Git tae fook
Nov. 20th, 2019 05:27 pmhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000c1j4/newsnight-prince-andrew-the-epstein-scandal-the-newsnight-interview
So in May 2006 Epstein's arrested for the sexual assault of a minor, in July of that year he's invited to Windsor castle to celebrate Princess Beatrice's 18th birthday, supposedly because he was the partner of Ghislane Maxwell, who up to this point was not a close friend of Andrew, they just became friends because they knew the same people. Of course this makes perfect sense; having been introduced to someone under police investigation for sexual assault, isn't one's first instinct to invite them to our kids parties?
Dear oh dear.
To justify this, surely either Andrew and Epstein were close friends or Andrew and Ghislane were close friends, and neither works as a reason for such intimacy, because one was a paedophile and the other was a paedophile's pimp.
But OK, let's just say Andrew and Ghislane were good friends beyond the Prince's telling and Epstein was basically Ghislane's "+1" to quote the interview. This +1 was someone that Andrew felt he could not simply let fade out of his acquaintance, he had to go to New York and tell this +1 to his face why the casual acquaintance had to end, out of a sense of honour, and then he had to stay four days in the +1/casual acquaintance/sex offender's house because it was a convenient place to stay. Clearly no sense of honour getting in the way there.
I've no idea about who Andrew did or didn't have sex with, no idea if the allegations about his own conduct have any background in reality. It is possible to know a paedophile for many years and be unaware of it , I guess, but even if Andrew is a total epsilon, he cannot be surrrounded by similar idiots. Who among the royals has universally dim advisors with less knowledge than the aristo they are meant to swerve away from such controversies? All very unlikely.
On a more trivial note, that's an ugly room or very badly lit. But then this is an ugly story about ugly people, so perhaps it's fitting.
So in May 2006 Epstein's arrested for the sexual assault of a minor, in July of that year he's invited to Windsor castle to celebrate Princess Beatrice's 18th birthday, supposedly because he was the partner of Ghislane Maxwell, who up to this point was not a close friend of Andrew, they just became friends because they knew the same people. Of course this makes perfect sense; having been introduced to someone under police investigation for sexual assault, isn't one's first instinct to invite them to our kids parties?
Dear oh dear.
To justify this, surely either Andrew and Epstein were close friends or Andrew and Ghislane were close friends, and neither works as a reason for such intimacy, because one was a paedophile and the other was a paedophile's pimp.
But OK, let's just say Andrew and Ghislane were good friends beyond the Prince's telling and Epstein was basically Ghislane's "+1" to quote the interview. This +1 was someone that Andrew felt he could not simply let fade out of his acquaintance, he had to go to New York and tell this +1 to his face why the casual acquaintance had to end, out of a sense of honour, and then he had to stay four days in the +1/casual acquaintance/sex offender's house because it was a convenient place to stay. Clearly no sense of honour getting in the way there.
I've no idea about who Andrew did or didn't have sex with, no idea if the allegations about his own conduct have any background in reality. It is possible to know a paedophile for many years and be unaware of it , I guess, but even if Andrew is a total epsilon, he cannot be surrrounded by similar idiots. Who among the royals has universally dim advisors with less knowledge than the aristo they are meant to swerve away from such controversies? All very unlikely.
On a more trivial note, that's an ugly room or very badly lit. But then this is an ugly story about ugly people, so perhaps it's fitting.