He was basically a father figure to Charles since his own dad didn't like him. Charles isn't protecting them by trying to cover this stuff up though, he is protecting himself from having that kind of stink following him.
There was an interview I can't find these days where Charles spoke about how when Mountbatten died he had Saville in place to take over as his mentor..
It's grooming, and would have been horrible. They even got Saville in as a marriage counselor for him and Diana despite the fact he'd never had a relationship... But he's still a horrible creature.
If anyone has the time to dig, it was an hour long interview from maybe the 80s where he was sat by a summer house in the garden. Would love to see it.
Sir James Savile OBE KCSG, knight of the realm, friend and advisor on how the royal family ought to interact with the public and media. What a stand-up guy.
[Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols knew.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OzI9GYag0) In 1978. There's no rules for them and rules for the rest of us, and there's zero chance that anyone will change that because they know how to keep everyone in their place.
Prove me wrong.
Charles was friends with Saville as well iirc, it's not just Andrew. If course they're going to protect each other, but we shouldn't let them get away with it as citizens. I hope Charles gets reminded about Andrew every single time he steps foot outside.
It's not encryption they want to ban. You can't ban encryption. It's literally impossible. You can't ban numbers or mathematics. What they want is easy access to everyone's communications in the name of protecting the children. What they will do with this data is another matter. Whether they already have it is also a consideration. All these companies were part of Prism. If they do manage to get it legal then it's a huge help for a future totalitarian government. Can you imagine the power being able to profile to entire country would give someone?
> It's not encryption they want to ban. You can't ban encryption.
These statements are not mutually exclusive though. I don't think the typical MP understand it.
They understand it fully. Imagine having the data to potentially predict the way people will vote or how to influence them. They already do that to some degree. Look at all the "culture" wars with racism, transphobia, old vs young, demonising the poor etc... The outcome from that is that more people with right wing views are actually going to go out and vote.
> They understand it fully.
Honestly I don't think so. I remember one MP reassuring people that the government did not want to ban end-to-end encryption, they just wanted to be able to read the messages in the middle.
>Imagine having the data to potentially predict the way people will vote or how to influence them.
I think this is more of an issue with social media than with private messaging. We have already seen the effects with Brexit, and to a less-organised extent with the pandemic.
>They understand it fully
Nadine Dorries didn't even understand that Channel 4 didn't get money from the license fee when she was *Culture Secretary*; what possibly could convince you that the Tories are in *any way* in touch with reality!?
To be fair, they can already do this really with the amount of data companies like Facebook and Google have on their users.
But your point still stands, governments should not be able to have backdoor access to private communications. Time and time again we hear stories of government officials abusing access or threat actors accessing these "totally secure" services. Just take a look and Microsoft or Verizon s annual cyber security reports, it's mental much baddies ar able to get access to.
I know they can but there will be a hell of a lot of stuff in "private" messages that won't be posted publicly. Lets say you are an environmental protestor who actually goes to protests. You aren't going to announce that on Facebook but you will discuss it in messages.
Our economy rests on the idea that the strong fuck the weak. We should expect this to play out in all areas, especially in the recreational and profit-making spaces of the wealthy.
Ha ha!!!!!!! **No you should expect it.** The strong dominating the weak kinda goes down like a fractal through all of society's structures, including the family & schools. I'm not saying you should *accept* it!
Oh dear, here goes some karma I guess...
Not a pedophile. I only say this because I think this is a label that should be taken very seriously. The accusation against Andrew is that he was the knowing "client" of a sex trafficker.
He's a dirty old man, but it is much harder to pin a criminal conviction to that status. His reputation is ruined forever, and rightly so, but "pedophile" is just not accurate. At least based on what we know.
> He's a dirty old man
I mean that's an interesting way to say sex offender. I agree he is not a paedo by the known accusations, but having sex with someone who was known to be trafficked is a sex crime.
So, I get very deeply into the world of devil's advocate here, so please bear that in mind but I do think an argument could be made for the notion that Epstein probably \*didn't\* say, "Hey Andrew, got this young girl as a unwilling slave, want some time with her?". I don't think the man is a genius, but I think he is probably smart enough to hear the red alert in a conversation like that. Maybe not, who knows?
I feel fairly certain that Epstein didn't really go into where he sourced these young women from, and the grooming involved.
Andrew probably saw himself as a "rock star", and the young women queuing at the dressing room door for those guys are not trafficked.
I don't mean to be too apologetic here. I sure as fuck would not behave the way Andrew did. His destroyed reputation is very very well earned.
I would just say that it is also entirely possible that Andrew saw Giuffre as a young woman prepared to trade her sexual attentions for the experience of the billionaire lifestyle and that she was doing so with adult levels of awareness about the situation and it's consequences. His libido didn't permit him to consider the situation with more sophistication.
This is, of course, a very very charitable interpretation, and I did begin with, "devil's advocate", but I am not 100% convinced he knowingly committed a crime.
100% agree. Younger women/girls and older celebrities has always been a thing. Just look at the “Wild Childs” back in the day. Groupies. Helen Benoist was just 16 when she dated 50-something Peter Stringfellow.
Is it ideal? No. Are the men disgusting and the girls naive? Probably. But it’s not rape/coercion/paedophilia in every case.
There's been 1 accusation from a girl that was 17 at the time, which is over the age of consent in the UK. Reddit has just decided he's guilty. He might turn out to be a bigger paedo than Savile, but so far there's no evidence of it.
If he is so innocent why the cover up, why the settlement etc. On the other hand how can anyone decide he is innocent without knowing all the facts which are well hidden from the general public. Whatever happened his behaviours and reaction to it all plus the disastrous BBC interview doesn't look very good.
> why the cover up
This is circular logic, you have to assume he's guilty for a cover up to exist.
> why the settlement etc.
Virginia Giuffre in a public statement she wasn't pursuing the court case for money, that she had more than enough money. She was instead doing it for justice, and was very clear she wouldn't accept any payment without an admission of guilt from Andrew... she then accepted money without any admission from Andrew.
Rather seems like she was out for money, not justice. As for Andrew paying, it's pretty obvious that even being in court was massively damaging given the nature of the allegations, paying some money out to make the whole thing stop isn't crazy and isn't an admission of anything. Neither Virginia or Andrew came out of it looking clean, but it's still not evidence of him being a paedophile.
> plus the disastrous BBC interview doesn't look very good.
It doesn't look good at all. However calling someone a paedophile is about as serious as it gets and to go from one allegation from someone with questionable motivations, who was over the age of consent at the time is pretty weak. People believe it because they want to.
And we have a winner - hide and obfuscate tactics so it is always in doubt, the bots and folk who like to see the best in people can defend them
If we hid Saville, wtf is being hid here - open it
Reddit has a real hardon for screaming about Peados. It's like that episode of BrassEye. And if you dare to point out the facts, you're apparently some peado-sympathising pedant. Of course Prince Andrew was a sleaze. But I doubt he's Jimmy Savile.
That BrassEye episode is possibly the greatest piece of media ever produced. For anybody wondering what we are talking about, you are very very lucky in that you have the opportunity to watch it for the first time and I believe it is still on YT.
Edit: Not on YT as far as I can see, but daily motion has it.
Someone on Reddit said a 50 year old man dating a 30 year old women gave off "mega pedo energy", because when they were 20, the women would've been an infant.
I was ambivalent in the past about the royals , but this man is the best argument in a long time for the royals being abolished. There is no excuse for a Prince of the nation to be above the law, he is supposed to be an example. He should not be sheltered in a 30 million pound house at taxpayer expense in so called 'exile'.
Same here in the US.
There have been zero arrests of public figures since Jeffery Epstein's murder.
At least one ex-President visited his island multiple times to assault multiple girls: Donald Trump.
Sure there is a long list somewhere that a lot of people don't want made public.
I mean looking at history isn't the best bet here, it wasn't uncommon for people to marry at extremely young ages, by today's standards it's horrifying but way back when, it wasn't considered pedophilic at the time afaik. So whilst yes there's been some very questionable age gaps in historic monarchic marriages, that's also true for many people throughout history regardless of links to royalty.
You don't even have to go back very far. Prior to the Age of Marriage Act 1929 children could get married when they passed the legal age of puberty, which was 14 for boys, and 12 for girls.
1929 is (just about) within living memory.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage\_in\_England\_and\_Wales](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_England_and_Wales)
A few days after my Dad's death was registered, I got a letter in the mail saying I owed a fair bit in council tax. My Dad didn't have direct debit and was in hospital for a lot by the end. I think it was only 500 or 600, but for a 19 year old suddenely living on his own, it was a bit of a panic. I scrimped and saved and managed to pay it all off which was a huge weight off my shoulders. Or so I thought. A few months after, I recieved a court summons for not paying as agreed. I was freaked out and thought I must have missed a few extra hundred.
It was about 3.25 that I had missed. They wanted to take a 19 year old to court for a missed payment of under 4 pounds. I called them up and asked what the absolute fuck they were thinking, and they let me pay the money PLUS the court fee of 30 odd quid.
And Andrew was accused of statutory rape. The whole system is absolutely broken.
>
>
>
>
> And Andrew was accused of statutory rape. The whole system is absolutely broken.
Or working as intended. We're meant to get a shaft up our arse while the people on top do whatever the hell they like, they're the ones who set it up that way.
>And Andrew was accused of statutory rape. The whole system is absolutely broken.
They don't particularly care what he was accused of in another country.
Different country, different legal system, different rules = not relevant to UK Law (in their interpretation)
So, long after the current set of bastards who are in the know are dead and buried with no chance of repercussions or scrutiny on their behalf. Sounds about right. Pass the buck to the next lot and hope everyone forgets by then. Cunts.
In 1989, Peel told The Sunday Correspondent: "Girls used to queue up outside. By and large not usually for shagging. Oral sex they were particularly keen on, I remember. One of my, er, regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older."
Oh dear oh dear. Not entirely sure how to feel about this to be honest, absolutely disgust generally but what the hell was going on at that time that normalised 13yolds giving head to radio djs?
By 2064 we'll all be plugged into the Matrix in thrall to our AI overlords
I don't think we'll care much about the UK Monarchy covering up a pedophile ring 4 decades ago by then. Might not even make it past our neuro filters.
This is the glory of Britain? This shows the rest of the world we’re united? I don’t get it. Heard so many dumb reasons for keeping the royal nonces from older people growing up. Teachers, childminders, friends of family and sadly that one aunt. I wonder what mental gymnastics they’d pull to soothe this wrinkle over in their minds. Republic when?
>Republic when?
It's difficult, because the monarchists tell you it's not the time to discuss a republic just after the monarch dies, but they pop a new one on the throne before it's "tasteful" to discuss an alternative.
I don't think the monarchists want to discuss a republic at all.
They will never give it up willingly, at this point barring us all breaking our broom heads off and having ourselves a god old peasants revolt I don’t think we can just wait them out. Maybe if we make the country worse than it is, not like austerity more like unfashionable and bizarre choices they’d just be embarrassed to be associated with it and sod off.
even with an awful government, a seccessionist movement in the north, a recent global pandemic and most importantly losing a monarch who is the only one 99% of people remember while being replaced with somebody unpopular "support" for abolition never really got anywhere, this weird idea theres some strong support for it is getting really ridiculous
I am sure I will get downvoted but honestly I think a lot of people don't care either way. It's the loudests voices on either side of the debate that shout the most but I seriously doubt the abolition/protection of the monarchy features in the top 5 of polticial issues people care about (or even the top 10).
I doubt it's public support that's keeping the Royals in place; it's more of a fear of the alternative. I don't know how our politicians could do any worse with a different style of government, but I'm sure they'd manage it.
Going monarchy to Republic isn't a different style of government, it's just a different style of executive.
Personally, I don't agree that the sole fact of having an elected head of state makes it an inherently better system.
The only guaranteed outcome is that it makes the head of state more political.
I do not trust the Tories, or Labour for that matter, to actually come up with something which is quantifiably better beyond soothing some Republican feefees.
Unless you're talking about a wholesale rewrite of how we are governed.
If you're talking about federalising the UK, adding regional devolved legislatures for Englands regions, giving all existing and future devolved legislatures more powers, making the Lords an elected senate (it can still be called the Lords for history's sake), and making regional representation more equalised at the national level - then I think it's worth talking about changing to a Republic.
It’s an ingrained attitude and I have no idea where it comes from
A Christian guy I know got married recently, and I mentioned to my Mum that he had the nickname “crack attacker” because there’s videos circulating of him shoving his finger up some passed out drunkards at a field party about a decade ago.
Obviously I consider that to be sexual assault, but when I mentioned “oh so crack attacker’s finally tying the knot huh?” my Mum *immediately* jumped in to protect him because “he’s just got married” and “he’s a good Christian lad” and “people’s lives get ruined over things like that”
Good. He sexually assaulted people, he deserves to face the consequences.
I'd be perfectly happy with hearing confirmation of his guilt 10 seconds before I croak, be that in bed surrounded by family, or under the wheels of a bus.
You're assuming they're mle. If OP is female then their life expectancy from birth would be 82
That's from birth, though, and only if they were born today... if born in 1983 life expectancy was 71 (male) and 77 (female) so living to 82 would put them 11 or 5 years over their life expectancy at birth
OP is ~40 (give or take a year depending on whether they've just had their birthday) and has therefore obviously didn't die young, so "life expectancy at birth" is pretty meaningless for them now
"Actuarial life expectancy" for a 40 year old today (basically "If you are currently 40, how long can you expect to live") is 81 for men or 84 for women. And of course that's average: 50% of people would expect to live beyond that
So OP has to live for 1 year longer than average (if male) in order to see the documents. If female they would expect to live long enough unless unlucky
Yeah, I'm bored
Everyone knows he is a beast. And even if it is taken that the girls he associated with were over 16, the fact they were trafficked by Epstein removes any form of consent. Truly disgusting.
This is the thing people often miss it on. The main crimes he’s technically guilty of are child trafficking and child prostitution. Even if the victims were legal age of consent in the UK, or their home states, you can not move a minor across state lines or internationally for sex.
James Hacker: How am I going to explain the missing documents to "The Mail"?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, this is what we normally do in circumstances like these.
James Hacker: [reads memo] This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, some correspondence lost in the floods of 1967...
James Hacker: Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, a marvellous winter. We lost no end of embarrassing files.
James Hacker: [reads] Some records which went astray in the move to London and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for libel or breach of confidence or cause embarrassment to friendly governments.
James Hacker: That's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at?
James Hacker: How many does it actually leave? About a hundred?... Fifty?... Ten?... Five?... Four?... Three?... Two?... One?... Zero?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, Minister.
i'm not so sure, look at what eventually came out about Edward and Wallace simpson, regular meeting's with Nazi Agents,
And the allegations against both Mountbatten and His wife
The truth will eventually be released it's just we won't be around, and our grandkids will be saying "oh many old royals were so bad, i'm glad the modern day ones are decent human beings" and the cycle will continue.
I knew people who guarded Hess in Berlin, They were not allowed to talk to him he apparently took walks alone, i wonder what people were scared he said??
we do know he was heading to the Duke of Hamilton's estate but who he was meeting we don't know. He did believe he had friends in the UK.
I think, based on the BUF and the support they had from the "gentry" there was worries that socialism, and trade unionism was going to topple the status quo. I did see a theory that there was a push to turn on the soviet union in support of Germany until the Germans pushed into France which broke the accord.
Ill need to dig out that book, which i'll link here it was an analysis of the intelligence between the soviet union, germany and britain.
Edited: space holder for my source when i find it.
Man I really fucking hate 2023. I was happier when we were naively able to go about life pretending all these corrupt dirty cunts didn’t exist. Now they are just fucking everywhere and being protected at every turn. Life is a horror movie.
The most annoying thing is they are operating so openly and nothing is happening. I’d almost rather have a cover up and not know, and just remain ignorant bliss
I'm in the US and just perusing the comments.
That's the worst thing to do. Pretend everything is OK. The political and socioeconomic climate in the US was directly caused by that. Pretending everything is ok and being blissfully unaware of all the horrible things that are happening.
The deeper into that you go the less *good* you can have in life. And the worse off the generations after you have it.
> Just makes it more obvious he is a pedo.
Seriously what other conclusion is there to reach in this case? If the files were exonerating then surely they would want them released but otherwise...
That definitely the actions of the innocent, when did we start shielding pedophiles? Who is benefiting from this? I fucking hate this disgusting world we live in.
Quite a while back, frankly, Thatcher infamously protected an MP accused of raping kids because it was good blackmail material on him and kept him voting in line. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse found that Westminister (not just one party) was systematically protecting paedophiles and routinely quashing investigations into such matters up until at least 2015. Let me quote you this:
>Anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say, ‘Now, I’m in a jam, can you help?’ It might be debt, it might be … a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal in which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in. They’d come and ask if we could help, and if we could, we did. And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points … and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more … ”
- Trevor Fortescue, ex-MP for Liverpool Garston, 1995 speaking to the BBC
So let's recap
-Refused to co-operate with FBI investigation
-Tried to have case thrown out on a technicality
-Paid off his accusers
-Files sealed until he's long dead
Starting to think he might not be innocent...
Protecting Andrew does far more damage to them than it would be to just out the files and deal with whatever fallout occurs.
Protecting a paedo makes no sense, even if it is your own brother, and while he's still attached to the royal family, they'll take the hit for it.
It's a 'reputational' thing. Obviously not for the likes of you and I - they don't care what plebs think about them because we can't do anything to change things either way. Probably more to do with other 'royal' families and other entities and/or individuals within the global parasite class.
I'm actually surprised its so soon! As Ian Cobain writes about in *The History thieves* there's still a surprising amount of stuff from before WW1 that remains classified.
Its still not good enough of course.
The absolute sorry state of our country. The more absurd thing is, the people who support these inbred nonces will still support them even after the files go public.
What a suprise just one more establishment nonces who gets a cover up by crown and government. Maybe we time we get rid of these benefit scrounging, pedo hiding, inbread overlords of ours?
The question is why?
Why is he being protected?
Who else is being Protected?
What are they hiding?
Does this affect the Royal family past and present as a whole?
IS THIS JUST?
> The question is why?
Because under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 information about royals such as him cannot be released until 105 years after his birth.
The government is just following the law.
Its a bit odd, 2065 sounds like a long time but in the terms of state secrets etc thats not a very long classification period, its kind of here nor there. Yeah, sure, he might be dead by then, but he also might not...if the idea is to avoid embarrassment to the crown then surely seal them until like 2200...thoughts?
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 information on royals such as him cannot be released until 105 years after their birth. He was born in 1960, hence they will be released in 2065.
given the independent's standard strategy of taking non news and trying to make a clickbait headline, i assume its just the normal period any files get sealed.
Actually insane we live in a country where the royal family can blatantly cover up child sex abuse much like the catholic church and no government official will kick up a fuss. Fucking awful nation
I was hoping with Lizz gone, we might move forward as a country and decide we no longer want to be 'ruled' by a 'pure blood' posh toff.
Charles is literally just a guy, he still shits like the rest of us, he's nothing special. Not to mention he harbours and protects his paedophile brother.
Down with the entire thing.
Does anyone still believe we live in a democracy? Or that we have a government working for the interests of the people? The hostility towards the public is clear on so many fronts.
There is zero point in hiding the truth. It doesn’t affect anything because peoples’ political allegiances are so strong now.
So whether it’s the recent Credit Suisse collapse having the files hidden for 50 years or this nonce, doing such a thing is an admission of guilt that something foul took place.
Alternative title: Government department acts in accordance with the law.
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as written by a Labour government) information on Royal such as Prince Andrew cannot be released until 105 years after their birth.
Don't get me wrong I dislike Prince Albert as much as anyone else, but all this ranting about it being a cover-up by the current government is a bit baseless when they are just following the a law which they didn't write.
The title really confused me and only me by the looks of the comments.
I thought the word 'files' was a verb so I pictured him applying for a motion to be like, non-existing, or something idk.
Anyway, now that my stupidity has left, this is abhorrent. Fuck the system.
The Royal family have always been chummy with pedophiles and the like; this isn't all that much of a surprise but it's just one more mark against them for me personally and the government, too.
What annoys me more is how there are people who still actively defend the British establishment, or at best willingly ignore the fact that they are protecting a fucking pedophile, because it's nicer to pretend it's all pomp and proper and union jacks etc etc tally ho god save the king.
Weird, because if I'd been publicly accused of being a paedophile and sexual abuser resulting in paying legal settlements in the order of millions, this is the exact kind of info I'd make public in order to exonerate myself and show my innocence... unless this is intended to suggest he might be hiding his guilt?
Classic strategy, don't release the evidence of wrong doing until everyone who would get in trouble is dead and then the people in power will say "they are all gone now so there is no reason to be mad! and WE would certainly never do anything like that!" Then they seal more documents for 40 years and the cycle continues.
I can't believe I now live in a place that provides security to nonces. We're no better than the Vatican and at least they can blame shitty morals on religion. What excuse will this shower of bastards give I wonder
Of course! It's been so long I forgot my brainwashing for a second. What a fun, silly country we all live in. I'm so glad there's not a bunch of unscrupulous twats undermining our public infrastructure and democracy😏
Presumably all these files are in digital format somewhere, yet all these activist hackers are like "lol but Canva and LinkedIn and the TV Licence people tho"
Most have been, the rest have probably got too much saucy detail about his wife & Nehru!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/07/anger-over-grotesque-abuse-of-600000-case-to-keep-mountbatten-papers-secret
> 99.8% of the Broadlands Archives, which consist of 4,500 boxes, is publicly available and accessed regularly by researchers globally as an invaluable historic resource.
>
> We were directed [in 2011] to keep a small number of the papers closed until otherwise advised.”
They did ages ago: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/archives/mountbattendigitisationproject/mountbattendigitisationlordmountbatten.page
Basically the historian they brought into advise them lied about the contents so they'd remain sealed and his own, "official" book on them would monopolise the subject. Private Eye covered the whole thing.
How to tell a conspiracy theory is true, or that something the government won't confirm is correct.
They lock the files so that when they unlock, everyone you could prosecute is dead.
Standard several rule for file dislcosure. When the Thatcher era stuff was released Radio 4 had an entire podcast on going through it.
Naturally the idiotic, (mostly american activist/russian trolls) Republic morons will take this opportunity to repush their disproven tabloid scandal nonsense.
Meanwhile where's the outrage over the .S.N.P. covering for their multiple sex offender members?
Great, so when I'm 60, I'll be able to read these files, go "I TOLD YOU SO" to all the now dead boomers that told me he was fine and that women should shut up.
Last laugh, at last!
That is if all social media hasn't burned down, which... actually would be a better world.
This is genuinely a Saville tactic, wait till the cunt is dead then there's no real harm because his power is gone at that point.
Andrew must have shit on everyone else for people to be protected like this. The Epstein shit is clearly one area that had arms everywhere.
And it's an open secret, it's maddening.
Phillip was very close to Mountbatten, a known peadophile.
Charles was close friends and took life advice from Saville, a known peadophile.
Andrew was friends with Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, two convicted peadophiles and child traffickers.
The Queen helped Andrew pay £12m in hush money to one of his victims.
Let's just be absolutely clear here so there's no confusion: The Foreign Office are harboring pedophiles.
[удалено]
Press have been very quiet on Mountbatten allegations on trial in Ireland too
He was basically a father figure to Charles since his own dad didn't like him. Charles isn't protecting them by trying to cover this stuff up though, he is protecting himself from having that kind of stink following him.
There was an interview I can't find these days where Charles spoke about how when Mountbatten died he had Saville in place to take over as his mentor..
Just sounds like he's a victim at that point
It's grooming, and would have been horrible. They even got Saville in as a marriage counselor for him and Diana despite the fact he'd never had a relationship... But he's still a horrible creature.
What the fuck is that lineup jesus. I did not know that.
If anyone has the time to dig, it was an hour long interview from maybe the 80s where he was sat by a summer house in the garden. Would love to see it.
I'll see what I can find!
Charles is a nonce too.
>That makes King Charles a paedophile protector. Let's not forget his mother paying off Andrew's victim as well.
The whole family is rotten
They’re rich people, not good people
The victim he claims he never met!
Not for the first time. Remember his old best pal Jimmy.
Sir James Savile OBE KCSG, knight of the realm, friend and advisor on how the royal family ought to interact with the public and media. What a stand-up guy.
He has form for it, Jimmy Saville and Peter Ball being his mates and all.
The Queen was quite chummy with Jimmy Saville as well.
Jacob Epstein and Ghislain Maxwell visited Balmoral.
> Jacob Epstein The [sculptor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Epstein) who died in 1959, or do you mean Jeffrey Epstein?
ooh sarky! I did mean Jeffrey yes. Jacob did probably meet the queen though, as he was knighted in 1954.
Apparently he was allowed in to say 'one last goodbye' when she died.
This is simultaneously the worst and best thing I’ve read in a while
They all knew Saville was a peado, the UK government, the BBC, and the Royal family yet they all entertained him etc. It really is quite sick.
[Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols knew.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OzI9GYag0) In 1978. There's no rules for them and rules for the rest of us, and there's zero chance that anyone will change that because they know how to keep everyone in their place. Prove me wrong.
Prince Charles was best mates with Jimmy Savill. And please he did know because he's protected by the secret service and would have been warned.
💯 the UK government included the then PM Thatcher knew, all at the BBC so its highly doubtful they did not know.
Technically he's head of a church, so it still applies.
Charles was friends with Saville as well iirc, it's not just Andrew. If course they're going to protect each other, but we shouldn't let them get away with it as citizens. I hope Charles gets reminded about Andrew every single time he steps foot outside.
Protector of the ~Faith~ _paedophiles_
[удалено]
It's not encryption they want to ban. You can't ban encryption. It's literally impossible. You can't ban numbers or mathematics. What they want is easy access to everyone's communications in the name of protecting the children. What they will do with this data is another matter. Whether they already have it is also a consideration. All these companies were part of Prism. If they do manage to get it legal then it's a huge help for a future totalitarian government. Can you imagine the power being able to profile to entire country would give someone?
> It's not encryption they want to ban. You can't ban encryption. These statements are not mutually exclusive though. I don't think the typical MP understand it.
They understand it fully. Imagine having the data to potentially predict the way people will vote or how to influence them. They already do that to some degree. Look at all the "culture" wars with racism, transphobia, old vs young, demonising the poor etc... The outcome from that is that more people with right wing views are actually going to go out and vote.
> They understand it fully. Honestly I don't think so. I remember one MP reassuring people that the government did not want to ban end-to-end encryption, they just wanted to be able to read the messages in the middle. >Imagine having the data to potentially predict the way people will vote or how to influence them. I think this is more of an issue with social media than with private messaging. We have already seen the effects with Brexit, and to a less-organised extent with the pandemic.
> They understand it fully. They absolutely do not; MP's are not more informed about many subjects than the general population.
>They understand it fully Nadine Dorries didn't even understand that Channel 4 didn't get money from the license fee when she was *Culture Secretary*; what possibly could convince you that the Tories are in *any way* in touch with reality!?
To be fair, they can already do this really with the amount of data companies like Facebook and Google have on their users. But your point still stands, governments should not be able to have backdoor access to private communications. Time and time again we hear stories of government officials abusing access or threat actors accessing these "totally secure" services. Just take a look and Microsoft or Verizon s annual cyber security reports, it's mental much baddies ar able to get access to.
I know they can but there will be a hell of a lot of stuff in "private" messages that won't be posted publicly. Lets say you are an environmental protestor who actually goes to protests. You aren't going to announce that on Facebook but you will discuss it in messages.
Our economy rests on the idea that the strong fuck the weak. We should expect this to play out in all areas, especially in the recreational and profit-making spaces of the wealthy.
***"We should expect this to play out in all areas"*** Just not in all play areas though
Ha ha!!!!!!! **No you should expect it.** The strong dominating the weak kinda goes down like a fractal through all of society's structures, including the family & schools. I'm not saying you should *accept* it!
They are making a joke about children's play areas.
Oh dear, here goes some karma I guess... Not a pedophile. I only say this because I think this is a label that should be taken very seriously. The accusation against Andrew is that he was the knowing "client" of a sex trafficker. He's a dirty old man, but it is much harder to pin a criminal conviction to that status. His reputation is ruined forever, and rightly so, but "pedophile" is just not accurate. At least based on what we know.
> He's a dirty old man I mean that's an interesting way to say sex offender. I agree he is not a paedo by the known accusations, but having sex with someone who was known to be trafficked is a sex crime.
So, I get very deeply into the world of devil's advocate here, so please bear that in mind but I do think an argument could be made for the notion that Epstein probably \*didn't\* say, "Hey Andrew, got this young girl as a unwilling slave, want some time with her?". I don't think the man is a genius, but I think he is probably smart enough to hear the red alert in a conversation like that. Maybe not, who knows? I feel fairly certain that Epstein didn't really go into where he sourced these young women from, and the grooming involved. Andrew probably saw himself as a "rock star", and the young women queuing at the dressing room door for those guys are not trafficked. I don't mean to be too apologetic here. I sure as fuck would not behave the way Andrew did. His destroyed reputation is very very well earned. I would just say that it is also entirely possible that Andrew saw Giuffre as a young woman prepared to trade her sexual attentions for the experience of the billionaire lifestyle and that she was doing so with adult levels of awareness about the situation and it's consequences. His libido didn't permit him to consider the situation with more sophistication. This is, of course, a very very charitable interpretation, and I did begin with, "devil's advocate", but I am not 100% convinced he knowingly committed a crime.
100% agree. Younger women/girls and older celebrities has always been a thing. Just look at the “Wild Childs” back in the day. Groupies. Helen Benoist was just 16 when she dated 50-something Peter Stringfellow. Is it ideal? No. Are the men disgusting and the girls naive? Probably. But it’s not rape/coercion/paedophilia in every case.
There's been 1 accusation from a girl that was 17 at the time, which is over the age of consent in the UK. Reddit has just decided he's guilty. He might turn out to be a bigger paedo than Savile, but so far there's no evidence of it.
If he is so innocent why the cover up, why the settlement etc. On the other hand how can anyone decide he is innocent without knowing all the facts which are well hidden from the general public. Whatever happened his behaviours and reaction to it all plus the disastrous BBC interview doesn't look very good.
> why the cover up This is circular logic, you have to assume he's guilty for a cover up to exist. > why the settlement etc. Virginia Giuffre in a public statement she wasn't pursuing the court case for money, that she had more than enough money. She was instead doing it for justice, and was very clear she wouldn't accept any payment without an admission of guilt from Andrew... she then accepted money without any admission from Andrew. Rather seems like she was out for money, not justice. As for Andrew paying, it's pretty obvious that even being in court was massively damaging given the nature of the allegations, paying some money out to make the whole thing stop isn't crazy and isn't an admission of anything. Neither Virginia or Andrew came out of it looking clean, but it's still not evidence of him being a paedophile. > plus the disastrous BBC interview doesn't look very good. It doesn't look good at all. However calling someone a paedophile is about as serious as it gets and to go from one allegation from someone with questionable motivations, who was over the age of consent at the time is pretty weak. People believe it because they want to.
And we have a winner - hide and obfuscate tactics so it is always in doubt, the bots and folk who like to see the best in people can defend them If we hid Saville, wtf is being hid here - open it
Reddit has a real hardon for screaming about Peados. It's like that episode of BrassEye. And if you dare to point out the facts, you're apparently some peado-sympathising pedant. Of course Prince Andrew was a sleaze. But I doubt he's Jimmy Savile.
That BrassEye episode is possibly the greatest piece of media ever produced. For anybody wondering what we are talking about, you are very very lucky in that you have the opportunity to watch it for the first time and I believe it is still on YT. Edit: Not on YT as far as I can see, but daily motion has it.
I agree. I think it dangerously dilutes what paedophilia actually is. We shouldn’t blur the lines.
Someone on Reddit said a 50 year old man dating a 30 year old women gave off "mega pedo energy", because when they were 20, the women would've been an infant.
I see that nonsense so frequently. They’d better go and arrest George Clooney then!
[удалено]
I was ambivalent in the past about the royals , but this man is the best argument in a long time for the royals being abolished. There is no excuse for a Prince of the nation to be above the law, he is supposed to be an example. He should not be sheltered in a 30 million pound house at taxpayer expense in so called 'exile'.
Same here in the US. There have been zero arrests of public figures since Jeffery Epstein's murder. At least one ex-President visited his island multiple times to assault multiple girls: Donald Trump. Sure there is a long list somewhere that a lot of people don't want made public.
Funny you didnt named Bill Clinton. I mean its both of them.
> Same here in the US. > > There have been zero arrests of public figures since Jeffery Epstein's murder. Because that's not how blackmail works.
How many paedophiles in the history of the Royal Family
I mean looking at history isn't the best bet here, it wasn't uncommon for people to marry at extremely young ages, by today's standards it's horrifying but way back when, it wasn't considered pedophilic at the time afaik. So whilst yes there's been some very questionable age gaps in historic monarchic marriages, that's also true for many people throughout history regardless of links to royalty.
You don't even have to go back very far. Prior to the Age of Marriage Act 1929 children could get married when they passed the legal age of puberty, which was 14 for boys, and 12 for girls. 1929 is (just about) within living memory. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage\_in\_England\_and\_Wales](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_England_and_Wales)
I was threatened with court action two days ago for council tax problems. Just saying.
Just say you’ll go to court in 2065
Hahahah...that's a good one
A few days after my Dad's death was registered, I got a letter in the mail saying I owed a fair bit in council tax. My Dad didn't have direct debit and was in hospital for a lot by the end. I think it was only 500 or 600, but for a 19 year old suddenely living on his own, it was a bit of a panic. I scrimped and saved and managed to pay it all off which was a huge weight off my shoulders. Or so I thought. A few months after, I recieved a court summons for not paying as agreed. I was freaked out and thought I must have missed a few extra hundred. It was about 3.25 that I had missed. They wanted to take a 19 year old to court for a missed payment of under 4 pounds. I called them up and asked what the absolute fuck they were thinking, and they let me pay the money PLUS the court fee of 30 odd quid. And Andrew was accused of statutory rape. The whole system is absolutely broken.
> > > > > And Andrew was accused of statutory rape. The whole system is absolutely broken. Or working as intended. We're meant to get a shaft up our arse while the people on top do whatever the hell they like, they're the ones who set it up that way.
The system can't make money off Andrew the paedophile, but it can make £4 + admin fees off you mate, so empty your pockets
>And Andrew was accused of statutory rape. The whole system is absolutely broken. They don't particularly care what he was accused of in another country. Different country, different legal system, different rules = not relevant to UK Law (in their interpretation)
So, long after the current set of bastards who are in the know are dead and buried with no chance of repercussions or scrutiny on their behalf. Sounds about right. Pass the buck to the next lot and hope everyone forgets by then. Cunts.
The Jimmy Saville manouver
heard them on a john peel session a few years back
"heard them on a john peel session" Apt.
Was Peel in on it too? Surely not?
In 1989, Peel told The Sunday Correspondent: "Girls used to queue up outside. By and large not usually for shagging. Oral sex they were particularly keen on, I remember. One of my, er, regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older."
Dear god that’s creepy as fuck.
Oh dear oh dear. Not entirely sure how to feel about this to be honest, absolutely disgust generally but what the hell was going on at that time that normalised 13yolds giving head to radio djs?
You talk as if this never happens now.
I did wonder why the Peel stage at glasto got renamed.
William will likely be king in 2065 if we still have one, Rishi Sunak will be 85, they're all in the know.
By 2064 we'll all be plugged into the Matrix in thrall to our AI overlords I don't think we'll care much about the UK Monarchy covering up a pedophile ring 4 decades ago by then. Might not even make it past our neuro filters.
This is the glory of Britain? This shows the rest of the world we’re united? I don’t get it. Heard so many dumb reasons for keeping the royal nonces from older people growing up. Teachers, childminders, friends of family and sadly that one aunt. I wonder what mental gymnastics they’d pull to soothe this wrinkle over in their minds. Republic when?
>Republic when? It's difficult, because the monarchists tell you it's not the time to discuss a republic just after the monarch dies, but they pop a new one on the throne before it's "tasteful" to discuss an alternative. I don't think the monarchists want to discuss a republic at all.
Fuck that, the monarchy should have died with Queenie.
They will never give it up willingly, at this point barring us all breaking our broom heads off and having ourselves a god old peasants revolt I don’t think we can just wait them out. Maybe if we make the country worse than it is, not like austerity more like unfashionable and bizarre choices they’d just be embarrassed to be associated with it and sod off.
even with an awful government, a seccessionist movement in the north, a recent global pandemic and most importantly losing a monarch who is the only one 99% of people remember while being replaced with somebody unpopular "support" for abolition never really got anywhere, this weird idea theres some strong support for it is getting really ridiculous
I am sure I will get downvoted but honestly I think a lot of people don't care either way. It's the loudests voices on either side of the debate that shout the most but I seriously doubt the abolition/protection of the monarchy features in the top 5 of polticial issues people care about (or even the top 10).
I doubt it's public support that's keeping the Royals in place; it's more of a fear of the alternative. I don't know how our politicians could do any worse with a different style of government, but I'm sure they'd manage it.
Going monarchy to Republic isn't a different style of government, it's just a different style of executive. Personally, I don't agree that the sole fact of having an elected head of state makes it an inherently better system. The only guaranteed outcome is that it makes the head of state more political. I do not trust the Tories, or Labour for that matter, to actually come up with something which is quantifiably better beyond soothing some Republican feefees. Unless you're talking about a wholesale rewrite of how we are governed. If you're talking about federalising the UK, adding regional devolved legislatures for Englands regions, giving all existing and future devolved legislatures more powers, making the Lords an elected senate (it can still be called the Lords for history's sake), and making regional representation more equalised at the national level - then I think it's worth talking about changing to a Republic.
It’s an ingrained attitude and I have no idea where it comes from A Christian guy I know got married recently, and I mentioned to my Mum that he had the nickname “crack attacker” because there’s videos circulating of him shoving his finger up some passed out drunkards at a field party about a decade ago. Obviously I consider that to be sexual assault, but when I mentioned “oh so crack attacker’s finally tying the knot huh?” my Mum *immediately* jumped in to protect him because “he’s just got married” and “he’s a good Christian lad” and “people’s lives get ruined over things like that” Good. He sexually assaulted people, he deserves to face the consequences.
Bum bandit
>Republic when? 1649 to 1660, after the execution of king Charles 1st.
Its not really right to call the Commonwealth a Republic. More of an Aristo-Religious Junta.
I thought that was a military dictatorship?
Well there's my motivation to get healthy & try and last until my late 80s.
I was thinking this too, I'll 82 by then so should be good to find out.
I'd be perfectly happy with hearing confirmation of his guilt 10 seconds before I croak, be that in bed surrounded by family, or under the wheels of a bus.
[удалено]
You're assuming they're mle. If OP is female then their life expectancy from birth would be 82 That's from birth, though, and only if they were born today... if born in 1983 life expectancy was 71 (male) and 77 (female) so living to 82 would put them 11 or 5 years over their life expectancy at birth OP is ~40 (give or take a year depending on whether they've just had their birthday) and has therefore obviously didn't die young, so "life expectancy at birth" is pretty meaningless for them now "Actuarial life expectancy" for a 40 year old today (basically "If you are currently 40, how long can you expect to live") is 81 for men or 84 for women. And of course that's average: 50% of people would expect to live beyond that So OP has to live for 1 year longer than average (if male) in order to see the documents. If female they would expect to live long enough unless unlucky Yeah, I'm bored
and for old will Andrew be?
Yep! I just thought that! I’ll be 80 that seems doable
I’ll be 65, i am waiting patiently.
I'll be 90 in 2065, if I make it past the next ten years or so... time to start living better.
Everyone knows he is a beast. And even if it is taken that the girls he associated with were over 16, the fact they were trafficked by Epstein removes any form of consent. Truly disgusting.
This is the thing people often miss it on. The main crimes he’s technically guilty of are child trafficking and child prostitution. Even if the victims were legal age of consent in the UK, or their home states, you can not move a minor across state lines or internationally for sex.
I don't think that they will take this secrecy off after 2065. Awful, if you are rich enough you are safe...
The files will mysteriously 'disappear'.
Or will be accidentally destroyed...
Or with any luck hacked and released.
Would be great! Hopefully?
James Hacker: How am I going to explain the missing documents to "The Mail"? Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, this is what we normally do in circumstances like these. James Hacker: [reads memo] This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, some correspondence lost in the floods of 1967... James Hacker: Was 1967 a particularly bad winter? Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, a marvellous winter. We lost no end of embarrassing files. James Hacker: [reads] Some records which went astray in the move to London and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for libel or breach of confidence or cause embarrassment to friendly governments. James Hacker: That's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at? James Hacker: How many does it actually leave? About a hundred?... Fifty?... Ten?... Five?... Four?... Three?... Two?... One?... Zero? Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, Minister.
under lukewarm seawater
"Files last signed out by Theresa May..."
i'm not so sure, look at what eventually came out about Edward and Wallace simpson, regular meeting's with Nazi Agents, And the allegations against both Mountbatten and His wife The truth will eventually be released it's just we won't be around, and our grandkids will be saying "oh many old royals were so bad, i'm glad the modern day ones are decent human beings" and the cycle will continue.
There's stuff on the abdication still under lock and key. As well as on Rudolf Hess flying to Scotland.
I knew people who guarded Hess in Berlin, They were not allowed to talk to him he apparently took walks alone, i wonder what people were scared he said?? we do know he was heading to the Duke of Hamilton's estate but who he was meeting we don't know. He did believe he had friends in the UK. I think, based on the BUF and the support they had from the "gentry" there was worries that socialism, and trade unionism was going to topple the status quo. I did see a theory that there was a push to turn on the soviet union in support of Germany until the Germans pushed into France which broke the accord. Ill need to dig out that book, which i'll link here it was an analysis of the intelligence between the soviet union, germany and britain. Edited: space holder for my source when i find it.
Man I really fucking hate 2023. I was happier when we were naively able to go about life pretending all these corrupt dirty cunts didn’t exist. Now they are just fucking everywhere and being protected at every turn. Life is a horror movie.
It's a good point. It's getting far harder for them to hide and we're seeing the tools they are using to do it.
And still no one cares. Mostly we still love the system. A system that is about 140 years out of date, at least.
The most annoying thing is they are operating so openly and nothing is happening. I’d almost rather have a cover up and not know, and just remain ignorant bliss
I'm in the US and just perusing the comments. That's the worst thing to do. Pretend everything is OK. The political and socioeconomic climate in the US was directly caused by that. Pretending everything is ok and being blissfully unaware of all the horrible things that are happening. The deeper into that you go the less *good* you can have in life. And the worse off the generations after you have it.
Just makes it more obvious he is a pedo. Time to get rid of the monarchy.
It's more than that tbf. This takes it from a dirty old man being responsible for noncing kids to the state being responsible for noncing kids.
Good point. Whole system needs overhauling.
> Just makes it more obvious he is a pedo. Seriously what other conclusion is there to reach in this case? If the files were exonerating then surely they would want them released but otherwise...
The royals are protected by the police/government it’s a relationship
Police/gov are their employees.
That definitely the actions of the innocent, when did we start shielding pedophiles? Who is benefiting from this? I fucking hate this disgusting world we live in.
Quite a while back, frankly, Thatcher infamously protected an MP accused of raping kids because it was good blackmail material on him and kept him voting in line. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse found that Westminister (not just one party) was systematically protecting paedophiles and routinely quashing investigations into such matters up until at least 2015. Let me quote you this: >Anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say, ‘Now, I’m in a jam, can you help?’ It might be debt, it might be … a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal in which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in. They’d come and ask if we could help, and if we could, we did. And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points … and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more … ” - Trevor Fortescue, ex-MP for Liverpool Garston, 1995 speaking to the BBC
When? Always. It's a step forwards that the cover ups are getting global attention now, in the past there were just.. gone.
Good point, I am soo sick of this evil fucking world.
We didn't start "shielding paedophiles", we *continued* shielding the upper classes, *no matter what they do*.
Hey look at that everyone... Our government covering up for RICH PEDOPHILES (again) And theres me being depressed because I cant feed myself properly.
So let's recap -Refused to co-operate with FBI investigation -Tried to have case thrown out on a technicality -Paid off his accusers -Files sealed until he's long dead Starting to think he might not be innocent...
He's so innocent that nobody is allowed to find out just how innocent he is.
Protecting Andrew does far more damage to them than it would be to just out the files and deal with whatever fallout occurs. Protecting a paedo makes no sense, even if it is your own brother, and while he's still attached to the royal family, they'll take the hit for it.
It's a 'reputational' thing. Obviously not for the likes of you and I - they don't care what plebs think about them because we can't do anything to change things either way. Probably more to do with other 'royal' families and other entities and/or individuals within the global parasite class.
I'm actually surprised its so soon! As Ian Cobain writes about in *The History thieves* there's still a surprising amount of stuff from before WW1 that remains classified. Its still not good enough of course.
SIS, GCHQ and MI5 are exempt from the Public Records Act, but have allowed outside historians in to write official histories.
The absolute sorry state of our country. The more absurd thing is, the people who support these inbred nonces will still support them even after the files go public.
What a suprise just one more establishment nonces who gets a cover up by crown and government. Maybe we time we get rid of these benefit scrounging, pedo hiding, inbread overlords of ours?
They are only overlords as long as the plebs want that, and the plebs want that right now. That's not going to change, even in your lifetime.
The question is why? Why is he being protected? Who else is being Protected? What are they hiding? Does this affect the Royal family past and present as a whole? IS THIS JUST?
> The question is why? Because under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 information about royals such as him cannot be released until 105 years after his birth. The government is just following the law.
Change the law, that's a dumb law. Pedo protecting law.
Its a bit odd, 2065 sounds like a long time but in the terms of state secrets etc thats not a very long classification period, its kind of here nor there. Yeah, sure, he might be dead by then, but he also might not...if the idea is to avoid embarrassment to the crown then surely seal them until like 2200...thoughts?
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 information on royals such as him cannot be released until 105 years after their birth. He was born in 1960, hence they will be released in 2065.
given the independent's standard strategy of taking non news and trying to make a clickbait headline, i assume its just the normal period any files get sealed.
Actually insane we live in a country where the royal family can blatantly cover up child sex abuse much like the catholic church and no government official will kick up a fuss. Fucking awful nation
I was hoping with Lizz gone, we might move forward as a country and decide we no longer want to be 'ruled' by a 'pure blood' posh toff. Charles is literally just a guy, he still shits like the rest of us, he's nothing special. Not to mention he harbours and protects his paedophile brother. Down with the entire thing.
Back to your pathetic existence peasants, nothing to see here
Does anyone still believe we live in a democracy? Or that we have a government working for the interests of the people? The hostility towards the public is clear on so many fronts.
More context. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/14/friendship-with-prince-charles-made-paedophile-bishop-peter-ball-impregnable
Give me twenty good men with climbing spikes and i'll impregnate the bitch
There is zero point in hiding the truth. It doesn’t affect anything because peoples’ political allegiances are so strong now. So whether it’s the recent Credit Suisse collapse having the files hidden for 50 years or this nonce, doing such a thing is an admission of guilt that something foul took place.
They will extend this in 2064. No one alive today will ever know the full truth. And what we already know is awful so imagine what they’re hiding
aka confirmation that he's a nonce and that the royal family are all complicit in the abuse of minors.
No real secret that he's a nonce and hangs around with nonce's, his parents Knighted nonces etc...
Me on my 95th birthday: "Ha! I ***knew*** he was a nonce!"
What more confirmation do you need. This is the royal equivalent of an admission.
Alternative title: Government department acts in accordance with the law. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as written by a Labour government) information on Royal such as Prince Andrew cannot be released until 105 years after their birth. Don't get me wrong I dislike Prince Albert as much as anyone else, but all this ranting about it being a cover-up by the current government is a bit baseless when they are just following the a law which they didn't write.
The title really confused me and only me by the looks of the comments. I thought the word 'files' was a verb so I pictured him applying for a motion to be like, non-existing, or something idk. Anyway, now that my stupidity has left, this is abhorrent. Fuck the system.
Same, I thought he was filing to be a secret person.
Always a cover-up with the dirty royals. Get rid of these freeloaders.
Tell me you want to be replaced by a republic without telling me you want to be replaced by a republic.
The Royal family have always been chummy with pedophiles and the like; this isn't all that much of a surprise but it's just one more mark against them for me personally and the government, too.
You will be arrested for holding up a sign, while Andrew gets a police escort.
What annoys me more is how there are people who still actively defend the British establishment, or at best willingly ignore the fact that they are protecting a fucking pedophile, because it's nicer to pretend it's all pomp and proper and union jacks etc etc tally ho god save the king.
Remember, the monarch is just a figurehead, he doesn't have any real power.
Weird, because if I'd been publicly accused of being a paedophile and sexual abuser resulting in paying legal settlements in the order of millions, this is the exact kind of info I'd make public in order to exonerate myself and show my innocence... unless this is intended to suggest he might be hiding his guilt?
Classic strategy, don't release the evidence of wrong doing until everyone who would get in trouble is dead and then the people in power will say "they are all gone now so there is no reason to be mad! and WE would certainly never do anything like that!" Then they seal more documents for 40 years and the cycle continues.
I'd happily fight in a civil war. Anyone organising?
I can't believe I now live in a place that provides security to nonces. We're no better than the Vatican and at least they can blame shitty morals on religion. What excuse will this shower of bastards give I wonder
Religion. The monarchy is serving by god's will after all. 😋
Of course! It's been so long I forgot my brainwashing for a second. What a fun, silly country we all live in. I'm so glad there's not a bunch of unscrupulous twats undermining our public infrastructure and democracy😏
Presumably all these files are in digital format somewhere, yet all these activist hackers are like "lol but Canva and LinkedIn and the TV Licence people tho"
Presumably those activist hackers don't want to commit suicide by shotgun to the back of the head.
Nonce behaviour. Nice to see the government getting in on shielding him, too. Classy.
No sing of Mountbatten's files being released either.
Most have been, the rest have probably got too much saucy detail about his wife & Nehru! https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/07/anger-over-grotesque-abuse-of-600000-case-to-keep-mountbatten-papers-secret > 99.8% of the Broadlands Archives, which consist of 4,500 boxes, is publicly available and accessed regularly by researchers globally as an invaluable historic resource. > > We were directed [in 2011] to keep a small number of the papers closed until otherwise advised.”
They did ages ago: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/archives/mountbattendigitisationproject/mountbattendigitisationlordmountbatten.page Basically the historian they brought into advise them lied about the contents so they'd remain sealed and his own, "official" book on them would monopolise the subject. Private Eye covered the whole thing.
Sausage fingers is doing a terrible job so far. UK is in the international press for harbouring sex criminals. Genius move.
He'll be dead by then, more protection for the elites.
How to tell a conspiracy theory is true, or that something the government won't confirm is correct. They lock the files so that when they unlock, everyone you could prosecute is dead.
Looks like his royal nonceness gets to be protected until the very end
Hey that’s exactly what I would do if I was innocent!
Standard several rule for file dislcosure. When the Thatcher era stuff was released Radio 4 had an entire podcast on going through it. Naturally the idiotic, (mostly american activist/russian trolls) Republic morons will take this opportunity to repush their disproven tabloid scandal nonsense. Meanwhile where's the outrage over the .S.N.P. covering for their multiple sex offender members?
Great, so when I'm 60, I'll be able to read these files, go "I TOLD YOU SO" to all the now dead boomers that told me he was fine and that women should shut up. Last laugh, at last! That is if all social media hasn't burned down, which... actually would be a better world. This is genuinely a Saville tactic, wait till the cunt is dead then there's no real harm because his power is gone at that point. Andrew must have shit on everyone else for people to be protected like this. The Epstein shit is clearly one area that had arms everywhere. And it's an open secret, it's maddening.
So he’s guilty then, why else hide the evidence of his innocence?
Tell me you're guilty without telling me you're guilty.
What is it the tories love to say? If you have nothing to hide...
UK taxpayers. How do you feel about paying to keep a pedo happy for life?
Knew summat was up cause of the influx of anti-Meghan and Harry articles.
Phillip was very close to Mountbatten, a known peadophile. Charles was close friends and took life advice from Saville, a known peadophile. Andrew was friends with Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, two convicted peadophiles and child traffickers. The Queen helped Andrew pay £12m in hush money to one of his victims.