public. As Media Lens pointed
out we are quick to ridicule countries where there is a cult of the
personality –
‘those poor lost souls who glorify leaders with
hagiographic portraits and statues; and militarised patriotic festivals and
grand commemorative events’.
This type of thing happens in Putin’s
Russia, Xi Jinping’s China and Kim Jong-un’s North Korea not in Britain. Yet
how does one describe hundreds of thousands of people queuing for over a day to
catch a glimpse of the coffin of a woman they never knew?
The BBC naturally was determined not to
be outdone in its servile, sycophantic prose. Royal correspondent Jonny Dymond wittered:
‘This is the
moment history stops; for a minute, an hour, for a day or a week; this is the
moment history stops.
If history stopped, then time itself must
have stopped! A quite remarkable feat, even for a monarch.
The Leaky Pen and why Charles is angry with his manservant
‘Grief is the price we pay for love’ (Daily Telegraph)
‘Thank you’ (Daily
Mirror’)
‘Our beloved Queen is dead’ (Daily Express)
‘We loved you Ma’am’ (The Sun)
As Media
Lens asked ‘Does The Sun have any idea what the word ‘love’ means?’ This is
the paper that marked the death of 96 football fans at the Hillsborough Stadium
with the headline
‘The Truth’ alleging that fans picked the pockets of the victims whilst
urinating on the ‘brave cops’.
Nor was
the Guardian any better. The day after Windsor’s death it led with
19 pages on the Queen plus a 20-page supplement. Columnist, Gaby
Hinsliff, wrote a piece
referring to Elizabeth Windsor’s ‘grandmotherly
manner’, ‘female power’, ‘rare trick for a woman’, ‘awoman in charge’, ‘“ultimate feminist”’, ‘a legacy for women’, etc.
Hinsliff’s
unctuous prose managed 14
retweets and 72 likes.
Not to be
outdone Sir Keir Starmer, Knight Commander of the Order of Bath and Leader of
the ‘Opposition’, declared:
‘For seventy
years, Queen Elizabeth II stood as the head of our country. But in spirit, she
stood amongst us.’
One
wonders just how many homeless people felt her spirit as they bedded down for
the night. Perhaps those weighing up how to heat their home immediately felt
her presence besides them?
Not
content with this nonsense Starmer told us
that:
‘as the world
changed around her, this dedication became the still point of our turning
world.’
How many
of you felt that your world revolved around Liz Windsor?
But all this servile nonsense aims to
enable the new King to emerge, as if by magic, like a butterfly from its
chrysalis. And history therefore has to be rewritten. It is no accident that the
BBC Panorama Interview with Princess Diana has been suppressed.
The BBC have pretended that Diana was
tricked into the interview, even though she herself declared at the time that
she was happy with it. The BBC is asserting its copyright to prevent it being
shown anywhere. There is nothing like censorship to help change the narrative.
However you can still see it on my blog,
at least for the moment!
As Andrew Morton, whose 1992 book Diana:
Her True Story exposed Charles adultery with ‘Queen’ Camilla said:
"It is a supreme irony
that it is her son who has led the calls to posthumously muzzle Diana, to
silence her, to prevent her from being heard, from saying what she spent her
life trying to articulate"
As the BBCs former Director-General
Tony Hall admitted:
The first investigation we
did before Christmas under Tim Gardam talked to all the people concerned
and produced a letter where she said very clearly that she had been shown no
documents by Martin Bashir, she was not made aware of anything by Martin Bashir
that she didn’t already know and she had no regrets, underlined, by the
interview. It is quite interesting that Lord Dyson himself
says that an interview of some sort would probably have taken place anyway. At
that point in our inquiries, in our investigations with Tim Gardam, we came to
an end that there was no case to answer.
In now trying to silence what her
mother wanted to reveal, Prince William is acting with contempt for her. But
that too is part of the price to be paid for keeping the royal show going.
As for Andrew, the death of Elizabeth
Windsor has been quite fortuitous in his attempt to achieve rehabilitation. Instead
of mourning in private, Andrew was one of the 4 royals who formed
the vigil around her coffin. In full military uniform it might be added.
Expunged from memory are the stories
of Prince Charles with carrier bags full of notes donated by a kind Qatari politician.
And why, in this age of Internet banking, did Charles not have the money sent
electronically?Guess it was his addiction
to all things old-fashioned!
Also forgotten is how Charles protected
the serial child abuser Peter Ball, Bishop of Lewes, who eventually served half
of a 32 month prison sentence after the Police originally let him off with a Caution.
Charles wrote to him after he had
been cautioned saying that
“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.”
There is no
record of Charles having expressed any sympathy for Neil Todd, one of Ball’s
victims, who killed himself in 2012.
In classic Establishment
understatement, the Official Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse described Charles’
support for Ball and the Duchyof Cornwall
buying a house for him to rent as ‘misguided’.
Why are you strangling me?
Charles maintained a correspondence with Ball for more than
two decades after Ball’s 1992 caution for gross indecency. Charles told
the inquiry that he did not realise the truth behind allegations against Ball.
Most people understand that accepting a Caution means accepting one is guilty. But
not Charles. That child abuse offences were dealt with by a Caution suggests
Police complicity and cover up.
Charles explanation as to why he corresponded with Ball was
that it was the “polite” thing to do but the inquiry found the replies were “suggestive of cordiality rather than mere
politeness”. Charles explanation, that he did not know the exact details of
the allegations, was not believed by the inquiry which found that he did not
try to find out.
All this however will be hushed up and forgotten because it’s
now a case of ‘God Save the King’ and the Establishment of which he is such an
integral part.
Or as the old
saying goes ‘Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.’
It’s not a carefully controlled, softball interview with the BBC but an
interview under arrest which is required
It says
something about our ‘justice system’ that Julian Assange is under lock and key
in Belmarsh prison for services to journalism and revealing the truth about US
war crimes whilst Andrew Windsor is giving an interview in the plush
surroundings of Buckingham Palace.
This was an
exercise in damage limitation though it is clear that such is Andrew Windsor’s
shiftiness that he has raised more questions than answers.
He said he
‘let the side down’ meaning the Royal
Family. Andrew Windsor didn’t mention letting down the hundreds of young girls
that his friend Jeffrey Epstein was trafficking.
Apparently
‘randy’ Andy didn’t notice anything was amiss during his many visits to
Epstein’s Florida mansion and during his stay at Epstein’s New York pad. He
didn’t deny staying on Epstein’s island either.If you believe his version of what happened you would believe anything.
In December
2010 Andrew went to stay at Epstein’s New York home in order to tell him he
couldn’t see him again!Not only that
but he went for a leisurely walk in Central Park with him. It is bullshit. If
in fact the only purpose of the visit was to cut off relations then a royal
aide would have phoned Epstein. Clearly Andrew felt indebted to the monster.
Andrew with the boss of a Kazakh oil company
Not only
that but he stayed for 4 days because it was ‘convenient’. This is from someone
who has a range of hotels to stay in, for whom money is no barrier and who can
stay at the British Ambassador’s residence. The obvious conclusion is that he
stayed for reasons related to the child sex allegations for which Epstein was
convicted and facing further proceedings. Allegations of sleeping with what were
girls trafficked as sex slaves is rape.
Andrew
casts doubt on the famous photograph with a 17 year old Virginia Roberts,
suggesting that it is photo-shopped, that his fingers didn’t fit but he doesn’t
categorically state that it is a forgery. Why? Because the negative might yet
turn up. He is careful not to say anything which might prove a lie in the
future.
Nothing
Virginia Roberts has said, about having slept with him 3 times or knowing him
has proven to be false. Andrew admits to a friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell
who procured the girls for Epstein.That
in itself is damning enough.
By his own
admission he gave a party during his 2010 stay at Epstein’s house for his host.
He also invited Epstein to a ‘shooting party’ as opposed to a birthday party at
Sandringham. Clearly it was a close relationship.
The wonder
is that the bunch of parasites otherwise known as the Royal Family is able to
do all of this courtesy of the tax payer. If ever there were a group of people
who should stand on their own two feet it is the Royals.
Andrew is a
particularly despicable specimen having previously acted as a conduit for arms deals
with regimes that have atrocious human rights records such as Kazakhstan. He
has hosted the King
of Bahrain who had doctors who tended to the wounds of demonstrators tortured.
Sleeping
with under-age girls who are sex slaves is on a par with this. It says something
about Andrew Windsor that he kept up his friendship with a convicted sex trafficker
because of a ‘sense of honour’ whose
behaviour was merely ‘unbecoming’.
Even to
this day he doesn’t regret his friendship ‘because
of the people I met.’ Presumably he is referring to his arms dealer
friends.It would have been more honest
if he said that he didn’t regret it because of the girls that he raped.
Piers
Morgan describes Maitlis’s
interview as ‘forensic’. I have
another word, sycophantic. Maitlis failed to press Andrew Windsor at different
times during the interview for example not on whether he could remember the
photograph and being with Roberts but whether he denied it outright. She didn’t
ask him whether it was a forgery.
She barely
pursued the propriety of staying with a man guilty of using and exploiting
dozens if not hundreds of girls.She
said of course nothing about his involvement with the arms trade and whether
the amorality of dealing with the world’s dictators might rub off in his
personal life.
In the
circumstances she was deferential and restrained but that is how the BBC has
long treated the Royals. Yet despite all of this, such was Andrew Windsor’s
shiftiness and the implausibility of his explanations (‘I could kick myself’)
whilst remembering small details of a Pizza Hut outing 18 years ago that will
have done him and the Royals the very damage that he intended to avoid.
