Prince’s behaviour should appal us all
PRINCE Andrew says he has been “appalled by recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes”. But how appalled is he, really?
After Epstein’s home was raided in 2005 and the financier accused of molesting a 14-year-old, the prince was not publicly outraged.
When Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting a 17-year-old and procuring a minor for prostitution, was sentenced to 18 months, was said in court to have “deviant behaviour patterns” and banned from going near schools or playgrounds, Andrew remained his friend.
When the pervert was freed in 2009 and threw a get-out-of-jail party at his
New York mansion, the Duke of York was happy to attend.
In 2010 Andrew spent four days at Epstein’s New York mansion, where his judgment did not question the constant stream of young women who came and went.
When his ex-wife was in debt, he reportedly brokered a deal for Epstein – at that point a registered sex offender serving a further year of house arrest – to pay it off.
After it was discovered by newspapers, Sarah Ferguson issued a public apology for her “gigantic error of judgment”. When pictures of Andrew with the convicted paedophile were published in early 2011 and his position as a trade envoy became an international embarrassment, the prince snootily declared he had “evolved” beyond the job anyway.
He said: “I have decided that the label I gave myself when I began this role... has served its purpose.”
And that was it. Until flight logs were published showing Virginia Roberts – the teen he emphatically denies sleeping with – had been trafficked by Epstein to London, the Bahamas and New York at times that Andrew was in the area.
Until video emerged of him waving off a female visitor to Epstein’s townhouse. And then, he’s appalled at the “recent” reports and “alleged” crimes. A Palace spokesman added: “HRH deplores the exploitation of any human being.” He didn’t deplore Epstein’s confession of exploiting children. He wasn’t appalled enough to cut all ties with a man who had abused girls younger than the duke’s own daughters.
Beatrice and Eugenie are probably appalled to find that, in 1999, they stayed at an Epstein property now known as ‘Paedophile Island’.
The Queen is presumably appalled that a serial child abuser stayed at Balmoral, and Sandringham, and attended family birthday parties.
Andrew may be appalled that HE was exploited. And he might deplore the fact his august royal personage is being linked to a pervy ex-maths teacher who made a fortune and used it to destroy children’s lives.
But the evidence points to him not being particularly appalled at Epstein’s crimes at the time.
As Mrs Merton might ask, what stopped you being appalled about the billionaire paedophile a bit sooner?
Not ‘appalled’ enough to cut ties with a billionaire paedophile