Andrew Windsor – The Real Question is Why he hasn’t Been Questioned by the Met – has Rape been Decriminalised?
The time has come for this dysfunctional family to be retired and Britain to become a Democratic Republic
It beggars belief that Andrew Windsor is innocent of the allegations made against him by Virginia Giuffre. Allegations which he strenuously denied in his disastrous interview with Emily Maitlis in November 2019. A child could work out that you don’t pay £10m+ to someone you don’t know.
Rape is having sex without consent. A 17 year old girl who is being trafficked, i.e. not free to go, is not in a position to give meaningful consent. The question is why the Metropolitan Police haven’t interviewed her. It appears that the Met has a policy for the rich and powerful and another for us.
As I wrote at the time, the interview with Emily Maitlis was in the traditions of the BBC’s sycophantic coverage of all things Royal. It was a soft softball interview. Yet despite the reluctance of Maitlis to pursue obvious lines of inquiry, such as why he had spent 4 days with Jeffrey Epstein at his New York mansion and what he had done during that time, or why he didn’t avail himself of the hospitality of the British Embassy, it was a car crash interview.
The only mitigating factor for Andrew Windsor is that he must be incredibly stupid, even by Royal standards. How could he have ever thought that this interview would clear him? His own press spokesman resigned at the time after his advice had been disregarded. And yet the Queen, who had the power to prohibit the interview, did nothing. Clearly stupidity is a Windsor characteristic. Too much inbreeding!
Windsor’s explanations, his inability to sweat or the outing to the Woking Pizza Express, were widely derided at the time. Clearly his decision to settle, despite his bravado that he was looking forward to giving evidence, reflected the fact that these were brazen and pathetic lies. His assertion that he had benefited from being associated with Epstein caused widespread revulsion but we should bear in mind that standards in the Royal Family are not those of most people nor was it the only time that the Windsors have supported Establishment paedophiles.
Charles Windsor consistently supported Peter Ball, the ex-bishop of Lewes and Gloucester, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting two young men. Ball, was sentenced to 32 months in October 2015 for charges relating to 18 teenagers and young men between the 1970s and 1990s. He admitted one count of misconduct in public office and two counts of indecent assault relating to two young men.
The first police investigation into Ball, who died in June, was launched in 1992. Despite there being an abundance of evidence to bring the case to trial, it was decided that Ball would get a “police caution” for gross indecency instead. The report found that one of the detectives working on the case was worried about the case going to trial due to Ball’s mental state and the “devastating effect” it could have on the Church of England.
There was also an understanding that Ball would resign from his post, which he did. But just four months later, the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, wrote to Ball about planning his “cautious return to ministry.” Less than two years later, he was back to work with “no restrictions” — and was even allowed to be around children and young people unsupervised.
In June 2017 George Carey resigned from his last formal role in the church after Dame Moira Gibb‘s independent investigation found he covered up, by failing to pass to police, six out of seven serious sex abuse allegations relating to 17- to 25-year-olds against Bishop Peter Ball. In 2019 the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse [ICSA] confirmed Carey had discredited credible allegations of child sex abuse within the Church and failing to accompany disciplinary action with adding to the church’s own safeguarding watchlist.
IICSA said Carey showed compassion to Peter Ball that was not extended to his victims, and displayed overt support for Ball’s innocence despite having no justification. The church’s response was marked by secrecy, prevarication and avoidance of reporting crimes.
The report spoke of “The damaging consequence of this overriding allegiance to one’s own ‘tribe’ was that child protection was compromised” in the Diocese of Chichester. Perpetrators, about whom there were allegations or even convictions, were provided with unrestricted access to children and young people.
Apologies given by Justin Welby, the present archbishop of Canterbury, and other senior church figures over the C of E’s failures were “unconvincing”. Alexis Jay, the inquiry’s chair, said:
‘For years, the diocese of Chichester failed victims of child sexual abuse by prioritising its own reputation above their welfare. Not only were disclosures of abuse handled inadequately by the church, its response was marked by secrecy and a disregard for the seriousness of the abuse allegations.’
Carey told the inquiry that he was “under great pressure” from Ball’s supporters. William Chapman, representing survivors, told the inquiry: “The story of Peter Ball is the story of the establishment at work in modern times.” Ball had been able to call upon the
George Carey – a nasty racist, Zionist and homophobe
‘willing assistance of members of the establishment. It included the heir to the throne, the archbishop and a senior member of the judiciary, to name only the most prominent.’
Neil Todd, who made the first complaint against Ball to the police in 1992, killed himself in 2012 after several previous attempts.
A separate independent review of the Ball case, commissioned by the C of E and published last year, found evidence of collusion and a cover-up at the highest levels over a 20-year period. Peter Hancock, the bishop of Bath and Wells said:
‘The report states that the CoE should have been a place which protected all children and supported victims and survivors and the inquiry’s summary recognises that it failed to do this…. the church at all levels should learn lessons from the issues raised in this report.’
In order to demonstrate how much it had learnt its lessons in February 2018 Carey was granted permission to officiate by Steven Croft, the bishop of Oxford, allowing him to preach and preside at churches. This was revoked on 17 June 2020 as the church found Carey could have done more to pass to police allegations of historic beatings at schools and evangelical children’s camps, by John Smyth. Permission was restored to Carey seven months later.
As a result of publicity a second police investigation was launched in 2012, which resulted in Ball pleading guilty three years later to misconduct in public office and indecent assault and abusing a total of 18 teens and young men over a period of 15 years. He was released from prison in February 2017, after serving half of his 32-month sentence.
The scandal involving Charles Windsor arose as a result of his relationship with Ball between the first police investigation and Ball being reinstated in the church.
Windsor was among the many influential people in the UK that Ball formed friendships with, including Margaret Thatcher, senior judges, and headmasters at private schools, according to The Guardian.
He also is said to have often preached at Sandringham, one of the royal family’s private estates.
In August 1994, Charles Windsor sent his private secretary to Lambeth Palace to inquire about Ball’s status to the Archbishop’s top aide. When he learned that Ball had still not been cleared to return to ministry in February 1995, he wrote to Ball saying “I wish I could do more.”
Charles wrote, in one of the many letters exchanged during their two-decade correspondence.
He even bought Ball a house to live in, using the Duchy of Cornwall (our money!) to purchase the property and then renting it out to Ball and his twin brother from 1995 to 2011.
An independent inquiry criticizes the Prince of Wales
After Ball’s conviction, an independent inquiry into child abuse was launched into how the case was handled.
When the panel published their report they said “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided”. In other words a slap on the wrist.
His actions, and those of his staff, could have been interpreted as expressions of support for Peter Ball and, given the Prince of Wales’ future role within the Church of England, had the potential to influence the actions of the Church,
while Windsor said he
took no position on Peter Ball’s return to ministry, he and his private secretary enquired about Peter Ball within Lambeth Palace. He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,”
But this should not be any surprise. The Queen herself has maintained close relations with the most abominable of her relations abroad such as King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain. As the Guardian reported in May 2019
The king regularly attends the prestigious five-day Royal Windsor horse show, which is a highlight in the Queen’s year. Pictures on Friday showed him meeting the British monarch and Prince Andrew, with the two heads of state laughing together as they watched the event.
Such is the closeness of the two monarchs that they have gifted each other horses from their respective stables; the king providing two to the Queen in 2013. The British monarch responded in 2017, giving him a horse in return.
The King maintains a veritable dictatorship in Bahrain which Britain has supplied with over £100 million of arms since 2011. Bahrain is a Sunni dictatorship ruling over a majority Shia population. The Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 were met with murderous repression including Saudi Arabia despatching troops to put it down.
Doctors and nurse tending the wounded were themselves tortured. A report here gives further details on the unsavoury relations of the Queen
In May 2012 the Queen hosted a gathering of her unsavoury relations such as the Sultan of Brunei who introduced a law that included stoning to death for gays and those who commit adultery. It was only under heavy pressure that he was forced not to implement them (though one can never be sure).
So Andrew is not the Black Sheep of his family. Far from it. He is just the most stupid and brazen of the Windsors, a dysfunctional and parasitic family.
It is not however a question of the personal inadequacies of this inbred family. It is a question of democracy. No one would ever suggest that we should appoint hereditary mathematicians or poets. Why then do we still have hereditary heads of state?
The slavish loyalty of the BBC and unprincipled politicians like Starmer and Johnson to the monarchy has nothing to do with the ‘good’ job that Elizabeth Windsor performs. It has everything to do with the important political role that the monarchy plays in legitimising the British state. They are the symbol of the British state and the armed forces swear their allegiance, not to the people of Britain but the Queen in state.
As such the monarchy is a perpetual threat to democracy. If Corbyn had become Prime Minister, despite the hostility of the British Establishment and the threats of unnamed Generals, then it is quite feasible that a coup would have been launched, as it has in other countries, in the name of the Monarch.
The political function of the Royals is to serve as the icing on a poisonous cake. They represent the heart of an undemocratic state, with its unelected Lords. They are the face of privilege and perform the role of binding together the nation in obeisance to a myth. However rich or poor you are you can always identify with the ‘Royals’. The slavish and gushing coverage in the tabloid press aims at making them appear ‘human’ and one of us.
I prefer the advice of the revolutionary poet Percy Shelley who wrote in his Philosophical View of Reform (1820) that ‘Monarchy is only the string which ties the robber’s bundle.’ It is as true now as it was 200 years ago.