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 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 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.

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.

Tony Greenstein

Andrew Windsor – The Real Question is Why he hasn’t Been Questioned by the Met – has Rape been Decriminalised?

The time has come for this dysfunctional family to be retired and Britain to become a Democratic Republic

It beggars belief that Andrew Windsor is innocent of the allegations made against him by Virginia Giuffre. Allegations which he strenuously denied in his disastrous interview with Emily Maitlis in November 2019. A child could work out that you don’t pay £10m+ to someone you don’t know.

Rape is having sex without consent.  A 17 year old girl who is being trafficked, i.e. not free to go, is not in a position to give meaningful consent. The question is why the Metropolitan Police haven’t interviewed her. It appears that the Met has a policy for the rich and powerful and another for us.

As I wrote at the time, the interview with Emily Maitlis was in the traditions of the BBC’s sycophantic coverage of all things Royal. It was a soft softball interview. Yet despite the reluctance of Maitlis to pursue obvious lines of inquiry, such as why he had spent 4 days with Jeffrey Epstein at his New York mansion and what he had done during that time, or why he didn’t avail himself of the hospitality of the British Embassy, it was a car crash interview.

The only mitigating factor for Andrew Windsor is that he must be incredibly stupid, even by Royal standards. How could he have ever thought that this interview would clear him? His own press spokesman resigned at the time after his advice had been disregarded. And yet the Queen, who had the power to prohibit the interview, did nothing. Clearly stupidity is a Windsor characteristic. Too much inbreeding!

Windsor’s explanations, his inability to sweat or the outing to the Woking Pizza Express, were widely derided at the time. Clearly his decision to settle, despite his bravado that he was looking forward to giving evidence, reflected the fact that these were brazen and pathetic lies. His assertion that he had benefited from being associated with Epstein caused widespread revulsion but we should bear in mind that standards in the Royal Family are not those of most people nor was it the only time that the Windsors have supported Establishment paedophiles.

Charles Windsor consistently supported Peter Ball, the ex-bishop of Lewes and Gloucester, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting two young men. Ball, was sentenced to 32 months in October 2015 for charges relating to 18 teenagers and young men between the 1970s and 1990s. He admitted one count of misconduct in public office and two counts of indecent assault relating to two young men.

The first police investigation into Ball, who died in June, was launched in 1992.  Despite there being an abundance of evidence to bring the case to trial, it was decided that Ball would get a "police caution" for gross indecency instead. The report found that one of the detectives working on the case was worried about the case going to trial due to Ball's mental state and the "devastating effect" it could have on the Church of England.

There was also an understanding that Ball would resign from his post, which he did. But just four months later, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, wrote to Ball about planning his "cautious return to ministry." Less than two years later, he was back to work with "no restrictions" — and was even allowed to be around children and young people unsupervised.

In June 2017 George Carey resigned from his last formal role in the church after Dame Moira Gibb's independent investigation found he covered up, by failing to pass to police, six out of seven serious sex abuse allegations relating to 17- to 25-year-olds against Bishop Peter Ball. In 2019 the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse [ICSA] confirmed Carey had discredited credible allegations of child sex abuse within the Church and failing to accompany disciplinary action with adding to the church's own safeguarding watchlist.

IICSA said Carey showed compassion to Peter Ball that was not extended to his victims, and displayed overt support for Ball’s innocence despite having no justification. The church’s response was marked by secrecy, prevarication and avoidance of reporting crimes.

The report spoke of “The damaging consequence of this overriding allegiance to one’s own ‘tribe’ was that child protection was compromised” in the Diocese of Chichester. Perpetrators, about whom there were allegations or even convictions, were provided with unrestricted access to children and young people.

Apologies given by Justin Welby, the present archbishop of Canterbury, and other senior church figures over the C of E’s failures were “unconvincing”. Alexis Jay, the inquiry’s chair, said:

‘For years, the diocese of Chichester failed victims of child sexual abuse by prioritising its own reputation above their welfare. Not only were disclosures of abuse handled inadequately by the church, its response was marked by secrecy and a disregard for the seriousness of the abuse allegations.’

Carey told the inquiry that he was “under great pressure” from Ball’s supporters. William Chapman, representing survivors, told the inquiry: “The story of Peter Ball is the story of the establishment at work in modern times.” Ball had been able to call upon the

George Carey - a nasty racist, Zionist and homophobe 

‘willing assistance of members of the establishment. It included the heir to the throne, the archbishop and a senior member of the judiciary, to name only the most prominent.’

Neil Todd, who made the first complaint against Ball to the police in 1992, killed himself in 2012 after several previous attempts.

A separate independent review of the Ball case, commissioned by the C of E and published last year, found evidence of collusion and a cover-up at the highest levels over a 20-year period. Peter Hancock, the bishop of Bath and Wells said:

‘The report states that the CoE should have been a place which protected all children and supported victims and survivors and the inquiry’s summary recognises that it failed to do this.... the church at all levels should learn lessons from the issues raised in this report.’

In order to demonstrate how much it had learnt its lessons in February 2018 Carey was granted permission to officiate by Steven Croft, the bishop of Oxford, allowing him to preach and preside at churches. This was revoked on 17 June 2020 as the church found Carey could have done more to pass to police allegations of historic beatings at schools and evangelical children's camps, by John Smyth. Permission was restored to Carey seven months later. 

As a result of publicity a second police investigation was launched in 2012, which resulted in Ball pleading guilty three years later to misconduct in public office and indecent assault and abusing a total of 18 teens and young men over a period of 15 years. He was released from prison in February 2017, after serving half of his 32-month sentence.

The scandal involving Charles Windsor arose as a result of his relationship with Ball between the first police investigation and Ball being reinstated in the church.

Windsor was among the many influential people in the UK that Ball formed friendships with, including Margaret Thatcher, senior judges, and headmasters at private schools, according to The Guardian.

He also is said to have often preached at Sandringham, one of the royal family's private estates.

In August 1994, Charles Windsor sent his private secretary to Lambeth Palace to inquire about Ball's status to the Archbishop's top aide. When he learned that Ball had still not been cleared to return to ministry in February 1995, he wrote to Ball saying "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,"

Charles wrote, in one of the many letters exchanged during their two-decade correspondence.

He even bought Ball a house to live in, using the Duchy of Cornwall (our money!) to purchase the property and then renting it out to Ball and his twin brother from 1995 to 2011.

An independent inquiry criticizes the Prince of Wales

After Ball's conviction, an independent inquiry into child abuse was launched into how the case was handled.

When the panel published their report they said "the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided". In other words a slap on the wrist.

His actions, and those of his staff, could have been interpreted as expressions of support for Peter Ball and, given the Prince of Wales' future role within the Church of England, had the potential to influence the actions of the Church,

while Windsor said he

took no position on Peter Ball's return to ministry, he and his private secretary enquired about Peter Ball within Lambeth Palace. He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,"

But this should not be any surprise. The Queen herself has maintained close relations with the most abominable of her relations abroad such as King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain. As the Guardian reported in May 2019

The king regularly attends the prestigious five-day Royal Windsor horse show, which is a highlight in the Queen’s year. Pictures on Friday showed him meeting the British monarch and Prince Andrew, with the two heads of state laughing together as they watched the event.

Such is the closeness of the two monarchs that they have gifted each other horses from their respective stables; the king providing two to the Queen in 2013. The British monarch responded in 2017, giving him a horse in return.

The King maintains a veritable dictatorship in Bahrain which Britain has supplied with over £100 million of arms since 2011. Bahrain is a Sunni dictatorship ruling over a majority Shia population. The Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 were met with murderous repression including Saudi Arabia despatching troops to put it down.

Doctors and nurse tending the wounded were themselves tortured. A report here gives further details on the unsavoury relations of the Queen

Elizabeth Windsor and the Sultan of Brunei

In May 2012 the Queen hosted a gathering of her unsavoury relations such as the Sultan of Brunei who introduced a law that included stoning to death for gays and those who commit adultery. It was only under heavy pressure that he was forced not to implement them (though one can never be sure).

So Andrew is not the Black Sheep of his family. Far from it. He is just the most stupid and brazen of the Windsors, a dysfunctional and parasitic family.

It is not however a question of the personal inadequacies of this inbred family. It is a question of democracy. No one would ever suggest that we should appoint hereditary mathematicians or poets. Why then do we still have hereditary heads of state?

The slavish loyalty of the BBC and unprincipled politicians like Starmer and Johnson to the monarchy has nothing to do with the ‘good’ job that Elizabeth Windsor performs. It has everything to do with the important political role that the monarchy plays in legitimising the British state. They are the symbol of the British state and the armed forces swear their allegiance, not to the people of Britain but the Queen in state.

As such the monarchy is a perpetual threat to democracy. If Corbyn had become Prime Minister, despite the hostility of the British Establishment and the threats of unnamed Generals, then it is quite feasible that a coup would have been launched, as it has in other countries, in the name of the Monarch.

The political function of the Royals is to serve as the icing on a poisonous cake. They represent the heart of an undemocratic state, with its unelected Lords. They are the face of privilege and perform the role of binding together the nation in obeisance to a myth. However rich or poor you are you can always identify with the ‘Royals’. The slavish and gushing coverage in the tabloid press aims at making them appear ‘human’ and one of us.

I prefer the advice of the revolutionary poet Percy Shelley who wrote in his Philosophical View of Reform (1820) that ‘Monarchy is only the string which ties the robber’s bundle.’  It is as true now as it was 200 years ago.

Tony Greenstein