Boris Johnson Must Waive Any Claim of Immunity for Prince Andrew 235


Contrary to the Establishment line, Prince Andrew does not automatically have diplomatic immunity for statutory rape charges in the USA: and if he does, the UK Government can waive it.

Any British diplomat facing investigation for under-age sex in the USA would, beyond doubt, instantly have their immunity waived by the UK government. There is no reason why Prince Andrew should be different.

That is even if he has diplomatic immunity in the first place. The children of a Head of State do not have immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It is generally accepted that they do often enjoy such immunity, but this is not contained in any international treaty and most experts in public international law do not even think it reaches the bar of customary international law, rather reaching the lower standard of comity – what states usually do in friendly co-operation. Comity can be argued in an international court, but it is the weakest form of international law below treaty law and customary law. Comity in this case boils down to no more than the notion that Donald Trump would not want Andrew in the dock in Florida, because he would want Ivanka to be protected from ending up in the dock in London.

A UN Commission considered this subject:

128. The doctrine reflects the various viewpoints. It is noted in Oppenheim’s International Law that a comparison of the status of members of the family of a Head of State with the position of the family of a diplomatic agent indicates that members of the family of a Head of State forming part of his household enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of the host State. The fact that members of the family of a Head of State and Head of Government are protected by immunity is also acknowledged by P. Gully-Hart. In the view of A. Watts, the immediate family of a Head of State may enjoy immunity, but on the basis of comity and not of international law. This view is endorsed by S. Sucharitkul. The view that, if the members of the family of a Head of State are also granted immunity, it is on the basis only of international comity and not of international law was supported in the resolution of the Institute of International Law.

Even then, it is universally agreed that children of a Head of State would only be covered by immunity if they were part of the head of state’s household. Now it is important to note that the word “household” here, in international law, does not necessarily have the same precise application as it does in UK domestic political parlance. In the UK, Prince Andrew is part of the “Royal Household”, which is why he troughs a massive £280,000 a year for doing very little. But in international law the provision is much more likely to be interpreted in the common meaning, as in dependent family living together in a single home. Dependent children might include adult students but does not stretch to 60 year old millionaires.

The USA of course has a habit of ignoring international law when it so wishes under the doctrine of “exceptionalism”. However it would need British agreement not to claim diplomatic immunity for extradition proceedings in the UK to go ahead. It is sickening that Julian Assange is in a maximum security prison awaiting extradition for publishing the truth, while Prince Andrew is in some mansion having his feet massaged.

There is a further argument that Prince Andrew had immunity while on his visits to Epstein because of his status as “International Trade Ambassador” for the UK. That is a possible argument, although just like immunity for children of the Head of State, the situation on temporary visiting envoys is not firmly established by treaty. There is a UN Convention on Special Missions, but only about 30 countries ever ratified it, and neither the UK nor USA has ever done so. If Andrew was in the USA in that capacity, and if the State Department had received a formal Diplomatic Note indicating he was visiting on official business, customary international law would tend to support the view he had a claim to immunity. This quote from the German Federal Supreme Court is given in a very interesting paper on the subject in the European Journal of International Law:

irrespective of the [UN Special Missions Convention], there is a customary rule of international law based on State practice and opinio juris which makes it possible for an ad hoc envoy, who has been charged with a special political mission by the sending State, to be granted immunity by individual agreement with the host State for that mission and its associated status, and therefore for such envoys to be placed on a par with the members of the permanent missions of State protected by international treaty law.

However, it is not plain that on all occasions when he partied with Epstein, Andrew was in the States on an official basis, and even if he was, the UK government can still waive his immunity. The media are attempting to fix in our minds the idea that his immunity is immutable and nothing can be done. Far from it. It is conferred by the sending government and agreed by the receiving government. The sending government can simply waive or revoke it at will. This is frequently done.

All of this might be entirely academic because of the extraordinary inaction of the FBI on the case. It beggars belief that Ghislaine Maxwell has not yet been arrested or interviewed about the overwhelming evidence of her role as a procuress or pimp. It further beggars belief there has been no interview under caution of Prince Andrew in either the United States or the UK. The problem is, of course, that any number of very powerful people are going to be implicated in any serious investigation. In particular, the Clintons still have an astonishing amount of influence over senior staff of the FBI.

Only the power of public outrage is ever going to force any action, and this will be difficult to mobilise and focus; doubtless the mainstream media will shortly seek to close the matter down. But we can do a little to push things forward by insisting on a declaration from Boris Johnson that Prince Andrew’s bogus claim to diplomatic immunity will be denied or waived.

——————————————

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

Alternatively:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments will be closed on December 5, 2019.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

235 thoughts on “Boris Johnson Must Waive Any Claim of Immunity for Prince Andrew

1 2 3
  • Tim

    Section 31 CJA 1948

    31 Jurisdiction and procedure in respect of certain indictable offences committed in foreign countries.

    (1)Any British subject employed under His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom in the service of the Crown who commits, in a foreign country, when acting or purporting to act in the course of his employment, any offence which, if committed in England, would be punishable on indictment, shall be guilty of an offence and subject to the same punishment, as if the offence had been committed in England.

      • pasha

        That would be splendid! Think of all those ermine-robed dolts and top-hatted toffs bowing and scraping and falling over themselves to grovel in court. “So, m’lud . . . oh, wait, I am m’lud . . . so then, your puissant majesty, would it be at all convenient for you to appear next Tuesday, say, after lunch, for a little chat? You know, nothing onerous, all quite private and cosy . . . ?”

    • Douglas

      It was a very soft interview (even though he made a mess of it).

      The only reason I can think of for him doing it now, is to provide an excuse to avoid a more demanding interview.

  • Douglas

    Is there any realistic prospect that Ghislaine Maxwell will be found (let alone alive and able to testify)?

    Failure to apprehend her quickly makes me doubt it

    • Greg Park

      She was last pictured sitting outside an LA burger bar in August reading a book on the history of the CIA. The message was she is untouchable.

        • pasha

          Clearly she has the keys to Epstein’s security lockbox. Either that, or Epstein isn’t dead at all, which would come as no surprise.

      • ZigZagWanderer

        I’m fairly sure that photograph was debunked as not relevant due to a movie promotional poster seen in the background behind Ms Maxwell . It seemed to prove the photo was quite old.

        • Kempe

          The film, Good Boys, was only released in August of this year and the poster may have been promoting the DVD/Blu Ray release which was 12th November.

      • N_

        Since she recruited Virginia Giuffre at Mar-a-Lago, Ghislaine Maxwell may think she’s, well, not untouchable, but only going down if Donald Trump does too. But I doubt she does think that. She’s probably in Israel already.

    • SayLess

      Interesting article.
      Russia “may have” affected the referendum in an unquantifiable way.
      Someone might have done something which caused an effect we cannot measure.
      Now I understand why Clinton was so keen that this report should be made public – it nicely fits the “bad Russians” narrative without being based on any evidence.

      • Peter

        As I read it: the report accuses Sputnik and RT to by just reporting before the Brexit vote influencing the vote by having those news being discussed on social networks…Which is to say: any foreign network reporting on the internal affairs of any country is guilty of influencing the population of this country it it has a service broadcasting in said country or if the news service can be obtained by the citizens…….

        Seems to me the ruse of claiming “foreign influence” is nothing but a means to destroy any reporting deemed contrary to the desire of the elites governing a nation.

        • Jack

          Peter

          Bingo on that conclusion, its all about erasing dissent in the west by using Russia a boogeyman to justify censorship.
          Its bizarre, ultimately if russians just report on Trump, Brexit = Meddling.
          Then, I guessthe western media meddling in Russia constantly, far far more considering how much they write about Russia on a daily basis!

  • Paul

    Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but could you please point me to any claim that he had sex with her in a place where that was illegal at the time? Reports seem to quote that she was 17 and that this is illegal under Florida state law. But why is that relevant if they had sex in London (where the age of consent is 16) and New York (where it is 17)?

    • Sopo

      My understanding is her age is irrelevant because she was a victim of sex trafficking, i.e. she was flown into the UK specifically to have sex with Prince Andrew. This is why the obvious way out of claiming she consented is off-limits.

      • Paul

        OK, but then you need to prove that Prince Andrew was aware that she was trafficked, and not under the belief she was just another happy “rich guy groupie” happy to open her legs to royalty (of whom there are, no doubt, thousands that we haven’t heard about over the decades).

        • Merkin Scot

          Nonsense. There is strict liability with regard to shagging trafficked women ie you can’t just say “I didn’t realise she was trafficked”. The guy is a nonce. Simple.

          • Paul

            Innocent until proven guilty – the prosecution must show that it was not possible for a reasonable person to believe that she was not trafficked, otherwise that’s not guilty. If what you say is true then the law is an utter ass, and one of the basic principles of the legal system has been overruled.

        • N_

          The offence is alleged to have occurred before 2003, but s75 of the Sexual Offences Act of that year does not require that to be convicted it is necessary that the man must be proved to have been aware that the victim was trafficked, although he does need to have known that certain defined circumstances obtained. I haven’t looked at previous legislation.

    • intp1

      I agree. Craig is discussing immunity for under-age sex which in the case of V. Roberts patently has not taken place in the UK or the state of New York. A kind of accessory to trafficking is what is left. But, that seems an extremely unlikely successful prosecution with 3 major hurdles that would need to be met.
      1) Prince Andrew would need to be shown to have sex with Roberts. At the moment that is a he said-she said situation unless more evidence is produced.
      2) Epstein would have to have been shown to have been trafficking her or any other person Andrew ¨enjoyed¨. If I take my girlfriend to London and have sex with her or if she has sex with someone else that is not Trafficking. Why not?

      Lets take the UN definition though other definitions may be available:
      (a) “Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.
      Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
      (b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;
      (c) The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered “trafficking in persons” even if this does not involve any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article;
      (d) “Child” shall mean any person under eighteen years of age.

      I think it would be at the least, contentious to prove trafficking as apposed to a paid employee who freely had sex with associates without coercion. Maybe not impossible, I don´t know the evidence.

      Then 3) It would need to be shown that even if he had sex with her, Andrew would have any knowledge or could have expected to know that Roberts was trafficked rather than he simply having a fling with a legitimate employee of Epstein´s.

      That is a long legal road to get successfully down to the end. IMO it definitely wouldnt happen in the biased UK and only in the US if the point was to implicate and smear rather than to win the case.

      • N_

        The core question is whether, if there was sexual activity between them, she consented.

        If they had sex and he says he reasonably believed she consented, there’s an evidential burden on him nowadays. He can’t keep his gob shut and rely on the prosecution’s failure to prove that he didn’t reasonably believe she consented.

        CPS guidance.

        If it’s shown that “Prince” Andrew had sex with a trafficked girl it could be curtains for the monarchy regardless of whether or not he’s convicted of a sexual offence. And we haven’t even got to where the boys come from who provide services for his brother Charles in St James’s Palace yet. Are they trafficked too, I wonder?

  • Sean Lamb

    As far as statutory rape charges I think the UK’s lower age of consent means it wouldn’t be an extraditable offence as there is no dual criminality.

    But I could be wrong

  • Mist001

    What is the point in all of this? Andrew lied on TV and will simply lie under oath, the same as his royal protection squad will do and in fact, every other person involved in this case will do, apart from the victims.

    Power, corruption and lies is the way of powerful people and the whole affair will simply blow over given time, and the story will eventually become that the media is hounding him, public opinion will turn and he’ll garner sympathy.

    As for Andrew, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that he was back out on the golf course today as if nothing had happened.

    • SayLess

      The point is that through hard work by dedicated and determined investigative journalists, and if pressure is applied to the media and goverment, then enough evidence may emerge as to force the authorities to take action.

    • pasha

      But of course, nothing HAS happened. He was hanging out at Pizza Hut with the bros, you know, as royals who trouser 280,000 quid a year of public money do. This fellow Epstein is a sculptor, writer, or scientist, and has never met him. Let’s move on.

    • Rachel Sagar

      The legal examination will be considerably more challenging than Emily Maitless, particularly with regard to how going to Pizza Express in the early evening is an alibi for being at a London nightclub later that night. Was the date given for being at Tramp, the evening of that day or the early hours of the following day. Much more will need to be asked of him about Ghillaine Maxwell.

  • djm

    “It beggars belief that Ghislaine Maxwell has not yet been arrested or interviewed…..

    If your Daddy is buried at the Mount of Olives, you’ll always carry a big fuck-off-get-out-of-jail-free-card in your handbag..

  • SIS

    There was no mention of Ghislaine Maxwell in any of the media reports that were made about “Randy Andy’s” interview. He was protecting her, as she will have so much material on people, she and her handlers could put countless “top parasites” in jail. She is untouchable, as she is working for the money power, essentially the “money mafia”. Something must be cooking in the background though, other wise, Randy Andy would not have made the interview. There was clear deception in the interview. He would not call Guthrie a liar, as he could be sued for defamation. The negatives for the photo are probably sitting somewhere. What else was captured on film is the important question.

    • Dick White

      You’re right. If Epstein and maxwell were known as procurers of girls/women for the rich and powerful, then intelligence service/s would certainly have become involved, as honeytraps are a fundamental of tradecraft. It’s interesting that Andy said several times in the interview that he’s friends of Ghislaine, especially as she’s suspected of being the primary procurer. Why didn’t he seek to distance himself from her? Definitely stuff happening in the background.

      • pasha

        Let’s not forget who “Robert Mexwell” really was: Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch. Maxwell père + Epstein + Maxwell fille + Mossad + CIA + SIS. What’s not to get?

  • mike e

    “It beggars belief that Ghislaine Maxwell has not yet been arrested or interviewed about the overwhelming evidence of her role as a procuress or pimp. It further beggars belief there has been no interview under caution of Prince Andrew in either the United States or the UK.”

    The FBI already has all the evidence it needs from the previous prosecution which ended with the cushy sentence.

    remember, Epstein was arrested on his return to USA, therefore I surmise he had no advance knowledge of an investigation that must have been going on for some time. IMO Trump is going after the cover up from the old prosecution

    • lysias

      The nonprosecution agreement also provided for no charges against any accomplices. It was quite a deal.

      Very convenient for Dershowitz, who was one of those who negotiated the deal.

  • Cynicus

    “ Boris Johnson Must Waive Any Claim of Immunity for Prince Andrew “
    ————
    Dream on, Craig.

    “Alex the Great” (© Jennifer Arcuri b ) owes Andrew big time for dominating the headlines AGAIN today, after last night’s ITV Exposure: When Boris Met Jennifer.

    You would almost think BoJo had advised Andrew to do the interview.

  • Dungroanin

    I do worry about being led up the garden path – bit like our own child abuse non-inquiry.

    Anyone interested in the whole Epstein story so far and the continuing investigations could do with checking the excellent Miami Herald journalists and local police who got as far as getting him arrested and in jail where he ‘died’.
    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article237242984.html

    A tidbit from there which I hadn’t known about was that Epstein was given a cell mate – a dirty policeman up on multiple murder charges!

    Not interviewed. No cctv. Guards given lawyers and not testifying.

    It does seem that handy andy is a bit of a diversion so far in their reporting? Though they do have the same photo…

    • Phill

      How did you not know about Epstein’s cell mate, Nicholas Tartaglione? I thought that was fairly well known. Epstein’s lawyers have said that Epstein’s first “attempted suicide” was no such thing and he was attacked by his cell mate. This led to his cell mate being removed and Epstein being left own on his own in the cell and…..well, we know what happen next.
      Also, have you seen his cell mate? If you haven’t, imagine the worst sort of person that you wouldn’t want to be locked up with – he looks like that!

  • TJ

    That would be far too damaging for the monarchy and the country, best all around if he has a coronary or something else fatal but quick and tidy.

  • Michael Droy

    Doh she wasn’t under age by UK law and she was in UK.

    The whole pedofile line is misleading – almost all the Epstein case is about over 16 sex. Which is illegal in some US states, but not here.
    This is about blackmail and intelligence services using and protecting Epstein. Prince Andrew is pure collateral damage (and of zero use to a blackmailer).

    Don’t let the bastards pretend this is about Prince Andrew. It is as dumb as talking about Khasshogi and detracting from the Yemen story.

    • Dick white

      Well, perhaps Andy has been used by the blackmailers to further their nefarious ends. Look at it this way. There were many people who took up what Epstein and Maxwell were offering. They all now know that photos can be revealed, thanks to the infamous one of Andy. While this is probably as far as it’s going to go with Andy, anyone without the luck of a monarch as mum will understand they may not get off as lightly. It’s blackmail on an industrial scale.

      • Michael Droy

        Well quite – collateral damage – in which case talking about Andrew is a Red herring – lets get back to Ghislaine, CIA, Israel, Clinton and the murder in prison.
        And most of all don’t make the stupid Pizza party mistake of accusing him of having a rubbish alibi that can quite likely be backed up with absolute proof, after which no one will report the story again.

        • lysias

          LBJ’s mistress claimed that she and he attended a party at a mansion in Dallas the night before JFK’s assassination at which the assassination was planned. Only press photos showed LBJ at a hotel in Houston at the time. Seemed like a watertight refutation of Brown’s claim.

          Until Philip Nelson revealed in one of his books about LBJ that LBJ had a lookalike cousin whom he employed as a double. (Cousin died a suspicious death after he spoke too freely to the Texas press.)

          When Bill Clinton visited India and Pakistan towards the end of his presidency, it became clear that he was using a double too. Press covered him boarding Air Force One on departing India for Pakistan. Only it was later revealed that he had made the trip on a Lear Jet, for security reasons.

          Watertight alibis can be wrong.

          • Mosaic

            Ah, use of doubles . . .
            James K. Douglass, in JFK and the Unspeakable, explores and presents the evidence that the plot, in particular ensnaring Oswald as the patsy, involved a double of Oswald.

          • Tony

            A hell of a lot of people who got in LBJ’s way were the subject of suspicious deaths:

            JFK
            RFK
            Douglas Kinser
            Henry Marshal—shot himself 5 times with a rifle
            Josefa Johnson —LBJ’s sister. Died suddenly. No inquest (a legal requirement).
            Lee Harvey Oswald
            Jack Ruby
            Possibly Adlai Stevenson
            The Texas deputy sheriff found hanging in his cell on the day he was to be visited by Coke Stevenson, the man LBJ beat in the 1948 stolen Senate election.

      • Ken Kenn

        It’s not infamous – it shows The Duke of York and Maxwell in the same shot.

        He says he doesn’t remember it but remembers going downmarket to a Pizza Express with his daughter.

        Puts him in the frame so to speak but I do suspect their are many more compromising photos than that
        locked up or placed with certain other like minded people who joined in the game.

        I don’t know whether the Prince is one of them or not – he may be a minor player.

        I wouldn’t doubt that Saville and those around him have something similar in their safe at home or elsewhwere.

        It’s self protection.

        If I go down – you go down too.

      • lysias

        Ronan Farrow reports in his new book that one of the operatives hired by Israeli private investigative outfit Black Cube to spy on Harvey Weinstein’s victim/accusers said that he was performing a mitzvah, because it helped Israel. No doubt many of those protecting Epstein used similar reasoning.

    • Hatuey

      “almost all the Epstein case is about over 16 sex. Which is illegal in some US states, but not here.”

      I wish it was true but there’s plenty of people alleging kids were involved as young as 12.

  • Nastarana

    I will repeat what Mr. Murray wrote: “It beggars belief that Ghislaine Maxwell has not yet been arrested or interviewed about the overwhelming evidence of her role as a procuress or pimp” I hate to sound like a crazed member of the insane left here, but I doubt Mr.Murray or most British understand the cultural blindness of American conservatives, indeed most of the American establishment, with regard to favoritism for good looking rich tramps. Back in the day it was Pamela Harriman who got away with antics which would have gotten a scarlet letter affixed to any Ms. Ordinary; now we have La Maxwell similarly protected. Alleged connections to, for example, foreign intelligence agencies, and alleged blackmail material didn’t protect Mr. Epstein from arrest.

    • lysias

      That influence may have succeeded in getting Epstein sprung from prison alive, depending on what really happened there.

      Why was no DNA match done on the corpse?

    • Loony

      Why try and blame “American Conservatives” or “most of the American establishment”

      It is reasonable to assume that if crimes were committed then they were committed in multiple jurisdictions. Ghislaine Maxwell was born in France and is a British national. There is no reason at all why at least 3 sovereign nations should not be investigating her activities.

      Ask yourself why senior members of both the French and British administrations are always able to provide a disparaging quote about President Trump but are completely unable to even recall the name of Ghislaine Maxwell.

      • Nastarana

        Because this sort of favoritism is and has been ongoing for decades. If Maxwell were some ordinary looking lower middle class procuress, she would be in jail right now. It is not for me to say what the govts. of the UK or France want to do; I am concerned about the American govt. Given what Maxwell probably knows about the Clintons, I would have thought that the present admin. would leave no stone unturned to get her in custody.

  • Goodwin

    “But we can do a little to push things forward by insisting on a declaration from Boris Johnson that Prince Andrew’s bogus claim to diplomatic immunity will be denied or waived.”.
    What have you been smoking Craig?

  • Rhys Jaggar

    There is a US woman who killed a UK citizen driving recklessly legged it back Stateside: surely the very least leverage UK should demand is that she come back here to face trial?

    There is a US legal procedure calling for a Grand Jury to be convened to investigate outstanding crimes which 9/11 families are currently using in NYC to try and get a legal judgement on controlled demolition etc etc.

    Perhaps a Grand Jury is the most likely way to over-ride the obvious cover ups by all the Deep State Officials who know full well the implications of the product of a cows derriere rotating in the air conditioning apparatus…?

    • Twirlip

      What happens when the irresistible force of the public’s outrage over the Sacoolas affair meets the immovable object of the same public’s tendency to excuse and forget the misdeeds of the rich and powerful? Public feeling is never very rational, of course, but won’t the resort to a defence of diplomatic immunity in two cases so close together in time be incredibly hard to ignore, even for the most fanatical royalist? If so, it’s a bit of silver lining to a very dark cloud, although it feels rather tasteless to say so.

      • Chris

        Twirlip, seems to me this might be exactly how it was scripted.
        Uncle Sam refuses to extradite Sacoolas, so how then could Her Majesty’s United Kingdom even consider the possibility of allowing Uncle Sam’s FBI ruffians to question the Grand Old Duke?

  • Loony

    Rightly or wrongly the simple fact is that no-one is going to investigate Prince Andrew to the point of prosecution, just like they will not go after Bill Clinton or any of the other powerful people involved in this cesspit of sexual depravity. They wont go after Ghislaine Maxwell for the simple reason that she knows where all the (hopefully metaphorical) bodies are buried.

    None of this has very much to do with Prince Andrew at all – he just a useful decoy to distract the Communists and the crazies. The real story has to do with obtaining influence and power by way of blackmail. Some may find it odd that the UK obsesses about a man on a bus alleged to have altered the words to a Beatles song – but is entirely disinterested when it comes to the exercise of raw power. If it looks like cowardice and smells like cowardice then it is probably cowardice.

    Get off your knees – or stay on them and die. It is a simple choice.

  • Gary

    I agree entirely. Justice SHOULD be done, Andrew should be arrested and sent to face justice in the US. But then so should the Clintons and any others including Dershowitz. But the incredible lengths that powerful people went to in the US to seal court papers, do sweetheart deals, give Epstein a friendly court for his hearings and avoid consulting the victims as they were legally required to do took the muscle of a REAL heavyweight. I have no doubt that Buckingham Palace and/or our PM weighed in with the President to make this ‘go away’ So no one’s going to reopen this scar now, are they?

    On this issue, at least, Trump’s tiny hands are clean. So he COULD use this as leverage with his present woes, couldn’t he? Would he do such a thing? Well, his hands are clean on the coverup but not on the original case, weren’t his contact details in Epstein’s little black book? And Trump does have the history of a man who doesn’t take no for an answer, doesn’t he?

    The case, the cover up and this nonsense from Andrew confirm everything that the public already know to be true – the rich can do what they want, usually something incredibly sleazy and illegal, and get away with it. Although there’s still a small, vile, section of the community, the right wing ‘patriots’ who will defend any Royal to the hilt despite knowing what the vile man has done. He treats THEM with equal contempt that he has for the rest of us. The problem is they actively enjoy it…

    • Loony

      Why on earth should Prince Andrew be arrested?

      If there is to be any chance of survival then you need to follow the law. Prince Andrew should be investigated and if a prima facia case of culpability can be established then he should be arrested.

      However it is unlikely that any case against Prince Andrew can be made absent a full investigation of Ghislaine Maxwell. She is is the key to this case – and anyone interested in justice should be exerting pressure to have her fully investigated. However the media plays everyone for idiots by focussing on Prince Andrew – and naturally Communists and crazies queue up to heap opprobrium on the Royal Family because of unearned privilege etc. etc. Meanwhile Ghislaine happily sails off into another prefect sunset as foreshadowed by events in 1991.

      Wise up and rise up.

      • SA

        Loony
        Can you name one communist involved here? If you can’t then you are indulging in what your adored leader likes to call “fake noos “.

      • Hatuey

        Ghislaine Maxwell is very likely already being investigated.

        For what it’s worth, as I have said before, I have much more confidence in the US justice system when it comes to stuff like this. One single well-meaning District Attorney could escalate this massively.

  • Dungroanin

    The more I see the effect on otherwise straight thinking people who tuned into the panto the more evident it seems to be a dead cat on the table mid election.

  • John Goss

    “The USA of course has a habit of ignoring international law when it so wishes under the doctrine of “exceptionalism”. ”

    That’s the big problem.

    “. . . doubtless the mainstream media will shortly seek to close the matter down.”

    Many suspect that Jeffrey Epstein’s death (do more people believe he’s dead than not?) is thought to be the event aimed at closing the matter down that might rake up muck fro the Clintons, Trump the Podestas and other power-mongers. As well as ordinary people’s suspicions there are still some outlets, RT for example, which are not convinced Epstein is dead. Osama Bin Laden likewise. Can anyone believe that the military team that allegedly carried out that operation carted off the body and dropped it into the sea? Or whatever was supposed to have happened to it.

    There is so much fake news that defies credibility I wonder where the world is heading.

    • Loony

      This is all garbage.

      The US and its doctrine of exceptionalism had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting Jimmy Savile. That was entirely a British operation -life long protection afforded the BBC and a long time associate of the rich and powerful

      Why would anyone in the US be interested in protecting Epstein? Answer because someone has some very damaging information on some very powerful people in the US. Ask who might be in possession of this damaging information. Do not forget that Robert Maxwell fell to his death from a yacht named the Lady Ghislaine.

      They despise you so much that they are literally cramming the answer down your throat – but still you not get off your knees and give voice to the answer. Rather the British snipe at that Americans and the Americans sneer at the British. You are both being played and the player is oh so obvious.

      Meanwhile the wheels of the Labour party bus go round and round – and that is news. The only conclusion is that the media is completely captured – but the people are even more captured. Anytime that a story appears that fits with the readers prejudice all is instantly forgiven. The media are scum. They are your enemy and irrespective of what they write they should be despised and ignored. That this will not happen provides a perfect clue to the future.

          • Loony

            The autopsy was conducted in both Las Palmas and Madrid. At the time a Dr. Bernard Knight was President of the British Association of Forensic Medicine. Dr. Knight observed that “Spain has the worst system of forensic medicine in Europe”

            Spain joined the EU in 1986 and by 1991 was standing at the threshold of receiving large scale funding injections from the EU. Everyone has been bought and everyone has been sold. The people have been sold out by their own erstwhile leaders Ask who is the buyer, and where the buyer obtains the purchase price from.

  • Hatuey

    I have a funny feeling the the mood of the US authorities on this subject is about to change very soon.

    In the ABC clip the anchor made a reference to Clinton and how she had everything. Think about it, the Clinton Empire — at the same time as this Epstein is rumbling on in the background — is basically embroiled in a holy war against Trump and is trying to destroy him with impeachment.

    I think all of this represents a battleground that involve players and powers that are much bigger than our Royal Household. And I won’t be surprised if Trump goes all in on the Epstein stuff as a way of retaliating against the Clintons and the so-called liberal establishment. Would he be willing to forego that sort of revenge in order to help the Prince? I doubt it.

    This has the potential to be really damaging for the Royals. I suspect that Andrew only did the interview was because he got wind of something along the lines I’m suggesting; the Epstein case is going to explode.

    Here’s the interesting part. There’s piles of evidence on everybody who was involved with Epstein. We know that he had cameras hidden in clocks, etc. There’s talk of thousands of video clips being out there, seemingly in the hands of John Dougan.

    Are there other reasons that would prevent or discourage Trump in terms of weaponising the Epstein stuff? Maybe. I think we are going to find out.

    • SA

      I am not sure John Dougan has anything of significance. For a full blackmail operation like this to work, bets must be hedged and this is what is happening. Trump may well be implicated himself as he was also once praising Epstein.
      For blackmail on this scale to work, playing the ultimate blackmail card can lead to a Pyrrhic victory as it would lead to a big backlash. Title tattle and minor roadkill on the way however keep those blackmailed on thier toes and ensures continued compliance.
      Ultimately the perpetrators of this protection racket in reverse will continue to pull the string as they have been. Epstein and others are minor bit players and people like Trump can only watch on the side hoping it will blow away in the other direction.

      • Hatuey

        “I am not sure John Dougan has anything of significance.”

        He absolutely does. I’m convinced of that. If you watch his recent video chat with Shawn Attwood, you’ll see a man who is extremely convincing. He isn’t in this for money and in actual fact has turned down money. If you look at the way he talks, his body language, the speed and ease with which he answers questions, etc., it all points to a man that’s telling the truth.

        The problem is that the evidence he has is also his life assurance. He has basically said it will only be released if he is murdered and that he has mechanisms and people in place to guarantee that. Conversely, if he releases the evidence while he is alive, “they” have no reason not to kill him, whoever “they” might be.

        • SA

          What you have just stated confirms exactly that John Dougan has nothing of significance to say.
          If he can’t release the stuff because he would be otherwise dead then it is useless.
          Let’s get back to the real world. There is an enormous coverup here. Even now it is clear that Andrew Windsor is small fry offered for titillation and distraction. The fact that Clinton travelled to Africa on Epstein’s private jet over 20 times is barely mentioned. You are really talking super national players here.
          As to your faith in the US justice system, remember that in this very case of Epstein’s earlier conviction a lesser charge was illegally applied through a plea bargain without knowledge if the victims.

          The man involved in this was later promoted as justice secretary by Trump and had to resign when this came out.To think that trump is not implicated is somewhat disingenuous.

          • Hatuey

            “If he can’t release the stuff because he would be otherwise dead then it is useless.”

            You aren’t thinking straight. The obvious countervailing argument is that if it gets aired in public and everyone sees or can access it, there’s no point in killing him. It appears he is considering something along those lines and I can only imagine he will get sick of running and hiding.

            Everybody who has even glimpsed at this knows Clinton is implicated. The ABC News anchor more or less told you that. Flight records corroborate. There’s nothing new in telling us this.

            You seem to acknowledge that Epstein was investigated, brought to trial, and charged for that relatively minor crime, and that he served a jail sentence. The time he served seems to have been quite easy but that’s more down to local and individual corruption at the prison level rather than a statement about the judicial system.

          • bevin

            “The man involved in this was later promoted as justice secretary by Trump ..”
            This is not accurate.

    • joel

      Trump is just as implicated in the Epstein affair as the Clintons. That’s why he and the Republicans haven’t been weaponizing it non stop.

  • Johnny

    I wonder what other countries the Lolitta Express may have flown with Prince Randy Andy on board? Bahama’s maybe, or other Commonwealth nations?

    Don’t expect much out of US law. US law is now highly political and influence driven, and is highly flexible towards those with political and influence connections. At most, a judge might order 20 lashes with a wet noodle to be delivered by a topless 15 year old girl.

    • Hatuey

      “Don’t expect much out of US law. US law is now highly political and influence driven, and is highly flexible towards those with political and influence connections. At most, a judge might order 20 lashes with a wet noodle to be delivered by a topless 15 year old girl.”

      That’s generalised nonsense. In US Law, one single State Prosecutor could escalate this. If we assume there were hundreds of victims in this case, we can further assume that just about any DA anywhere in the US could opt to investigate. If I remember correctly there are about 100 DAs in the US. There’s also good scope for civil actions and some sort of class action.

      I’d be willing to bet there’s investigations into this, probably going on right now, and that we see several people in court. Epstein might be dead, or he might not be, but, either way, that doesn’t let others who were involved in crimes against children etc. off the hook.

      One of the things that Andrew was accused in the interview was of having little sympathy for the victims. This whole thing is totally tragic. We should bear that in mind.

  • SA

    Meanwhile, the state of the world is not exactly encouraging. Riots with eye to regime change in Hong Kong, where the western press seems to be saying that it is normal for students to be organised to make firebombs in order to achieve democracy, in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon. Regime change has meanwhile been effected in Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia but with ongoing instability. Riots in Chile and a few in France. Syria, Yemen and Libya under the effects of western imposed wars, election lies on U.K. with in imminent shattering of a country, and here we discuss a marginal figure.
    Just saying.

1 2 3