UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to cooperate with a US congressional investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer emphasized that anyone with relevant information about child sexual offence cases should disclose it. This follows Andrew's failure to respond to a request for an interview from the US House oversight committee, which is investigating Epstein's activities.

 

 

Andrew, stripped of his royal titles last month, has been linked to Epstein through a longstanding friendship. Allegations have also been made by Virginia Giuffre, which Andrew denies. Starmer stated it would be Andrew's "decision" whether to provide information, reinforcing that relevant evidence should be shared.

 

The committee is seeking Andrew's cooperation by a set deadline, though he has not yet replied. Democrats Robert Garcia and Suhas Subramanyam criticized Andrew's lack of response, highlighting the importance of accountability regardless of wealth or status. They vowed to continue their investigation with or without his input.

 

Although compelling Andrew to testify would require Republican support, James Comer, the committee's Republican chair, has yet to decide on pursuing this action. The Epstein case is sensitive, complicating potential cooperation from the Republican majority. Meanwhile, the recently signed Epstein Files Transparency Act mandates the release of documents related to Epstein's case.

 

Even if Congress issues a subpoena, Andrew could avoid legal consequences by staying outside the US, as he has denied any wrongdoing.

 

 

 

Key Takeaways

• Starmer stresses the need for Andrew to provide information on Epstein.
• US committee criticizes Andrew for not responding to interview request.
• Congressional action uncertain without bipartisan support.

 

 

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from  The Guardian  2025-11-23

 

 

 

Since Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is a private citizen it really is none of Starmer's business.

 

If I were Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, and conscious that my public reputaion was already irredemably trashed, I would be tempted to issue a statement telling Starmer he could take a running <deleted> at a rolling doughnut. If nothing else it would raise a few smiles watching to see how the press and media spin that one!

2 minutes ago, JAG said:

Since Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is a private citizen it really is none of Starmer's business.

Why are you going to such lengths to defend someone who has been accused of pedophilia?

4 minutes ago, nick supreme said:

Why are you going to such lengths to defend someone who has been accused of pedophilia?

I'm not defending him, never have done and never will do. I am pointing out that is none of Starmer's business.

21 hours ago, CharlieH said:

highlighting the importance of accountability regardless of wealth or status

Yeah, right.

10 hours ago, EastBayRay said:

or Starmers Ukrainian pretty boys?

 

starmer should be loyal to his countries royalty not throw them under the bus for political points 

 

That blonde liar was 17 anyway. Totally legal even if she was more hooker than looker  

Rubbish. At 17 she was not legal in the USA at the time.

17 hours ago, JAG said:

I'm not defending him, never have done and never will do. I am pointing out that is none of Starmer's business.

Andrew is a lowlife and needs to be held accountable, but i agree with you its none of Starmer's business!

18 hours ago, nick supreme said:

Why are you going to such lengths to defend someone who has been accused of pedophilia?

He has not been accused of that. The girl on the infamous photo, was 17 yeas old, and knew exactly what she was doing, and how much she was getting paid.

32 minutes ago, Will Iam Not said:

He has not been accused of that. The girl on the infamous photo, was 17 yeas old, and knew exactly what she was doing, and how much she was getting paid.

 

I agree that it's lazy to brand him and Epstein as paedophiles, when there is no evidence that they were interested in pre-pubescent children.  That said, paying for sex with anyone under the age of 18 is illegal and the 'evidence' shows that the Epstein victims were trafficked.

No way will he go to the USA voluntarily to testify, a paedo he is, but IMO stupid he is not.

Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.

19 hours ago, JAG said:

I'm not defending him, never have done and never will do. I am pointing out that is none of Starmer's business.

Whether you like it or not if Andrew was not part of royal or high society they would not even be talking.  Comer would issue FBI contact the yard and Andrew visits for a sit down.

 

 

Starmer is doing the polite thing I. Respect to the king.

 

Andrew is not known as a peophile as guifre was 16 not a child but a teen that was trafficked big difference

I havr no time forAndrew.  However he would be a bigger fool than he is now if he was stupid enough to testify to congress.  

Starmer is not creditable these days to give anyone advice

The Americans are looking for guilable scapegoats while protecting their own VIP's. 

I believe Andrew replied “I’ll come clean if you tell us all about the Ukrainian rent boys”.

1 hour ago, Keeenok Powell said:

Ukrainian rent boys

 

Yes that story was quickly swept under the carpet.

Assuming there is relevant evidence, now that Andrew is a private citizen can the USA ask to extradite him?  

 

2 hours ago, johng said:

 

Yes that story was quickly swept under the carpet.

It is probably getting to be a rather lumpy carpet!

On 11/23/2025 at 2:58 PM, nick supreme said:

Why are you going to such lengths to defend someone who has been accused of pedophilia?

Intimacy with mid to late teenage girls is hardly pedophilia which describes adult attraction to young children. Bear in mind that the age of consent in most European countries ranges from 14 to 16 and in the USA states from 16 to 18.

33 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

Assuming there is relevant evidence, now that Andrew is a private citizen can the USA ask to extradite him?  

 

If the evidence is considered not sufficient to be used to prosecute a wide variety of prominent US citizens then I should imagine that the UK courts would not be prepared to order the extradition of private citizen.

 

Once prosecutions have been brought successfully against the American "names", then perhaps so.

 

It is interesting to note that the only sanctions which have been taken or are effective against anyone really are against British Citizens, Ghislaine Maxwell (jailed), Peter Mandelson (sacked in disgrace - water off a ducks back, if he is not used to it by now..) and Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (disgraced). I have no sympathy for any of them, perhaps it is mere co-incidence, perhaps not!

14 minutes ago, JAG said:

If the evidence is considered not sufficient to be used to prosecute a wide variety of prominent US citizens then I should imagine that the UK courts would not be prepared to order the extradition of private citizen.

 

Once prosecutions have been brought successfully against the American "names", then perhaps so.

 

It is interesting to note that the only sanctions which have been taken or are effective against anyone really are against British Citizens, Ghislaine Maxwell (jailed), Peter Mandelson (sacked in disgrace - water off a ducks back, if he is not used to it by now..) and Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (disgraced). I have no sympathy for any of them, perhaps it is mere co-incidence, perhaps not!

Good perspective, thanks.

On 11/23/2025 at 2:55 PM, JAG said:

Since Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is a private citizen it really is none of Starmer's business.

 

If I were Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, and conscious that my public reputaion was already irredemably trashed, I would be tempted to issue a statement telling Starmer he could take a running <deleted> at a rolling doughnut. If nothing else it would raise a few smiles watching to see how the press and media spin that one!

 

Are UK citizens required to pay any attention to US legal proceedings?

 

Worst case they could; if they were feeling vindictive,  deny him entry to the US which in my opinion would be doing him a favour. 

20 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

 

Are UK citizens required to pay any attention to US legal proceedings?

 

Worst case they could; if they were feeling vindictive,  deny him entry to the US which in my opinion would be doing him a favour. 

The UK courts may consider extradition if the United States requests it, for a crime allegedly committed in US jurisdiction. That would require significant evidence, sufficient to justify prosecution had the alleged offence been committed in the United Kingdom, at least some sort of equivalance with an offence under British law, and of course, in a case also involving American Citizens, or parallel to one, in which those American Citizens are also being prosecuted. These would be significant hurdles to getting Andrew Mountbatten Windsor extradited. It is likely that the British courts would wait to see what happens in those American prosecutions before deciding.

 

Of course there is provision for Mountbatten Windsor either to voluntarily give a statement to British Police for passing to an American Police Force, or even, again voluntarily, for him to be interviewed by officials from the US Embassy Legal Attache's office. Such statements and or interviews would have to be conducted under British evidential rules, and he would be entitled to have a British Lawyer present.

 

Might I add, I am not a lawyer, but have studied some law as part of my degree, albeit quite some years ago.

Not a fan of Andrew, but ignoring the US demands and Starmer on this is the right thing to do. The US has no jurisdiction over UK citizens outside its borders, and itself refuses to extradite US citizens abroad anywhere for any reason. You can't have it both ways Congress, you failed to extradite the diplomat that clearly killed Harry Dunn on the roads in the UK, but you want the UK to send a member of the royal family to the US who would be arrested and detained straight away... you are living in fantasy land.

This isn't about the people or case, it's about the principle, the UK should employ reciprocity on stuff with other countries or we are not their equal in other things too, and this is an important point. 

58 minutes ago, JAG said:

The UK courts may consider extradition if the United States requests it, for a crime allegedly committed in US jurisdiction.

 

The process requires that the alleged offense is recognized as a crime in both the requesting and requested countries, known as the principle of dual criminality. 

 

Age of consent in UK is 16. I don't know how old the prostitutes were on Epstein's island. 

 

I'm not a lawyer but I can use Google.

2 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

 

The process requires that the alleged offense is recognized as a crime in both the requesting and requested countries, known as the principle of dual criminality. 

 

Age of consent in UK is 16. I don't know how old the prostitutes were on Epstein's island. 

 

I'm not a lawyer but I can use Google.

That is what I said.

11 hours ago, brian69 said:

No way will he go to the USA voluntarily to testify, a paedo he is, but IMO stupid he is not.

 

Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor's poor judgment, self-entitlement, and lack of awareness suggest that he might not be the brightest light around.