Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein

[tabitha2]

Please.He still flying to to Bahrain on Royal Business though and keeping at least patronage... This is all a front to placate folks who don’t really follow their activities Very closely.  
 

Would be best if he simply retired to an estate  to enjoy his old age and Children and Grandchildren quietly. He can still go to private family functions when appropriate. But he can’t give up his elite high flyer  life style. His siblings could probably be content enough eventually but Spoiled Andy will never do this.

[adidas]

The Times of London is reporting that the queen has authorised instructions for Andrew and his staff to find a new premises.
Ie he has been kicked out if Buckingham Palace. 

[justwatching]

The Times of London is reporting that the queen has authorised instructions for Andrew and his staff to find a new premises.
Ie he has been kicked out if Buckingham Palace. 

Wow. Has this ever happened before?

[WiseGirl]

Sponsors/Supports of his program wisely stepping away

https://www.ft.com/content/aa8de4ce-0d57-11ea-bb52-34c8d9dc6d84

More on the move. His private secretary was let go but Andrew and Mumsy were pictured riding horses together in Windsor.

https://people.com/royals/prince-andrews-office-has-been-moved-out-of-buckingham-palace-report/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/22/prince-andrews-aide-steps-down-from-role-over-epstein-link

[tabitha2]

To be fair he is still her son and it’s her own home. She may be angry, disappointed, etc but she still loves him. It’s not reasonable to expect her to stop associating with him in private.

[justwatching]

To be fair he is still her son and it’s her own home. She may be angry, disappointed, etc but she still loves him. It’s not reasonable to expect her to stop associating with him in private.

I agree. And we don’t know what they were talking about. She could have been reading him the riot act.

[WiseGirl]

I get that he is her son really I do. I saw this (under spoiler) while getting the car oil changed.

Spoiler

 

 

[Gobsmacked]

On 23 November 2019 at 6:18 AM, justwatching said:

Wow. Has this ever happened before?

I don't think so. Not since the abdication/Wallis Simpson days in the mid 30's. 

[Palimpsest]

On 11/23/2019 at 12:27 PM, tabitha2 said:

To be fair he is still her son and it’s her own home. She may be angry, disappointed, etc but she still loves him. It’s not reasonable to expect her to stop associating with him in private.

To be fair, he was reputedly her favorite child.  She may not believe (in spite of the increasing evidence) that he may be a sexual predator.  Who consorted with other predators, rapists and sex traffickers.  And did not put duty and the family "Firm" above everything else.

It is her choice to continue to associate with him and fund him from her private fortune, even after she has been forced by a combination of public opinion, Charles (who has a proprietary eye for his future monarchy), sundry grey men, and possibly Parliament, to demote him.  She finally cried "Uncle."

And it is reasonable for us to judge her for the decisions to keep on funding him and rather publicly to continue associating with him.  Against the growing evidence.  And all good sense.

She is apparently finally, and very belatedly, kicking him out officially.  (He has had far more scandals than this,)  But she could be more discrete about supporting him privately. 

But then, Lillibet is human.  It isn't the first error she has made.  By a long shot.

ETA.  I'm still catching up because royal shenanigans are low on my list of priorities.  But I love this opinion piece.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/commentisfree/2019/nov/24/the-media-like-to-rock-the-royal-boat-but-they-wont-sink-it

Edited November 24, 2019 by Palimpsest

[tabitha2]

More discrete? Publicly ?  She was at her own home On her down time not at any public venue or outing.She be associating with him till the day she dies, they all will because disowning and banishing or throwing them dungeons family members soo 1300’s  

[hoipolloi]

Charles has, for some time, quietly pushed to pare down the number of BRF members who are on the Sovereign Grant and also receive things like protective services. Andrew & his daughters were on the cutback list before now, particularly Eugenie & Beatrice who, the Queen said some years ago, should be looking for day jobs after university, and not expect to carry out royal duties while being paid off the Sovereign Grant.

While Andrew will now apparently get paid from his mother's "private" income, a lot of that money is derived from quasi-public properties such as the Duchy of Lancaster. Similarly, a lot of Charles' "private" income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. Both duchies are land trusts, managed by the UK government for the Queen & Charles, and those in charge of the duchies answer to Parliament.

So, no, the Queen isn't exactly cutting Andrew loose from government funding nor is Andrew going to be self-supporting in any meaningful way. Of course, he could always find another Russian oligarch or two to buy some of his remaining real estate.

 

[tabitha2]

The London police are washing their hands of the whole affair saying in so many words it’s not our crime to investigate since most of the alleged events were not on British soil.

 

Commander Alex Murray, Specialist Crime, said:

"In July 2015 the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) confirmed it had received an allegation of non-recent trafficking for sexual exploitation.

"The allegation was made against a US national, Jeffrey Epstein, and a British woman.

"It related to events outside of the UK and an allegation of trafficking to central London in March 2001.

"The MPS always takes any allegations concerning sexual exploitation seriously.

"Officers assessed the available evidence, interviewed the complainant and obtained early investigative advice from the Crown Prosecution Service.

"Following the legal advice, it was clear that any investigation into human trafficking would be largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK.

"We therefore concluded that the MPS was not the appropriate authority to conduct enquiries in these circumstances and, in November 2016, a decision was made that this matter would not proceed to a full criminal investigation.

"In August 2019, following the death of Jeffrey Epstein the MPS reviewed the decision making and our position remains unchanged.

"The MPS has liaised with other law enforcement organisations but has not received a formal request asking for assistance in connection with this allegation."

[acheronbeach]

@tabitha2 you know shit has hit the fan when government agencies have to publicly explain their exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  

I love it.  The Met are obviously trying to cover their asses but are also saying publicly that their decision had nothing to do with Virginia Roberts Giuffre's credibility or reliability. 

[TheOneAndOnly]

Random thought - I wonder if anyone will ever address Prince Charles' friendship with the late Jimmy Savile?

[Coco]

53 minutes ago, TheOneAndOnly said:

Random thought - I wonder if anyone will ever address Prince Charles' friendship with the late Jimmy Savile?

I read today that his headstone was scrapped and within just a few days of being installed, too. So at least some justice happened. What worries me more is who is this generation's boss of this mess. It's maddening for justice to wait 20, 30, 40, 50 years.  Why can't they catch these predators when it matters most. 

 

[acheronbeach]

Update on Pedo Andy - despite saying he has no recollection of EVER meeting Virginia Roberts Giuffre, despite supposedly being at Woking the night he met up with her, the BBC located an email sent from Andrew to Ghislaine Maxwell that morning, sent a few hours after Roberts says she was with him. 

Pedo Andy said, and I quote, "Let me know when we can talk. Got some specific questions to ask you about Virginia Roberts." 

Edited December 3, 2019 by acheronbeach
bad punctuation

[tabitha2]

On 11/28/2019 at 9:14 PM, Coco said:

I read today that his headstone was scrapped and within just a few days of being installed, too. So at least some justice happened. What worries me more is who is this generation's boss of this mess. It's maddening for justice to wait 20, 30, 40, 50 years.  Why can't they catch these predators when it matters most. 

 

Simply because the individuals who use these young woman( and young men as well) are the most rich and powerful in the world With ties to governments and government officials, lawmakers and policy makers Or Pretty likely in Government themselves. 
 

When the likes of Bill Clinton And former state governors are banging 15 year olds on yachts and The Who’s who of World society are having island orgies there will never be any change or Justice at all. 
 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by tabitha2

[omilona]

Would you please provide a link to actual  evidence of Bill Clinton 'banging 15 year olds on yachts' .  Otherwise it would be nice if you didn't flame throw that kind of speculation.  There is plenty of evidence for Andrew.  President Clinton is our neighbor, and a fine person in the community, in a small town. I find that allegation difficult to tolerate without actual evidence. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by omilona

[formergothardite]

1 hour ago, omilona said:

Would you please provide a link to actual  evidence of Bill Clinton 'banging 15 year olds on yachts' .  Otherwise it would be nice if you didn't flame throw that kind of speculation.  There is plenty of evidence for Andrew.  President Clinton is our neighbor, and a fine person in the community, in a small town. I find that allegation difficult to tolerate without actual evidence. 

Bill did travel with Epstein on his "Lolita Express" several times. Epstein also visited Clinton at the White House. 

So Bill, much like Trump, did hang out and travel with a guy who ran a child sex ring. I give anyone who hung out with Epstein the side eye, apparently it wasn't much of a secret that he was a bad, bad person. 

[VVV]

4 hours ago, omilona said:

Would you please provide a link to actual  evidence of Bill Clinton 'banging 15 year olds on yachts' .  Otherwise it would be nice if you didn't flame throw that kind of speculation.  There is plenty of evidence for Andrew.  President Clinton is our neighbor, and a fine person in the community, in a small town. I find that allegation difficult to tolerate without actual evidence. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/famous-people-jeffery-epstein-money-manager-sexual-trafficking-connected-2019-7#l-brands-ceo-les-wexner-is-epsteins-only-confirmed-client-6

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/10/jeffrey-epstein-trump-clinton-friends

No credible links whatsoever about what may or may not have been Bill Clinton's sexual activities but he did know Jeffrey Epstein and he did fly on Epstein's private plane.

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by VVV

[omilona]

OK, but knowing someone and getting a ride on their plane is not "banging 15 year olds on yachts". If you google Clinton Epstein Private Island almost all the first page of hits are Rupert Murdoch owned Fox/Daily News/NY Post which all have a clear agenda. I would be far more suspicious of Les "Victoria's Secret" Wexner who gifted that enormous town house in Manhattan to Epstein and was his only client.

[AliceInFundyland]

I think a few things are true of Epstein.

He wrote down the name and number of every single person with any cache he connected with.

Some of them probably passed through his orbit completely unaware of his lecherous behavior.

Some probably had similar associations as people in Hollywood who have known Weinstein over the years. He was a huge supporter of science and technology. I think some people from MIT and such have come forth and said, "wtf" Too few, but that's something.

I'd bet the largest number of his male associates preferred women of a requested 18-21 age. To keep things "legal" and then didn't question the specifics of what was provided or going on.

That's my hunch. I'm betting on Trump and Clinton being lecherous and perhaps being inadvertently and stupidly with underage girls, vs. Requesting young looking women.

It's a gross distinction and doesn't make a difference in prosecution. Just a speculation on my part. Guys like that want young models, not adolescents.

Again, speculating...

 

[Four is Enough]

On 11/17/2019 at 12:55 PM, Cleopatra7 said:

 his dumb, reject Animal House pledge face.

LOVE this!!

Charles. Why would he push Andy away? Yeah, he's been "Randy Andy" since he was young, but Charles was no slouch, either. I don't know WHAT he sees in Camilla, but... there's always been Camilla, and others..... I mean, he was married to Diana  when he told Camilla he wanted to be her tampon.

Sarah Ferguson was pretty rowdy, and that's why she probably appealed to Andy in the first place.

Long history of marital infidelity in the BRF male segment.. they probably all think they're beyond the pale.

[Seahorse Wrangler]

5 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

LOVE this!!

Charles. Why would he push Andy away? Yeah, he's been "Randy Andy" since he was young, but Charles was no slouch, either. I don't know WHAT he sees in Camilla, but... there's always been Camilla, and others..... I mean, he was married to Diana  when he told Camilla he wanted to be her tampon.

 

To be honest, if Charles had married Camilla and been poking Diana on the side the British press would have been praising him to the skies.

 

[tabitha2]

Like Diana’s adulterous affairs are either justified or ignored all together?