By Danny C. | DCPeriodical | 01/17/20
Prince Andrew accuser Virginia Giuffre alleges she was forced by Jeffrey Epstein madame, Ghislaine Maxwell, to have sex with the prince on March 10, 2001. Prince Andrew, photographed with a 17-year-old Giuffre and Maxwell below — denies the allegation. He says he was with his daughter at a pizzeria. Unfortunately for the prince, nobody can corroborate this.
As Prince Andrew is royalty, he is assigned government provided police security to protect him, and so his movements are recorded. So, the Mirror UK took the logical next step in settling the question as to where he was that night — with his daughter or with Guiffre — by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to learn his police details whereabouts that night. The response they received speaks volumes.
Claiming that “information could put national security at risk and aid criminals,” the FOIA request was rejected, sparking a major backlash from the public.
The Met’s decision has been branded “daft” by a security expert, and an anti-monarchy campaigner branded the explanation “nonsense”.-Mirror Online
That “anti-monarchy campaigner” mentioned above is Graham Smith, whose outfit lobbies to end rule-by-blood from Britain’s political system, put forth some excellent points to show the rejection for what it is.
“Their response is nonsense,” he submitted “…Revealing locations from 19 years ago can not possibly reveal personal data either directly or indirectly.
“The police are tasked with protecting the royals from physical harm, not from legitimate inquiry, criminal investigation or embarrassment. I hope this decision will be challenged as far it needs to go.”
Buckingham Palace security and intelligence expert, Professor Anthony Glees, surely agrees:
“I think in this case it would be unreasonable to deny your request as there are no conceivable national security implications. As a senior royal, Prince Andrew would have been given protection. There are no reasonable grounds for not confirming this.”
After media and public reprisal over a train wreck interview last month with the BBC, in which the Prince did his best to cover his tracks, the Queen cut him, her (former) favorite son, off from his duties as a member of the Royal Family. His excuses, which included losing the ability to sweat and the photo of him and Giuffre being doctored, were weak at best. What’s more, the Duke admitted to seeing Epstein, and even staying at his mansion for a week, after the now-dead child trafficker’s 2010 pedophilia convictions.
In a letter refusing to answer the Mirror’s Freedom of Information request, the Met said releasing the team’s movement “could undermine the safeguarding of national security, allowing those with a criminal intent to gain an operational advantage over the MPS and place those who the MPS have confirmed are afforded protection, as well as protection officers, and members of the public at risk.”
In related news, Prince Andrew may be losing his royal security detail altogether.
According to the NY Times yesterday:
Prince Andrew could be stripped of his round-the-clock armed police protection because of the blowback from his Jeffrey Epstein scandal, it was revealed Thursday.
The UK’s Home Office ordered a major review of the Duke of York’s security after he was booted from royal duties following his disastrous attempts to justify his close friendship with the notorious pedophile, sources told the Evening Standard.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson will ultimately have the final decision, and what he chooses could also have major consequences for Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, as they too are in the process of shedding their royal duties.
“Those in charge of royal security cannot write a blank check for anyone who does not have a public role for the foreseeable future,” an unnamed source told the Evening Standard.
Should Andrew lose his mandated Met security, it will be on him to fork out the cash to pay for private guards to protect him round the clock from here on out, which, of course, would be incredibly costly. As the NY Times pointed out, the “cost of protecting the royal family…is estimated to be at least $130 million a year.” That’s well over a million dollars per member.
Thank you so much for reading! As independent media, continuation of this periodical is only possible through the kind support of our readers. Without your help, this important publication cannot go on. Become a patron by donating here, and if you can’t donate, that’s okay! You can help out greatly by simply clicking one of the share buttons below. And, hey! Don’t forget to subscribe and follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
SHARE ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND REPUBLISH TO YOUR BLOGS AND SITES (with links and credit to original article and author, of course).