Prince Andrew has now been arrested

[chuck_88]

Not really, when you consider the late Queen's sister Margaret wasn't adverse to the odd controversy 70+ years ago.
It seems the 'spare' can't keep out of bother

Not sure you can really compare divorces, affairs and partying ala margaret to sexual abuse of young girls from the paedo prince.

In my humble opinion of course

[scutty brown]

The end of the monarchy begins here 

The monarchy survived a three way relationship between Mountbatten, his wife, and Nehru with Nehru fucking both of them.
If it survived that it can survive anything

[Vice Admiral]

Yesterday’s Sunday Times carried an article by Andrw Lownie, author of Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s current legal position.

Fair enough.

What was not fair enough was the catchpenny, trouble-making heading, drawn more or less word-for-word from a sentence in the article.  It was, “I fear the royal family will never let Andrew end up in court”.

The article contained not a shred of evidence to support the assertion.

Call me head-in-the-sand naive if you like, but I have enough confidence in the propriety of the English legal system – and enough scepticism about “bad actors” in the "Deep State” supposedly being able to manipulate a matter like this to their liking – to believe that the royal family could not, even if it wanted to, prevent justice from taking its course.

In any case it wouldn’t surprise me if the King – and, more particularly, Prince William – rather liked the idea of Andrew ending up in the slammer. 

[badsin]

But what might AMW spill if he comes under further pressure?
I bet both he and Fergie know where a few bodies are buried, figuratively.. KCIII's friendship with Jimmy Saville for instance.....

[Blackpool Rock]

Yesterday’s Sunday Times carried an article by Andrw Lownie, author of Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s current legal position.

Fair enough.

What was not fair enough was the catchpenny, trouble-making heading, drawn more or less word-for-word from a sentence in the article.  It was, “I fear the royal family will never let Andrew end up in court”.

The article contained not a shred of evidence to support the assertion.

Call me head-in-the-sand naive if you like, but I have enough confidence in the propriety of the English legal system – and enough scepticism about “bad actors” in the "Deep State” supposedly being able to manipulate a matter like this to their liking – to believe that the royal family could not, even if it wanted to, prevent justice from taking its course.

In any case it wouldn’t surprise me if the King – and, more particularly, Prince William – rather liked the idea of Andrew ending up in the slammer.

OK so that's your position in the here and now but would you also agree that historically it most certainly would have been the case that it either wouldn't have ended up in court or if it did then the judge and legal system would have all been of the mind that they were only going through the motions and he would be guaranteed to get off AKA a kangaroo court in reverse

If so then around what point in history did it all change 

[DastardlyDick]

AMW should certainly face a Court, if there is sufficient evidence of wrong doing, but, given all the media coverage, would he get a fair trial? A competent Barrister could delay things for years with Legal arguments.
He's being called a peado, but, so far, there's no evidence that any of his victims were under age at the time of the alleged offence(s), but, if my understanding of UK Law around coersion are right, it makes him a rapist - in prison terms, that's not quite as low as a peado - but he'd still be a target, even among other Sex Offenders, he'd cost a fortune to protect.

[DastardlyDick]

But what might AMW spill if he comes under further pressure?
I bet both he and Fergie know where a few bodies are buried, figuratively.. KCIII's friendship with Jimmy Saville for instance.....

I have seen reports that Fergie has already made veiled threats along those lines.

[badsin]

Indeed, it's seems that two senior members of the royal family should have such close links to such notorious sex offenders:
KCIII - Jimmy Saville
AMW - Epstein

What could Fergie know?

[DastardlyDick]

Well, Fergie has definitely met him, and (allegedly) got money from him. I can't see someone like Epstein doing it for purely altruistic reasons. Maybe he needed another female procurer alongside Maxwell - Fergie would have had access to some posh totty 

[Vice Admiral]

OK so that's your position in the here and now but would you also agree that historically it most certainly would have been the case that it either wouldn't have ended up in court or if it did then the judge and legal system would have all been of the mind that they were only going through the motions and he would be guaranteed to get off AKA a kangaroo court in reverse

If so then around what point in history did it all change 

In theory, English monarchs were constrained by Magna Carta (1215) from unilaterally manipulating the law, but in practice most of the Tudor monarchs (1485–1603) to all intents and purposes got away with murder, and arguably some of the earlier Stuart kings also (1603–1688).

It is probably fair to suggest that “the rule of law” had begun to take firm precedence over monarchical whims by the time of William III (1689–1702) and Mary II (1689–1694).  But a historian would need to confirm.

[bigden40]

Indeed, it's seems that two senior members of the royal family should have such close links to such notorious sex offenders:
KCIII - Jimmy Saville
AMW - Epstein

What could Fergie know?

IMO the closeness between KC3 and Savile is overstated.

I asked Grok for some analysis on their relationship. 

King Charles III (then Prince Charles) had a notable but not extremely intimate personal friendship with Jimmy Savile, primarily professional and advisory in nature, lasting roughly from the late 1970s until around the late 1990s. It was closer and more trusting than typical royal-celebrity interactions at the time, but there is no public evidence of deep personal closeness (e.g., frequent private socializing beyond charity and advisory contexts) or any awareness by Charles of Savile’s crimes.

Nature of the Relationship

How it started: They connected through shared charity work, especially disability sports, wheelchair events, and hospitals (e.g., Stoke Mandeville). Savile was a high-profile BBC personality and fundraiser with a “common touch” reputation, which appealed to Charles seeking to modernize the monarchy’s public image.

Advisory role: Savile became an unofficial adviser to Charles over ~20 years. Charles sought his input on PR, media relations, public engagement, and “getting to parts of the country others don’t reach.” Savile even drafted a media handbook/guidelines for the royals that Charles shared with the Queen and Prince Philip.

Correspondence: Multiple letters (revealed in sources like the 2022 Netflix documentary Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story) show warm, trusting tones. Examples:
- Charles called Savile the “bloke who knows what’s going on.”
- He asked Savile to meet Sarah Ferguson (Duchess of York) for “straightforward common sense” advice.
- Thank-you notes for gifts (e.g., whisky), birthday messages, and discussions on disasters response or hospital donations.

Interactions: Savile visited royal residences (e.g., St James’s Palace, Kensington Palace), helped with guest lists for events, and was involved in some family contexts (e.g., as a sort of informal marriage counselor between Charles and Diana, per some reports). Charles visited Savile’s home in Scotland once in 1999. Gifts were exchanged, including cigars and cufflinks.

Context and Limitations:

Savile was a massive celebrity and charity figure during this period, knighted and hobnobbing with politicians (including Margaret Thatcher), royals, and others. Many powerful people were “duped” by his public persona. Charles reportedly had “no knowledge” of the abuses, and contact appears to have largely ended before Savile’s 2011 death and the exposure of his decades-long serial sexual abuse (hundreds of victims, including children).

Some royal defenders describe it as limited/formal and exaggerated online. Critics highlight the poor judgment and access Savile gained. There is no credible evidence linking Charles to any knowledge of or involvement in Savile’s crimes. Claims of “best friends” or ongoing deep ties post-1990s are often overstated.

In summary, it was a decades-long advisory and charity-based association with mutual respect on Charles’s side (as shown in letters), giving Savile unusual access and prestige. This reflected Savile’s skill at cultivating elites more than any uniquely “close” personal bond. The revelations damaged Charles’s image retrospectively but haven’t led to any legal issues for him.

[Vice Admiral]

What many people forget is that paedophilia is a disease, like herpes or shingles.  If you come into regular contact with an infected person, you will catch it.  Hence the fact that, sadly, King Charles's meetings with Jimmy Saville will have made him a paedophile.

War criminality is similarly infectious, and when he was Prince of Wales the King once met and shook hands with Robert Mugabe.  Therefore the King is unfortunately also a war criminal.

[scutty brown]

What many people forget is that paedophilia is a disease, like herpes or shingles.  If you come into regular contact with an infected person, you will catch it.  Hence the fact that, sadly, King Charles's meetings with Jimmy Saville will have made him a paedophile.

War criminality is similarly infectious, and when he was Prince of Wales the King once met and shook hands with Robert Mugabe.  Therefore the King is unfortunately also a war criminal.

utter tosh
I've seen some bullshit on here but that's among the worst

[Doc Holliday]

What many people forget is that paedophilia is a disease, like herpes or shingles.  If you come into regular contact with an infected person, you will catch it.  Hence the fact that, sadly, King Charles's meetings with Jimmy Saville will have made him a paedophile.

War criminality is similarly infectious, and when he was Prince of Wales the King once met and shook hands with Robert Mugabe.  Therefore the King is unfortunately also a war criminal.

Please confirm that is sarcasm?

[southcoastpunter]

Perhaps someone has hacked VA’s account - he doesn’t normally spout complete utter bollox like that!

[scouting]

He has to be joshing surely

[Squire Haggard]

What many people forget is that paedophilia is a disease, like herpes or shingles.  If you come into regular contact with an infected person, you will catch it.  Hence the fact that, sadly, King Charles's meetings with Jimmy Saville will have made him a paedophile.

War criminality is similarly infectious, and when he was Prince of Wales the King once met and shook hands with Robert Mugabe.  Therefore the King is unfortunately also a war criminal.

The millions that watched Saville say on TV ''ows about that then guys and gals'' will also be infected.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves will also be infected. Lock up your dogs !!

External Link/Members Only

[Vice Admiral]

 

What many people forget is that paedophilia is a disease, like herpes or shingles.  If you come into regular contact with an infected person, you will catch it.  Hence the fact that, sadly, King Charles's meetings with Jimmy Saville will have made him a paedophile.

War criminality is similarly infectious, and when he was Prince of Wales the King once met and shook hands with Robert Mugabe.  Therefore the King is unfortunately also a war criminal.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I was indeed being ironic.

Paedophilia has become something of a national obsession – arguably the modern-day equivalent of "Reds under the beds" in the 1950s and 1960s. 

All obsessions distort thinking.  No-one should accuse a public figure of being a paedophile without incontrovertible evidence.

[southcoastpunter]

VA - your last sentence won’t go down very well with some on here! Some like to make allegations ( but presented as “fact”) about all sorts of serious stuff without any shred of evidence! They seem to have forgotten the British concept of “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”!

[Jonestown]

VA - your last sentence won’t go down very well with some on here! Some like to make allegations ( but presented as “fact”) about all sorts of serious stuff without any shred of evidence! They seem to have forgotten the British concept of “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”!

They also seem to have largely forgotten that Paedophilla relates to those attracted to prepubescent children, typically below the age of 13. It’s not a catch all term for old pervy men.

[Mr Garmin]

VA - your last sentence won’t go down very well with some on here! Some like to make allegations ( but presented as “fact”) about all sorts of serious stuff without any shred of evidence! They seem to have forgotten the British concept of “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”!

Funny how that doesn't apply to JS

[Squire Haggard]

As has been pointed out above,  the term ''paedophile'' has been misused by the media for more than a couple of decades.
The p word has been used to attack males in the media during that time. Its rarely used against females.
The tabloids were against gays in the 70s/80s and perhaps a bit later as well.
In the 70s/80s the tabloids were regularly publishing photos of 14/16yo girls that they would not publish today.
Today they have switched their lie factories from attacking one group to another group.
''Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story'' is how they all make a living.
Without good stories they go bankrupt.

[Vice Admiral]

They also seem to have largely forgotten that Paedophilla relates to those attracted to prepubescent children, typically below the age of 13. It’s not a catch all term for old pervy men.

As has been pointed out above,  the term ''paedophile'' has been misused by the media for more than a couple of decades.
The p word has been used to attack males in the media during that time. Its rarely used against females.

Quite so.

Paedophilia is not the same as “having sex below the age of legal consent”.  Increasingly the British press use the terms interchangeably.

[bigden40]

Funny how that doesn't apply to JS

It is a fair point that the accusations against Savile were largely posthumous, he was never charged in his lifetime and was never able to defend any allegations.  We accept as a fact that he was “a monster” and that a large part of the scandal is the extent to which all the signs were there, and allegations made, yet behaviour was covered up.

[bigden40]

Quite so.

Paedophilia is not the same as “having sex below the age of legal consent”.  Increasingly the British press use the terms interchangeably.

The problem with pointing this out is that you end up sounding like a paedo in doing so 

If we go back to Randy Andy, the main sexual allegation is that he shagged Virginia Giuffre when she was 17.  This would have been perfectly legal in the UK but statutory rape in New York.

[scutty brown]

If we go back to Randy Andy, the main sexual allegation is that he shagged Virginia Giuffre when she was 17.  This would have been perfectly legal in the UK but statutory rape in New York.

Not legal in the UK if she was having sex as an escort, or had in some way been coerced or trafficked

And as for the USA.....the Mann Act would apply so it would count as trafficking over state lines

[WestCountryLad]

I don’t know about you guys but I don’t personally know any peados & never been close friends with one.  Being close to 4 of them over a number of years makes me more than a little suspicious…

External Link/Members Only

[bigden40]

Not legal in the UK if she was having sex as an escort, or had in some way been coerced or trafficked

And as for the USA.....the Mann Act would apply so it would count as trafficking over state lines

You raise a good point.  So I thought it worth clarifying what charges he could face if Virginia Giuffre's allegations were true. 

If Virginia Giuffre’s allegations are true (sexual activity with Prince Andrew when she was 17 in 2001), the potential criminal offenses Andrew could face depend on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances (e.g., knowledge of her age, any payment/exchange, coercion/trafficking context). No charges have been filed, and he has denied all allegations.

United States (New York & US Virgin Islands):  US federal law and state/territory laws treat 17 as a minor for many sex trafficking and related offenses (under 18).

- Sex Trafficking of Children (18 U.S.C. § 1591):
If Andrew knowingly (or in reckless disregard) engaged in a commercial sex act with a minor under 18, this could apply. “Commercial sex act” includes any sex act where something of value is given/received (e.g., the alleged $15,000 payment from Epstein to Giuffre after an encounter). No force/coercion proof is needed if the victim is under 18. Penalties: 10 years to life. This is the strongest potential federal hook tied to the trafficking allegations.

New York (incidents in Manhattan):
  Age of consent is effectively 17 for many purposes, but minors under 17 cannot consent in key contexts. At exactly 17, basic statutory rape may not apply directly, but:
- Rape/Sexual Assault/Battery (if lack of consent proven due to trafficking/coercion).
- Criminal Sexual Act / Sexual Abuse degrees (if any payment or exploitative context).
The civil suit was filed under the Child Victims Act, highlighting her status as a trafficking victim.

US Virgin Islands (Little St. James):
Age of consent is 18. Sexual activity with a 17-year-old could constitute rape in the second or third degree or related offences, especially in a trafficking context.

United Kingdom (London incident):  Age of consent is 16. Consensual sex with a 17-year-old is not a crime on its own.

Potential offences if trafficking/payment/coercion proven:
- Trafficking for sexual exploitation (under Sexual Offences Act 2003, sections around 57-59 at the time; now Modern Slavery Act). If Andrew knew or participated in her being trafficked.
- Paying for sexual services of a trafficked person or related exploitation offenses.
- Sexual assault if lack of consent (due to duress from Epstein/Maxwell).

Key aggravating factors across jurisdictions: Knowledge of her age (allegedly discussed), the trafficking network, and any benefit/exchange. UK police reviewed but declined full criminal investigation multiple times, partly due to the age of consent. US authorities have sought interviews primarily for witness information but could pursue if evidence warranted. 
These are potential offenses based on the allegations as described. Actual prosecution would require sufficient evidence, jurisdiction, and overcoming statutes of limitations (often extended for child sex crimes).

[DastardlyDick]

The problem with pointing this out is that you end up sounding like a paedo in doing so 

If we go back to Randy Andy, the main sexual allegation is that he shagged Virginia Giuffre when she was 17.  This would have been perfectly legal in the UK but statutory rape in New York.

Florida, where any alleged Offence took place, makes it more complicated. The age of consent is 18 but consensual sex with a 16 or 17 year old is legal providex there is no more than a 4 year age gap between them. Obviously, this would not apply to AMW, so he could be a rapist if there's enough evidence. The Yanks are not going to request extradition for at least 3 years IMO, as they'd have to release unredacted copies of the Epstein Files as Evidence.

[Jonestown]

Andrew has been photographed driving out of his new royal drum with a massive bruise on the side of his face.

Perhaps Camilla lost her cool with him and gave him a mighty lamping.

[bigden40]

Florida, where any alleged Offence took place, makes it more complicated. The age of consent is 18 but consensual sex with a 16 or 17 year old is legal providex there is no more than a 4 year age gap between them. Obviously, this would not apply to AMW, so he could be a rapist if there's enough evidence. The Yanks are not going to request extradition for at least 3 years IMO, as they'd have to release unredacted copies of the Epstein Files as Evidence.

Andrew's alleged interactions with Virgina Giuffre were in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands.

[DastardlyDick]

Andrew's alleged interactions with Virgina Giuffre were in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands.

Well, she was over 16 at the time, so AMW is not a peado under UK Law which (for him) is good news - bad news is that he may be a rapist as she may have been coerced and/or trafficked.
In New York, age of consent is 17, so same applies.
HE Virgin Islands it's 18 so he may be a peado there as well as a possible rapist.
The solution is ship him to the US Virgin Islands.

[Matrix]

Having one associate be a complete fucking monster may be unlucky. Being associated with at least 4 is Sturgeon-esqe. Uncle Monty, Peter Ball, Sir Jimmy and Sir Rolf.

Jimmy twice being picked up on suspicion of being the Yorkshire ripper. Secret service were all over this and yet old Chaz elected to continue his friendship and even used the fucker for PR advice!!! 

Didn't seem to bother Maggie either. Interesting choice in home secretary back in 83.

Nothing to see here.

[bigden40]

Well, she was over 16 at the time, so AMW is not a peado under UK Law which (for him) is good news - bad news is that he may be a rapist as she may have been coerced and/or trafficked.
In New York, age of consent is 17, so same applies.
HE Virgin Islands it's 18 so he may be a peado there as well as a possible rapist.
The solution is ship him to the US Virgin Islands.

That’s literally what I posted 3 or 4 posts ago.

[Jonestown]

HE Virgin Islands it's 18 so he may be a peado there as well as a possible rapist.

You do know that paedos have sex with pre-pubescent children, not 17 year olds, don’t you ?

[Blackpool Rock]

You do know that paedos have sex with pre-pubescent children, not 17 year olds, don’t you ?

Paedo has become the cover all term used when referring to sex with an underage person, perhaps it's lazy journalism but I recall from years ago someone on here (Nik the original site owner from memory) listing the various terms and definitions and there were about 4 or 5 technically different terms

[daviemac]

You do know that paedos have sex with pre-pubescent children, not 17 year olds, don’t you ?

It's also a colloquial term for men who have sex with any underage girls.

[ZeroCount]

The solution is ship him to the US Virgin Islands.

If we did that, within a couple of years they'd have to be renamed to just "the US Islands".

[Jonestown]

It's also a colloquial term for men who have sex with any underage girls.

Fair enough, but the discussion in question was the legal status in various countries, not something where colloquial terms have any relevance, ok maybe I was being pedantic.

[webpunter]

It's also a colloquial term for men who have sex with any underage girls.

IMO underage can have various interpretations
The age of consent an obvious starter
There are other factors such as age difference & position of power & influence [POP&I]
Less than twenty years old when the bloke is +30 years / + 40 years is very suspect
Thanks to Epstein PA certainly had POP&I
Especially when he has the Royal Family & 'The Establishment' behind him
A £10m-£12m payout + fuck knows how much in legal fees
Paid to someone supposedly PA never met 
Anyone else & the CPS would get very interested

Look online The Firm knew about him leaking stuff as a trade envoy donkeys ages ago 
Conveniently buried

The rozzers really have their work cut out for them investigating him & coming up with the square root of FA
1st thing to do take ages kick the can down the road & people's memories fade
Well not on this one !

Anyways someone has got to RA its some shiner 
Unless he somehow walked into a door 
His protection 'protect a paedo' team [conveniently] paid for by The King must have had some time off, oh dear

Whoever dished it out deserves to be acknowlegded
Restecp

Hidden Image/Members Only

[webpunter]

Woking Pizza Gate broken on Newsnight

& some added parts of the interview not shown before

Apparently VGF shagged on the bathroom floor

AMW said he didn't go into the bathroom .... the wrong answer

External Link/Members Only

One of the routes we tried was submitting a Freedom of Information request to the Metropolitan Police, asking if any royal protection officers accompanied the former prince to the Woking branch 25 years ago.

In response, the force said it could "neither confirm nor deny" whether it holds this information, citing "national security" among other reasons.

Ed Davey  for asking Q's most people wouldn't feel able to do

The Met are so presenting as liar liar pants on fire
A security risk 20+ years ago 

As if the Met Royal Protection Officers [RPO] didn't know where PA was at all times don't be silly 
Though they cant be expected to know that for certain PA was buried in an under age Y shaped coffin
Though a couple of them did stay on the premises with PA in Epstein's New York townhouse

The world cup will finish & attention can focus back on PA The Firm & The Met, they are liars & are getting worse at it

[timsussex]

what do you expect from the Met who have 288 officers with Criminal Records and for the last 5 years that records have been released (2018-2023) 150 serving officers were convicted and another 60 cases were ongoing
Most of these officers resigned or were dismissed but one Officer convicted of Burglary was given a final written warning !

External Link/Members Only