Prince Andrew has been reported to the police by an anti-monarchy campaign group after allegations of sexual assault were made against him in unsealed court documents.

The Duke of York, who has always denied any wrongdoing, was reported to the Metropolitan Police by Republic after he was referenced multiple times in files relating to disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

This was matched by similar calls from a US attorney who represented some of Epstein's victims, who said police in Britain have a duty to investigate Andrew as he 'still refuses to fully account for his time' with the paedophile. 

 

The unredacted documents, which were released on Wednesday in the United States, included allegations Andrew had an orgy with underage girls and touched a woman's breast while posting with a puppet of himself.

It is a fresh setback for the late Queen's second son who, just 10 days ago, walked to church on Christmas Day with the King and the rest of the royal family, symbolising his gradual rehabilitation within the monarchy after his public appearance at his brother's coronation in his garter robes in May.

 

It may see the end of his bid to reenter the royal fold, with well-placed sources telling the Mail that while the court claims were not a surprise, they will have served to 'crystallise' King Charles's determination to solve the 'Andrew problem' decisively.

Plans were already in train to evict him from Royal Lodge, his ten-bedroom Windsor home since 2003, and move him to a smaller residence in keeping with his 'downgraded' status.

The newly released court documents are believed to have strengthened the King's resolve that Andrew will never be allowed to resume royal duties.

The 63-year-old prince, who has previously strenuously denied the allegations, paid millions a year ago to settle a civil case out of court with Virginia Giuffre  with no admission of guilt after she accused him of sexually assaulting her when she was 17. 

 

But he is mentioned more than 70 times in nearly 1,000 pages of interviews and transcripts released in the US in connection with a 2015 defamation case brought by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, who was jailed for sex trafficking young girls for Epstein.

 

FULL STORY

 

 

 

"Prince Andrew is reported to police over Epstein files: Calls on both sides of the Atlantic for the Duke of York to face prosecution"

 

This seems very much like the Daily Mail is putting the cart before the horse, or simply lazy, weak journalism.

 

Prior to any prosecution there needs to be a thorough police investigation. This appears not to have yet been done.

WTF has it got to do with Replublic. The reports are in no way connected to them.

 

If there are charges to be made, leave it to the police and courts.

 

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

WTF has it got to do with Replublic. The reports are in no way connected to them.

 

If there are charges to be made, leave it to the police and courts.

 

‘Republic’ like any organization or indeed any individual have the right to report, in good faith, crime any crime or suspect crime they are aware of to the police.

 

You, for example, have the right to report, in good faith, any crime you suspect ‘Republic’ to have committed.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

‘Republic’ like any organization or indeed any individual have the right to report, in good faith, crime any crime or suspect crime they are aware of to the police.

 

You, for example, have the right to report, in good faith, any crime you suspect ‘Republic’ to have committed.

 

 

 

With answers to questions; Where?, When?, Who?, What did you witness?.

 

Questions that Republic cannot answer.

7 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

With answers to questions; Where?, When?, Who?, What did you witness?.

 

Questions that Republic cannot answer.

No, they can simply point the police in the direction of the sworn testimony from the U.S. court records and U.S. DOJ Investigations.

 

Known as ‘documentary evidence of crimes in the form of formal court records’.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No, they can simply point the police in the direction of the sworn testimony from the U.S. court records and U.S. DOJ Investigations.

 

Known as ‘documentary evidence of crimes in the form of formal court records’.

Then the UK police don't need to be informed. It's already being dealt with. Or at least allegations are. I don't see how Republuc can report a crime when there's no evidence.

 

Like I said, nothing to do with Republic.

16 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Then the UK police don't need to be informed. It's already being dealt with. Or at least allegations are. I don't see how Republuc can report a crime when there's no evidence.

 

Like I said, nothing to do with Republic.

There is evidence, the U.S. courts just released the evidence in the form of formal court records.

 

Or did you miss that bit?

 

 

43 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is evidence, the U.S. courts just released the evidence in the form of formal court records.

 

Or did you miss that bit?

 

 

No. They are allegations. There is no evidence. It would appear the Met agree.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67893392

 

 

Edited January 5, 20242 yr by youreavinalaff

If Andrew is not eventually prosecuted, I hope he sues Giuffre to get his money back.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If Andrew is not eventually prosecuted, I hope he sues Giuffre to get his money back.

Sec workers ain’t no good with managing money she probably spent it on botox already

Why are they bring this up again everyone knows he knew Epstein years ago. Seems the people who hate royals are using this for political reasons how about bj bill Clinton now that’s big news. 

22 minutes ago, EastBayRay said:

Why are they bring this up again everyone knows he knew Epstein years ago. Seems the people who hate royals are using this for political reasons how about bj bill Clinton now that’s big news. 

Clinton is an ex president, who cares. Trump is a presidential candidate, Andrew is a Royal. 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If Andrew is not eventually prosecuted, I hope he sues Giuffre to get his money back.

 

Given that Andrew settled the original case against him out-of-court, I'd suggest that it's extremely unlikely that he would want to instigate a case of his own where the evidence will be identical.

10 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. They are allegations. There is no evidence. It would appear the Met agree.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67893392

 

 

The MET refusing to investigate a member of the Royal Family is no surprise.

 

I doubt Andrew will ever put the idea that the evidence against him are merely ‘allegations’, he’ll never again set foot in the U.S.

 

 

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Clinton is an ex president, who cares. Trump is a presidential candidate, Andrew is a Royal. 

It only matters if the offender is at odds with your political beliefs?

 

Fascinating, although not the least bit surprising given your own political affiliations.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I doubt Andrew will ever put the idea that the evidence against him are merely ‘allegations’, he’ll never again set foot in the U.S.

But there is always Canada, and it seems there is some tradition involved with his likes.

Randy Prince Andy could turn out to be a modern day remittance man

 

 

Edited January 6, 20242 yr by bendejo

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The MET refusing to investigate a member of the Royal Family is no surprise.

 

Actually it's a massive surprise given the Met's political leanings. 

 

I'm sure Sadiq is applying pressure behind the scenes but he may be outgunned on this one.

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

I doubt Andrew will ever put the idea that the evidence against him are merely ‘allegations’, he’ll never again set foot in the U.S.

 

 

 

Not while the senile Anti Brit "Oirish Joe" is in power, that's for sure. Who can blame him? He'd probably face more lawsuits than Trump. 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Actually it's a massive surprise given the Met's political leanings. 

 

I'm sure Sadiq is applying pressure behind the scenes but he may be outgunned on this one.

 

 

Not while the senile Anti Brit "Oirish Joe" is in power, that's for sure. Who can blame him? He'd probably face more lawsuits than Trump. 

I was alluding more to the MET’s own record of dealing with sex offenders within its own ranks.

 

Correcting yet more ill informed nonsense from you, Biden plays no part in the administration of justice.

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

It only matters if the offender is at odds with your political beliefs?

 

Fascinating, although not the least bit surprising given your own political affiliations.

 

Much like the opposing views you had in relation to the allegations made against Huw Edwards and those against Russell Brand? 

 

But at least you are now talking about Andrew being an offender. That's progress. Personally, I prefer the innocent until proven guilty approach but I am all in favour of a full and thorough police investigation into the man you consider to be an offender.

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The MET refusing to investigate a member of the Royal Family is no surprise.

 

I doubt Andrew will ever put the idea that the evidence against him are merely ‘allegations’, he’ll never again set foot in the U.S.

 

 

I think you'll find there will not be an investigation, ar this point, as there is no new or relevant information. Even Starmer, former head of public procecutions said only "credible" accusations should be investigated. 

 

Maybe the MET could go after Republic for wasting police time. They did, afteralll, report a false crime.

11 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Maybe the MET could go after Republic for wasting police time. They did, afteralll, report a false crime.

Support your claim they reported a false crime.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Support your claim they reported a false crime.

It's in the link.

 

 

8 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's in the link.

 

 

Or at least you think it is.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or at least you think it is.

No. It most definitely is there.

 

Maybe you should have gone to Specsavers. Or school.

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. It most definitely is there.

 

Maybe you should have gone to Specsavers. Or school.

Then you’ll have no difficulty at all quoting the text from the article stating ‘Republic’ reported a false crime’.

 

Your claim, go to it, quote the text and prove your statement.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Then you’ll have no difficulty at all quoting the text from the article stating ‘Republic’ reported a false crime’.

 

Your claim, go to it, quote the text and prove your statement.

Please read the report I linked to.

 

The MET and the ex head of public prosecutions make it quite clear.

 

Here's another link to help you:

 

https://www.thesaurus.com/

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 20242 yr by youreavinalaff

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Please read the report I linked to.

 

The MET and the ex head of public prosecutions make it quite clear.

 

Here's another link you might find useful

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/

 

 

I read the report you linked, there is absolutely no statement in that report that ‘Republic’ reported a false crime.

 

Which is why you are now posting links to dictionaries in attempt to dodge being called out for your false claim.

 

44 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Maybe the MET could go after Republic for wasting police time. They did, afteralll, report a false crime.

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I read the report you linked, there is absolutely no statement in that report that ‘Republic’ reported a false crime.

 

Which is why you are now posting links to dictionaries in attempt to dodge being called out for your false claim.

 

 

I'm not dodging anything.

 

No one has "called me out" correctly. Only falsely.

 

The link explains everything. I deleted the link to the dictionary and replaced with a thesaurus prior to your post. That will be more useful to you.

8 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I'm not dodging anything.

 

No one has "called me out" correctly. Only falsely.

 

The link explains everything. I deleted the link to the dictionary and replaced with a thesaurus prior to your post. That will be more useful to you.

How about two birds with one stone.

 

Let’s see you quote text from the article you linked supporting your claim that ‘Republic’ reported a false crime.

 

Or you could simply admit that both claims were wrong and not be owned by your inability to admit when you are wrong.

 

 

Edited January 6, 20242 yr by Chomper Higgot