Andrew.

[saundra]

Probably because his mum
His brother charles
And nephew William
Required him to do so

[jenniren]

Whether he knew she was trafficked? We will never know.
Andrew was an idiot who should have known better and has a singular lack of moral fibre. But had he done this to a UK citizen none of this would be in the courts because it is impossible to prove that he knew what Epstein was doing.

You're right Suff, but regardless of the legality it shows him as an arrogant entitled sleazy individual. He damned himself when he denied ever knowing Virginia Giuffre, although a photograph which I understand has been examined by experts was deemed genuine, and for his absolute indifference to any of the trafficked girls. Most of all for continuing his association with a man found guilty of being a pedifile.

I feel deeply sorry for the Queen who has had to make the difficult decision to strip her son of his position. As his mother I'm sure she desperately wants to believe him, but nevertheless she has done what needs to be done to protect our Royal family. The sooner he slinks away and allows her to celebrate her special year the better.

[Workingman]

Let's get it right and stop crowing.

Nobody is crowing, we are asking relevant questions and requesting truthful answers. If, as a Monarchist, you don't like that then hard lines.

I feel deeply sorry for the Queen who has had to make the difficult decision to strip her son of his position. As his mother I'm sure she desperately wants to believe him, but nevertheless she has done what needs to be done to protect our Royal family. The sooner he slinks away and allows her to celebrate her special year the better.

So we do agree on some things Jen.

[Suff]

You're right Suff, but regardless of the legality it shows him as an arrogant entitled sleazy individual.

My comment about singular lack of moral fibre. Same thing....

[Suff]

Nobody is crowing, we are asking relevant questions and requesting truthful answers. If, as a Monarchist, you don't like that then hard lines.

And ignoring the facts at the same time.

Fact 1. He did not commit a crime in under UK law.
Fact2. He did commit a crime under US law, but only in certain states and the US government are not pursuing him.

How about requesting truthful answers about that??

Oh, I forgot, you don't want to know that.

[Workingman]

Eh? He broke the law in one place but not in another... so that makes him innocent?

He is on trial in the US under their laws. Fact.

He is free to attend and defend himself or stay away. It is his choice. The US government is not involved, it is a civil case!

My thinking is that if Mr A Windsor is innocent he should turn up and vigorously defend himself, no holds barred. It's what I would do.

[victor]

If he is now a private citizen as I understand it does he have any right to continue living where he is living?

[Suff]

Eh? He broke the law in one place but not in another... so that makes him innocent?

You don't want to get it do you.

He has done nothing wrong under UK law. Epstein might have, but he didn't and I don't believe he was complicit or he would have been in the dock with Maxwell.

As for US law, it depends on the state which is a mess and plenty of US citizens fall foul of their fragmented state laws.

What I was pointing out was that there are real facts that you and the MSM don't want to hear.

How many times do I need to say that what he did was reprehensible?

The other facts you don't want to hear are that the woman who is taking this legal action has already settled out of court with Epstein, has already signed away her rights to exactly this kind of action but gone back on her sworn commitment.

You want to go after someone after already having taken half a million in settlement, then you expose yourself to censure.

It is, in the end, her word against his and he cannot admit guilt otherwise government legal proceedings will follow.

Whatever I think of Andrew and that is not much, I refuse to be blinded by mass media with a slanted viewpoint.

Do I think Andrew deserves to lose all he has lost? Yes I do for being stupid enough to expose himself in that way and dragging the family through this mess.

Do I think sensationalism makes good legal cases?

No.

Don't assume I think he is entirely innocent. I just happen to believe that there is more to this story and I refuse to be silenced by someone shouting the same thing over and over.

It doesn't make the case and refusing to engage on the other side of this case just makes the position dogma and doesn't promote the argument.

Andrew is another story, now I have looked further into it, I am completely ignoring.

[Workingman]

His mum and big brother and the nephew who one day will be king don't agree with you.

They have hung him out to dry to protect brand Windsor. They are not waiting to see if he could clear his name in court, they have acted, and swiftly. Enough is enough, and when the institution is under threat dynastic preservation trumps flesh and blood.

It was short but not very sweet.

"With the Queen's approval and agreement, the Duke of York's military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to the Queen.

"The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen."

Amen.

[cromwell]

They have hung him out to dry to protect brand Windsor. They are not waiting to see if he could clear his name in court, they have acted, and swiftly. Enough is enough, and when the institution is under threat dynastic preservation trumps flesh and blood.

Yes. They realise that in the court of public opinion Andrew has already been judged, and the verdict is not a kind one. No sympathy at all though, regardless of the legal ifs and buts, he was hanging around with a millionaire perv with a taste for very young girls.

Andrew may feel badly done to (Epstein had many other famous chums as well), but really, he has no defence.