THE SUN - Has referred to 2022 as the Queen's second Annus Horribilus, the first being in 1992. The sex scandal involving the former Prince Andrew, her second son, now stripped on his HRH and military honours, looks set to haunt the institution that is the Royal Family. What does that mean for the Monarchy. Would anyone want to sit on that throne?

It seem that the shit has hit the proverbial fan, with the Royals ganging up against former Prince Andrew, as they seek to escape being tarred with the same brush. But then they are related, and simply stripping one of a few trinkets, does nothing to erase the fact that the Duke of York is the future King's brother and uncle to the King in waiting. And, Buck House, Balmoral and possibly other royal haunts were potentially the scenes of the crime(s).

2022 is the year of her Platinum 70 year Jubilee celebrations. In 1992, twenty years ago, the Monarch had what she described as her, 'Annus Horribilus, 'a really awful year for the British institution that is the Royal Family - otherwise known as The Firm.

At this rate we won't have enough Royals remaining to able to carry out their official duties. Such as the Opening of Parliament. But will we notice? London will still be the capital of England, and the Palace, a tourist attraction. A curiosity from a bygone age maybe, but now with a bit of scandal attaching. So, maybe more people will want to read about the goings on and see where it all took place. Alcatraz was interesting to some, now a ruin and sometime film location.

WINTER OF DISCONTENT

Twenty-Twenty-One was bad, but now in 2022, the United Kingdom is being rocked from side to side by revelations that are bound to awaken the interest of the commoners, who may start to think that they have been taken for a ride for long enough - and with things this bad - may want to scrap the Monarchy and install a Written Constitution as a fairer replacement - where at present, the UK is suffering more from the royals, than from Bullshit Bojo of Clowning Street. If that is, the present undercurrent of discontent continues, we may as well scrap the Honours System and make secret societies illegal at the same time, for a clean sweep. For collectively, they are undermining the rights of the many, to benefit the favoured few. The UK is the drug money laundering capital of the world. That tells us a lot. Why?

The UK is taking in drug money by way of allowing overseas investors to purchase the rash of new builds, being built in such a way that locals cannot afford to buy them. You may have heard about the shortage of affordable housing.

Council's are not making land available for sustainable building projects - as they are supposed to. And the Government is not taking them to task over that.

Thus there is a boom of executive house building, especially in the south of England. The rents generated from these purchases is effectively laundering the dirty drug money – but also making houses less affordable, as drug dealers will pay over the odds to launder their money. So making local houses more expensive for locals, who are then forced to rent.

Central government knows about this, but are sitting on their hands – raking in the dirty cash – in the full knowledge that housing benefits will be paid to drug dealers. So hiking up Council Taxes. In other words, the British taxpayer is paying extra as taxes, to help drug dealers legitimize themselves. 

The conflict of interest is obvious. Many conservatives and party supporters are themselves landlords or house builders – who don’t want to rock the boat. They like the gravy train. Many of them own building companies.

They get to build expensive houses the market could not support without drug money – and the less well off electorate could never afford to buy. 

Council’s know all this and love it. They get to charge more rates, instead of Band A for the affordable units that they failed to build - and rake in CIL payments - as another Brucey Bonus.

That is why there are no affordable houses.

The Government could easily use anti-terrorism algorithms to track house purchases via the Land Registry, then trace back the source of the money overseas. Only money that is legitimate, from tax paid sources in other countries, would be allowed to be used to buy property in the UK.

The fact that successive governments have done nothing to stop this horrendous situation, adds to the shame of the nation. Making Andrew's escapades seem tame, if as alleged, the claims are true.

The money coming into the UK property market is not limited to drugs, but also includes sex trafficking.

YAHOO NEWS 10 OCTOBER 2021 - ‘Total D*ckhead’: Royal Sources Dump All Over Prince Andrew

Prince William thinks Prince Andrew is “threat” to royals

If Prince Andrew is feeling downbeat about Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s lawsuit against him - alleging he sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was a minor, which he emphatically denies - today’s detailed U.K. Sunday Times report about how disliked he is among the rest of the royals and those professionally associated with him will only darken his mood.

A friend of Prince William’s tells the paper, “William is no fan of Uncle Andrew.” The paper also says that William, like the rest of the royals, believes Prince Andrew’s expulsion from public life should be permanent. “There is no way in the world he’s ever coming back, the family will never let it happen,” a royal source says.

Prince Andrew Breaks Cover and Finally Meets His Granddaughter

A source goes on to say that one of the “triggers” that “really gets” William is his uncle’s perceived “ungracious and ungrateful” attitude towards his position, which William considers “a risk” and “threat to the family,” the Times says. “Any suggestion that there isn’t gratitude for the institution, anything that could lead anyone in the public to think that senior members of the royal family aren’t grateful for their position, [William thinks] is really dangerous,” the source told the paper.

It is often said that Andrew’s real shield is the queen; when he seemed to be on the run from being served the Giuffre legal papers, he went straight to her Scottish summer home, Balmoral. But the Times says the oft-repeated story that he is her favorite child is not true, and she is more focused on protecting the institution than Andrew. 

Watch: Met Police ‘drop investigation into Prince Andrew sexual abuse allegations’, reports claim

As for Prince Charles, the paper reports that “the prince loves his brother”, but Giuffre’s lawsuit continues to bring “unwelcome reputational damage to the institution,” meaning - as far as Charles is concerned - “a way back for the duke is demonstrably not possible, because the specter of this [accusation] raises its head with hideous regularity.”

How is Andrew feeling about this family pile-on? Well, unsurprisingly not great. There is no shared toast and marmalade here. 

Andrew’s camp tells the Times that the palace could be “much more supportive and engaged” over the Giuffre lawsuit. A source close to Andrew says the royals “have just stuck their fingers in their ears and gone, ‘Make it stop, make it go away.’ But Harry and Meghan should have taught them that even when a problem ‘goes away’, it doesn’t go away. The duke can no more be disinvested as a senior member of the royal family than Harry and Meghan can. It is who and what they are. If they don’t engage at all, it is going to become like Harry and Meghan on steroids.”

The problem Andrew faces, and which the Sunday Times sketches in excruciatingly damning detail, is that no one in his family or royal circles has a nice word to say about him. Like, absolutely no one. Andrew is described as boorish, arrogant, and insufferable - hence the deafening silence when it comes to anyone offering their support to him. 

One aide tells the Times: “He’s not made any friends on the way up, so no one is helping him on the way down.” One Whitehall source says he is a “a self-important bore.” “I’ve got no time for Andrew. He’s a total dickhead, an arrogant shit,” a military source adds for good measure. “A total diva, lashing out at everyone,” says another, recalling his 2012 abseil down the Shard in London.

A former staff member says: “He’s quite an arrogant chap with a tendency to blame other people when things go wrong, instead of looking at his own behavior. The Duke of York has never been one to take advice that doesn’t suit him, and he doesn’t hold back in letting you know what to do with that advice that he doesn’t want to hear.” “He’s a deeply unpleasant man,” another former aide tells the Times. “The difference you see between him and the way Prince William and the Prince of Wales treat their staff with respect, straight out of the Queen’s handbook, is stark.”

Enough? Nah. Other royal sources tell the Times Andrew is “a busted flush” with a “toxic” presence.

“No business or brand in the country would touch him,” says another royal source. “He should go and manage one of the royal estates, or do something within the royal set-up that provides him with an entirely private role. He has to come to terms with a position as a private member of the royal family and stop trying to get back what he once had. He has to embrace a different role for the rest of his life. That will probably crush him, but he has to come to terms with it.”

So, what can a source described as close to Prince Andrew have to offer against this relentless, character-trampling barrage? 

Not much. His U.S. legal team, led by Andrew Brettler, “will be looking to robustly engage and challenge the claims from Mrs Giuffre in an attempt to provide the duke with a platform to finally clear his name,” the source tells the Times. “They will be looking to examine and dismantle the claims one by one. By launching this civil case, Mrs Giuffre has actively invited legal scrutiny of her own version of events. This provides an opportunity for the duke’s team to scrutinize properly the multiple inconsistencies in her narrative that have emerged over the years, and you can expect to see a rigorous defense of all her allegations.”

Whatever happens in the Giuffre case, Andrew has never looked as reviled and isolated within his own family - and according to the Sunday Times he only has himself to blame.

As if the news of how much his family and courtiers would dearly like to never have to see or think about him again didn’t make worrying enough reading for the beleaguered prince, now comes news that British police have questioned Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a dramatic development which could ultimately lead to a criminal investigation into her claims being opened in the U.K.

The Sunday Times reports that London’s Metropolitan Police contacted Giuffre after she filed her civil lawsuit against Andrew, because in that suit she claimed that on one occasion she was raped by Andrew at Ghislaine Maxwell’s Mayfair home. It is here, of course, that the notorious photograph of Andrew with his hand around Giuffre’s waist was taken.

Virginia Roberts, as she was then known, was 17 at the time and the age of consent in the U.K. is 16. But she alleges that she was trafficked to London by Jeffrey Epstein and forced to have sex with Andrew. Andrew has denied any wrongdoing, said he has “no recollection” of even meeting her and strongly implied the photograph is a fake.

Dame Cressida Dick, the head of the Metropolitan Police, when asked about Andrew’s case earlier in the year said: “As a result of what’s going on, I’ve asked my team to have another look at the material…No one is above the law.” (Dick herself facing calls to quit her job, in the wake of Sarah Everard's murder by Met Police officer Wayne Couzens.)

British police have scoped Giuffre’s allegations before but always concluded it was a matter for U.S. authorities.

Giuffre’s lawyer, Sigrid McCawley, told the Sunday Times: “Given the clear and compelling evidence implicating Prince Andrew, the Metropolitan Police should reopen its investigation and stand by their statement that no one is above the law.”

Prince Charles’ key aide Michael Fawcett carries the can

Let’s not forget that Prince Andrew is not the only member of the royal family to be in a spot of bother these days.

Prince Charles’ key aide Michael Fawcett nobly fell on his sword in the cash-for-honors scandal, after it emerged that he had helped arrange an honor for a Saudi businessman, Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz. Mahfouz was awarded a CBE after having coincidentally happened to have donated £1.5m to pet projects of the prince. Charles bestowed the honor in person, yet denies any wrongdoing in the affair.

Now, the Mail on Sunday reports, Fawcett “will this week be accused of keeping the ethics committee at Charles's charity 'in the dark' about multi-million-pound fundraising activities.”

The paper says the accusation will be made by an “independent inquiry” that was ordered up by Prince’s Foundation.

The straws in the wind are not looking good for Fawcett, with a source telling the paper he was “operating behind the backs of the board. It was very much outside their knowledge.”

The source adds: “I’m sure the Prince of Wales didn’t even know what was going on. Even the letters he signed would have been written by Michael.”

How very convenient for everyone involved - except Fawcett.

Harry and family to skip party for Diana statue

There were great hopes this summer that the unveiling of a statue to honor their mother would bring William and Harry together.

Instead, the event will mainly be remembered for the awkward interaction of the brothers.

The event had originally been intended to be a big affair. However, due to Covid numbers were cut back to a bare minimum of Spencer family members. A bigger party, it was said, would be held later in the year to invite everyone who couldn’t make it first time round.

Now that coronavirus restrictions have been lifted, the party for around 100 people is due to take place next week. Only one problem: Harry isn’t coming, and nor are his wife and kids, the Telegraph reports, on the basis of communications with Harry’s press secretary.

Without the excuse of coronavirus restrictions to hide behind, the depth of the estrangement between Harry and the other royals will only become more stark as events like this are simply missed.

Domestic bliss

Meanwhile, at Sussex Towers in Montecito, the family are reportedly living in harmony. Us Weekly reports that Archie, has “a lovable and sweet nature” and is “coming into his own” as a big brother to Lili.

“The Sussexes do have nannies to call on when their schedules get crazed, but they’re still extremely hands-on and try to keep the hired help to a minimum for the most part,” an ‘insider’ told the outlet: “It’s been easier for them with Lili in many ways, even though it’s twice the work, technically, because they’ve been able to use a lot of the techniques they learned with Archie and take care of things like feeding or bathing without too much fuss.”

Prince Harry is “the most caring dad,” and raising his children is “just paradise for Harry,” the magazine says.

This week in royal history

Some happier memories for Prince Andrew... Daughter Eugenie and husband Jack Brooksbank celebrate their third wedding anniversary on Oct. 12. Ex-wife Sarah Ferguson - who Andrew remains very close to, and whom the Sunday Times reports he may eventually remarry, turns 62 on Oct. 15. 

Unanswered questions

Can Andrew ever recover any supportive capital within the royal family? If not, what does his future hold?

Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret, with the Queen Mother and Father, enjoying a Sieg Heil, (or Hail Victory) salute - no doubt in jest. But nevertheless, the Royal Family were at one point seen associating with Adolf Hitler.

BRITISH INJUSTICES

With the Duke of York accused of rape. The first Royal for many a year to have such charges leveled at him,  the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA) become a rather hostile piece of legislation - if the same standards are used for investigating the former Prince, as has been used on commoners.

The SOA says a claimant is to be believed during police investigation stages, and the defendant is to be treated as guilty in gathering evidence, and during police interviews, etc. What that means is that the police will not be looking for evidence that points to the accused being innocent. Such evidence will either not be secured for the defence, or will be buried as unused evidence. But a prosecution will still be mounted, even though the police know there is evidence to the contrary - that they are hiding from the Courts, as officer's of the Court - because the SOA directs them to do that. Also, in violation of the normal Investigations Code of Conduct.

Then, when the parties enter a Crown Court, the Judge is to treat the defendant as guilty. There does not need to be a shred of evidence as to an/any actual physical encounter, just potential opportunity - and the assertion by the claimant that something untoward too place at some time in the past.

No warning is given to the Jury as to the danger of convicting on the mere say so of just the claimant. That right has been abrogated - in the SOA.

Hence, David Blunkett did a pretty good job of removing the Article 6 protections of the accused in sex cases, where a person would normally walk into a courtroom innocent, until proven guilty. In the UK, you are guilty until proven innocent. All thanks to Blunkett and the civil servants helping him to draft such legislation.

For that reason, we think of David Blunkett as a Human Rights offender. To us, and we imagine many people wrongly convicted, he is no better that a Nazi prison guard, when administering Zyklon B in the gas ovens at concentration camps like Buchenwald and Auschwitz. It was these atrocities that brought about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UK helped draft those Articles in 1948, and ever since, just like the 1689 Bill of Rights, have been slowly undoing all the good that came from the Second World War.

For that little human rights abomination, the MP who was having an extra marital affair - thus generating a conflict of interests (blow jobs in exchange for expunging male rights) changed the law. But how many blow jobs did it take, allegedly, you might ask? And was it worth it? Well, David was seen laughing a lot, around that time. So make of that what you will.

Women's Rights activists will go to almost any lengths to gain equality, like Emily Davidson jumping out in front of the King's race horse on a fast race track at the Derby in 1913 - so suicide - to the point of chasing superiority, rights over men's lives in a court room, that goes beyond equality.

A few blow jobs and even intercourse, will not matter to the die-hards, as long as they get what they want. And they did. The details of which we'll leave to your imagination. But just imagine if you were in court, and your defence barrister was giving the clerk and the judges blow jobs, hand jobs, or whatever. Of course, they'd probably find you as the defendant not guilty. The reverse situation, is where the Plaintiff's barrister, or the prosecution are giving blow jobs to the Jury, etc., when the Court may then find the defendant guilty.

What is the difference? See Rex v Sussex Justices exparte McCarthy 1924.

Regardless of these wrongs, and as the Queen passed the offending Act into law, we are sure she is now looking at what she has done with fresh eyes, where such actions may now see her son Andrew doing time at a HMP, presumably, with maximum security paid for by the State. For he would then be a convicted sex offender - and a bacon - as the other prisoners call those who screw under age girls - or indeed, rape them. He'd be called a paedophile and suffer other verbal hate messages, and maybe even physical abuse. Presumably why Jeffrey Epstein hanged himself, or was hanged.

Lucky for Randy Andy, there is no 'hard labour' in British prisons, just cushy jobs mopping floors, or preparing food. And he can watch TV and play video games, with earned privileges. He'd probably serve 3-4 years of a 7-8 year sentence - with good behaviour. Maybe more if there was oral and/or anal sex, and trafficking is taken into consideration. At least he'd keep his properties, as these would not be proceeds of crime - or at least we think not. But we have no idea if the Duke profited by his association with Ghislaine Maxwell's friends, or those of Jeffrey Epstein.

With such a case precedent, many more royals may become targets, with ever so much more elaborate schemes, to trap the unwary. David Blunkett may then come in for some stick, for removing the Article 6 human rights of men and women in the UK. Article 6 says a person is to treated as innocent, until proved guilty in a court of law.

AIMED AT MEN

Though, we doubt a jury would convict a woman, if a man cried rape. Hence, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is aimed at men specifically and deliberately - as well the "blow job" lobbyists know. Has there ever been a conviction of a woman for raping a man in the UK? What are the statistics?

The fact Britain also rewards war criminals, and allows a prime minister to lie to the Crown and get away with it, does not bode well - once the voting public realize that their Head of State is not keeping the UK safe from corruption, but is actually perpetuating it. It's like one giant cover up after another. The exact opposite of the United Nations SDGs: demanding transparency in government and institutions, such as the Courts, CPS and police. 

And then there is the honours system for sale. If you've got the cash, you can more or less, buy into The Firm, according to many media articles making or inferring such allegations. The honours system infects and corrupts British Courts, police and prosecuting authorities. Taking away their independence. The Queen is also a Patron of part of the Masons. The Masons is a secret society, with obscure rituals, bordering on satanic in style with aprons and other paraphernalia  that the ordinary person would raise an eyebrow over. Even Italy bans secret societies - and they have the Mafia.

COMMENT

According to BBC Newsnight and Independent articles, Britain is the most corrupt country, with London the money laundering capital of the world. Whistleblowers are ruined with a 100% success rate, apparently. Meaning that the whistle is almost never blown. David Cameron talked about transparency, but did nothing (blah, blah, blah). Boris Johnson of PartyGate fame, has steered clear of this corruption, despite campaign promises! Does that not ring a few alarm bells?

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED - THERE ARE VERY FEW SWEET INNOCENTS

If you are a single man, no matter how easy it is being made for you (and that should be illegal), stay clear of girls who may be under the age of consent, or simply too easy. Young girls will lie about their age to entrap you. Even when legally eligible for sexual activity, make sure they are not part of a bigger picture to sweeten a deal, and not being paid by someone else to perform sexual favours. The CIA and FBI do it all the time. The CID and MI6 entrap males all the time. It's all part of obtaining secret information, typically to bribe or blackmail their targets. Or, just plain and simple entrapment, to be able to prosecute them.

Our advice is to audio record all such encounters, making sure to ask a girl's age and background such that you have her answer on record. Ask who the potential sexual conquest is working for, she may inadvertently slip up. Be wary of casual sex. It's not worth the bother. Not too mention the risk of infection. Get yourself a Fembot. No infection and sex on demand, to suit your diary. Zero entrapment, until robots get rights in law.

Single parents are prone to entrap males with offers of easy sex. The consequences can be dire. In the UK, you only have to have had an opportunity, to be convicted. It is as bad as the witch trials of old. Do not put yourself in that position, where you have no witnesses. Run! Do not feel sorry for single parent traps. They are like spiders waiting to snare the uninitiated - and they all know what they are doing. They will set you up. Never send a kind card that is saucy. They will save those and use them to convince a jury that you are a bad person. Sadly, a jury will always believe a female claimant, never a male defendant. Shock horror! The man is always the bad partner.

How do the women know how to ensnare foolish men?

They all watch, and some record episodes of soaps featuring under age sex scenarios. In the UK "The Bill" and "Casualty" were recorded by one claimant. The police in that case (still waiting for an appeal) did not and will not secure a crime scene for a defendant. The opposite is true. They will bury evidence likely to assist a defendant, to gain an easy conviction - despite their Code of Conduct saying otherwise. They won't mind if they stitched their victim up. Look at the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six. All stitched up. It's part of the British justice system. Bent coppers, doing favours for mates via SLAPP actions. And equally corrupted cops failing to investigate serious planning crime and banking fraud.

Crimes committed by a nation against it's own citizens are dealt with by the International Criminal Court, as per the Rome Statute. This is where the State concerned refuses to accept they are acting illegally. Nobody is above the law, including royalty by birth.

NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE - Under the present system where the Head of State is a royal, and there is no written constitution, politicians like David Cameron and Boris Johnson can lie with impunity - even to Queen Elizabeth - and not face penalties. Police officers can shoot unarmed civilians and not be sent to prison, and planning officers can deceive the Secretaries of State and High Court judges, and not be prosecuted. In effect, it is alleged that there is little justice in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We aver that such machinations are costing the ordinary taxpayer, Treasury and the Crown (being the state) significant sums of money, while adding to the UK's carbon footprint. Hence, the country is not being run effectively by the at present; defective administration, not to serve its citizens, but to sustain and profit itself. Unlike the US Constitution of 1791 that exists to serve the people. The honours system does not help, rather undoing the idea of an award, where some recipients of awards are for not revealing the truth, denying appeals, etc. Rather, then doing anything heroic, creative or scientific.

LINKS & REFERENCE

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/queen-issued-brutal-republicanism-warning-as-fork-in-road-looms/ar-AAS9jYD
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-ii-may-alienate-prince-harry-over-spoiled-child-behaviour/ar-AASTgWy

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-ii-may-alienate-prince-harry-over-spoiled-child-behaviour/ar-AASTgWy

https://news.yahoo.com/prince-william-thinks-prince-andrew-120633625.html
https://news.yahoo.com/prince-william-thinks-prince-andrew-120633625.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17309271/queens-annus-horribilis-worse-year-platinum-jubilee-scandal/

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/queen-issued-brutal-republicanism-warning-as-fork-in-road-looms/ar-AAS9jYD

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site