Alternative To Austerity - Sack The Royal parasites VIDEO
Why Are The Government Protecting a royal parasite? VIDEO
Who are the REAL scroungers?
DOUG STANHOPE - THE ROYAL FAMILY VIDEO
Royal parasite refuses to shake a crippled war veterans hand VIDEO
THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE WAR DEAD AND WOUNDED ONLY AN ILLUSION OF CONCERN
Harvey Lester writes
"Is anybody surprised? Ruling elites view their militaries in the same way as a child views his toy soldiers;
a bunch of disposable, inanimate pawns to play war games with. As Henry Kissinger famously said: "Military men
are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." Bear that in mind the next time you see a
president, prime minister or royal treating active or former military men with contempt (not that I'm a fan of
the military, but I'm even less of a fan of monarchy)."
Royal Sprog Exclusive VIDEO
Royal parasites sheeple lose the plot at arrival of their latest sprog VIDEO
BUCKINGHAM PALACE STORMED The Peasants are Revolting VIDEO
Royal parasite's deluded sheeple line up as her military lackeys fire birthday cannon VIDEO
Warmongering then remembering the poor bastards who fought to keep her in power and lost their limbs
and their lives in the process under the guise of fighting for QUEEN and THEN country.
Royal parasites homosexual mafia groped new footman on his first day in the job
Christopher Lawler fled Clarence House in tears after being allegedly groped in a room by senior staff at the Queen Mother's former residence
A royal footman fled the Queen Mother’s home in tears after four senior Palace aides tried to force him into a sex orgy on his first day in the job.
Christopher Lawler told the Sunday People a frightening attack took place after he innocently went into a bedroom at Clarence House in central London in search of a pen.
He recalled: “There were two men there. They invited me in and offered me a drink. Then two more men came into the room. One of them was older and was a senior member of staff. The other was younger.
“One of the men asked me, ‘Are you gay?’ I nearly fell off my chair. I didn’t answer. I felt out of my depth.”
He said the younger of the two men took off his trousers and began performing a sex act on himself.
Christopher said: “That prompted another guy to put his hand on my leg and then he grabbed me.
“I was staggered. The younger man then came up behind me and gripped me, holding me in the chair.
“They were trying to undo my trousers but I managed to jump up and burst out of the room.”
Christopher, now 64, was 27 and hours into his first shift when he alleges the abuse happened on January 3, 1978.
His claims follow a report last year in the Sunday People alleging sexual bullying by royal staff in the 1970s.
He finally described his ordeal to police last year after inquiries began into alleged cover ups of child sex abuse by powerful establishment figures in the 1970s and 80s.
He named a man he said had assaulted him and detectives interviewed a retired senior royal aide but no charges were brought.
The ordeal nearly 40 years ago wrecked Christopher’s dream of working for the Royal Family and, he says, changed his life.
After fleeing the attack, Christopher said he was followed down a corridor by two men and threatened.
He said: “They came into my room and the older one was trying to shake hands with me.
“Then he said something like, ‘Don’t have me put my position to the test.’ He was threatening me, letting me know he was the governor.”
Christopher made a complaint but was stunned by the response from a senior member of the Queen Mum’s household.
“A tall man came to see me and I told him what had happened,” he said.
“I was in tears. I said I wanted to go home. But he just got angry.
“He snapped at me, ‘How dare you leave Her Majesty’s service.’
“He never asked me anything, he was just horrible. I just wanted to leave that place.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if someone else had already spoken to him about it.
"I went to my room, packed and got out of there. I was on the 7.45pm train home to Liverpool.
“I was in London less than a day.”
Christopher, a former Port of Liverpool Police officer, was proud to land the job at Clarence House, home to the Queen Mum until she died in 2002.
He said: “I had three interviews and security even interviewed my mum and dad.”
But four days after fleeing the royal residence, he had a letter from Palace officials, saying his job offer had been withdrawn due to his “incoherent” behaviour.
He remembered: “For years it haunted me. It was niggling at my mind.
"Then stories started appearing in the media about abuse in the corridors of power, people being abused by VIPs and cover-ups.
“It gave me the courage to finally contact Palace officials about what happened to me all those years ago.
“I needed to let them know what was happening in those bad days.”
But Christopher’s first letter to the Palace early last year drew the dismissive reply: “We have no record of you being employed.”
Christopher said: “All I wanted was an acknowledgement that they were taking it seriously. But it seemed they were trying to fob me off.”
He said a second letter produced the response: “I remain unsure as to what outcome you are seeking from your correspondence.”
Then in July Christopher was called by a police chief superintendent in the Royal Protection Squad after the Palace referred his complaint to them.
The matter was passed to the Met Police and Christopher gave them an interview on video.
This led to detectives quizzing the alleged abuser, who is now in his mid 80s.
But the man told them he could not be guilty he was at Balmoral, Scotland, at the time, working for the Queen.
Christopher said: “He totally denied it. It boiled down to my word against his. He was an elderly man and it wasn’t in anyone’s interests to pursue it.
“There was no realistic chance of conviction. I understood that. The police did all they could.
“But that grope all those years ago had a huge impact on my life.”
Last August he finally received a letter from Buckingham Palace, saying his allegation was being taken seriously and expressing “concern and sympathy”.
But Christopher insisted: “I’ve still had no real apology from the Palace.”
He added: “I did get to work as a butler, which is what I wanted to do. But I would have loved to have been a butler for the Royal Family. Because of what happened, I never got the chance.”
Christopher’s story gives further credence to another report on allegations of abuse by senior members of the Royal Household published in the Sunday People last November.
A former worker penned a heartbreaking note claiming he was groomed by senior staff at the age of 16 and was abused at Buckingham Palace and Balmoral in the 1970s.
The letter was revealed in shock Home Office files shown to us last year.
He claimed he had fallen victim to “exploitation of the highest order”.
The disturbing account was passed directly to the late Leon Brittan, then Home Secretary, but he ruled it was “not practical” to investigate.
A Palace spokesman declined to comment last night.
A royal source added: “This is a matter for the Metropolitan Police.”
The Met also declined to comment.
Royal parasite's handwritten 'black spider' letters to ministers MUST be made public, Supreme Court rules
Shock horror unprecedented decision by their judicial lackeys
Letters sent by Prince Charles to government ministers should be made public, the Supreme Court ruled today.
Supreme Court justices refused to overturn a ruling which paved the way for letters written by Charles to government ministers to be published.
It had been claimed that releasing the memos sent by the Prince of Wales to ministers in Tony Blair's government would infringe his 'freedom of expression'.
Sent to seven government departments, the frank notes penned between September 2004 and March 2005 reflect, according to previous attorney general Dominic Grieve, the Prince's 'most deeply held personal views and beliefs'.
David Cameron said the ruling was 'disappointing' and argued that senior Royals should be able to communicate with ministers 'confidentially'.
The Prime Minister suggested the law could be changed to prevent the ministerial veto being overruled in future.
Downing Street said work has begun on releasing the letters, including possibly redacting some passages, but no timetable has been set for their release.
Clarence House reacted with disappointment to the decision.
A spokeswoman for the Prince said: 'This is a matter for the Government. Clarence House is disappointed the principle of privacy has not been upheld.'
Charles has been accused of meddling in politics through his handwritten 'black spider memos' to politicians on topics about which he cares passionately, including GM foods, complementary medicine, farming and architecture.
By contrast, when he succeeds his mother and becomes King, he will be bound by the long-standing constitutional convention that British monarchs can only encourage, warn and be consulted by the Government of the day.
Former attorney general Dominic Grieve ruled that 27 memos sent by the Prince to ministers in seven Whitehall departments putting forward his views about policy could not be released.
But the move was challenged in the courts. Three Court of Appeal judges last year decided that the Attorney General had unlawfully prevented the public seeing the letters.
They found there was 'no good reason' for using the ministerial veto and overriding the decision of an independent tribunal, chaired by a High Court judge, in favour of disclosure of the royal correspondence.
Today the Supreme Court agreed. Lord Neuberger said the Attorney General's veto could not be used 'merely because he, a member of the executive, considering the same facts and arguments, takes a different view from that taken by the tribunal or court'.
This would be, he found, 'unique in the laws of the United Kingdom'.
The case is believed to mark the first time that anyone has challenged the Attorney General's powers to block access to information.
Mr Cameron said: 'This is a disappointing judgement and we will now consider how to release these letters. This is about the principle that senior members of the Royal Family are able to express their views to government confidentially. I think most people would agree this is fair enough.
'Our FOI laws specifically include the option of a governmental veto, which we exercised in this case for a reason.
'If the legislation does not make Parliament's intentions for the veto clear enough, then we will need to make it clearer.'
In 2005 Guardian journalist Rob Evans applied to see a number of written communications between Charles and various government ministers between September 2004 and April 2005.
James Eadie QC, for the Attorney General, argued that the appeal judges 'erred' in reaching their conclusion.
Mr Eadie said that 'the Government departments considered that they had no duty to disclose the requested information, and indeed had countervailing duties of confidentiality and as data controllers not to disclose it', and the Information Commissioner agreed.
The Attorney General had 'strong grounds for his opinion that the Government and the Commissioner were right to find that the disputed information was exempt'.
Mr Eadie told the panel of justices, led by Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger: 'Everyone has the right to respect for their correspondence.
'Such respect is necessary not only as an aspect of privacy, but also to enable freedom of expression, which would inevitably be inhibited by the removal of the right to communicate privately.
'All the more so in the case of the Prince of Wales, whose freedom to express himself publicly is constrained by his role as heir to the throne.'
Charles is known for his strong opinions on a range of topics from the environment and farming to complementary medicine and architecture.
He has faced accusations in the past of 'meddling' in day-to-day politics and criticism over his 'black spider memos' - the name given to the handwritten letters he pens to government ministers expressing his views.
Mr Evans sought disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), and under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
The Upper Tribunal (UT) declared in September 2012 that he was entitled to see ''advocacy correspondence'', described as letters the Prince had written seeking to advance the work of charities or to promote views.
A month after the UT ruling, the Attorney General used his ministerial veto by issuing a certificate under Section 53 of the FOIA.
He said the public could interpret the letters sent to ministers in the last Labour government as showing Charles to be 'disagreeing with government policy'.
PRINCE CHARLES: A SELF-CONFESSED 'BUSYBODY' WRITING UP TO 1,000 LETTERS A YEAR
A defiant Prince Charles has always maintained he has the right to express his forthright views to ministers even after he becomes King.
At peak periods, his passionate words have poured out at the rate of 1,000 letters a year to ministers and other public figures.
As the furore over his 'black spider' letters peaked in 2012, the heir to throne was said to be unrepentant about the row furore sparked by the Government's decision to stop 27 'particularly frank' letters written to ministers in the last Labour government to be revealed.
Courtiers told the Mail that it is the prince's 'right and absolute duty' to correspond with politicians over issues that affect his country and future subjects.
And sources close to the prince made clear that Charles will continue to air his opinions, even during his private meetings with the Prime Minister after he accedes to the throne.
'The Prince of Wales absolutely sees it as his duty to make his views known to ministers,' they said. 'He is a man of passionate belief and will always strive to make his views clear.'
As a self-confessed 'interfering busybody', Charles has become renowned for expressing his strong views on a huge variety of issues ranging from youth opportunity to architecture and the environment.
His prolific missives are known as 'black spider memos' because of his scrawled handwriting.
Explaining his willingness to get involved in issues and causes he said himself: 'The trouble is, I always feel that unless I rush about doing things and trying to help furiously, I will not (and the monarchy will not) be seen to be relevant and I will be considered a mere playboy.'
The Attorney General said any perception that Charles had disagreed with Tony Blair's government 'would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king'.
In his opinion, Government departments were legally entitled to refuse disclosure because the correspondence was undertaken as part of the Prince's 'preparation for becoming king'.
Mr Evans accused him of failing to show 'reasonable grounds' for blocking disclosure.
The journalist lost his case in the High Court, but Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson, Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Pitchford all agreed at the Court of Appeal that the Attorney General had gone wrong in law and the Section 53 certificate should be quashed.
At the time of the Court of Appeal ruling, the Attorney General was Dominic Grieve. The office is currently held by Jeremy Wright QC.
British royal parasites and their none to cosy relationship with GCHQ
His uncle the Duke of Kent the global spy master who heads the global spy network with his freemason goons all controlled from
UGLE and Chatham House or the backdoor to their 33 degree haunt at 10 Duke Street St James)
The Spook of Cambridge: Wills makes secret visit to GCHQ spy base after Royals warned over computer hacking
Prince William has made a top secret visit to Britain’s most secretive building, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
The Duke of Cambridge made the unannounced ‘private visit’ on Thursday to Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) – the maximum security ‘listening station’ which tracks electronic traffic of terrorists and spy agencies around the world.
The Duke’s first ever trip to GCHQ, housed in a doughnut-shaped building in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, comes after The Mail on Sunday revealed that he and other young Royals were being advised to change their email addresses and cut back on social media activities over fears they could be targeted by foreign spies and hackers.
But questions were asked last night about the Duke’s use of a publicly funded Royal helicopter to make the trip, as it was not an official public engagement and was not announced in the Palace’s Court Circular.
The Duke was flown from London’s Kensington Palace to Gloucestershire airport on the Queen’s helicopter Flight, funded by the taxpayer, and which is supposed to be only used for official engagements by the Royals.
Under Government rules, the Royals have to pay for their own private visits.
But last night Kensington Palace declined to comment on the reasons for the trip or confirm whether the Prince would pay back the estimated £8,000 travel costs.
A Palace source initially described the 200-mile round trip as a ‘private visit’ but later suggested it was ‘official’, and so could possibly be paid from the taxpayer-funded Royal Travel Budget.
Kensington Palace and GCHQ refused to say whom he met, or what he saw. But it is believed the Prince met the new head of GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, and also saw the agency’s code breakers at work, monitoring internet and communications traffic to pick up terrorist threats.
Other members of the Royal family have previously visited GCHQ, which was opened by the Queen in 2004.
A GCHQ spokesman said yesterday: ‘Prince William paid a private visit to GCHQ on March 19. As it was a private visit we can’t go into further details of what his itinerary involved.’
PRINCESS DIANA - SHOCKING ALMA TUNNEL INVESTIGATION VIDEO
Julian Assange and Prince Andrew: The them and us laws
The London met have spent £10,000,000 on security around the Ecudorian embassy to stop Julian Assange going AWOL
and to face extradition to Sweden over rape allegations and NOTHING to do with the WIkileaks exposures of Britain and America's part in the zionist mass murder of Muslims across the Middle East.
Meanwhile Prince Andrew's accuser in America who claims she was operating as a sex slave for jewish billionaire Epstein when raped by the royal parasite is busily going about his business with NO ATTEMPT by the London met to arrest him and to face those allegations in an American court.
So why is that? The fact the British cops are riddled with the toxic stench of freemasonry allows them to decide whether they can be bothered to investigate serious allegations against their brothers like BBC predatory paedo Jimmy Savile and Prince Andrew while persecuting anyone who they regard as the enemy of a zionist / masonic state .
Laws that are instigated by the freemasonic hierarchy allow them to remain IMMUNE from the same laws they use daily to persecute and oppress and none more so than the draconian measures used against separated fathers to steal their homes and livelihoods but especially their children into the state homes where those children are abused by the scum and filth that operate within the British establishment.
Swear on oath you're innocent, lawyers for 'sex slave' tell royal parasite
In Britain the courts are run by the royals lackeys, across the globe they are also controlled via freemasonry
headed by the Duke of Kent and controlled from the Inns of Court in London making it virtually impossible
to sue these evil bastards and why they have been getting away with murder for centuries.
Prince Andrew under growing pressure to testify after rejecting letter asking for his 'voluntary co-operation'
Prince Andrew was under growing pressure last night to testify on oath about his contacts with alleged underage ‘sex slave’ Virginia Roberts.
She lodged fresh documents at a Florida court saying her lawyers had served an extraordinary letter on the Duke last week requesting he answer questions – but he ‘refused’ to accept it.
Miss Roberts also issued a stinging attack on ‘false and hurtful’ denials of her claims made by Andrew in the tumultuous past three weeks.
She claimed his police bodyguards left her alone with him the first time he had sex with her and that she was involved in an orgy with the prince and eight other young girls.
Buckingham Palace has strenuously rejected claims the Duke had any ‘sexual contact or relationship’ with Miss Roberts.
Last week, Miss Roberts’ lawyers sent by FedEx couriers an unprecedented letter addressed to ‘His Royal Highness The Duke of York’ at Buckingham Palace requesting his ‘voluntary cooperation in answering question about his sexual interactions’ with her.
DOES ANDREW HAVE LEGAL IMMUNITY BECAUSE HE'S A ROYAL?
It is not known whether Prince Andrew is covered by legal immunity simply by being a royal because this has never been tested in international law.
However, the prince may be entitled to diplomatic immunity against questioning in any criminal inquiry because some of the allegations relate to when he was a Whitehall-sanctioned business envoy. Diplomatic immunity protects foreign diplomats from legal action in the country where they work.
Extradition lawyer Karen Todner said the prince could be formally asked to give evidence ‘only in criminal proceedings’. If he refused to co-operate, he could in theory be banned from entering America.
The letter offered to interview the prince under oath ‘at a time and place of your choosing’. But her lawyers stated: ‘Federal Express has informed us that the letter has been refused by the recipient.’
The latest documents filed at Palm Beach court house in Florida make plain Miss Roberts’s determination to pursue the Prince – who she said ‘I just called “Andy”.’
She alleges she was a sex slave loaned out by paedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein to his friend Andrew when she was aged 17 in 2001, claiming: ‘Whatever Prince Andrew wanted, I was to make sure he got.’
The latest bombshell came as a shock to Buckingham Palace officials last night as they arrived in Switzerland with Andrew to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos.
The Prince, who is today due to give a much-anticipated speech to business leaders, was sitting down with his advisers when details of the papers began to drop last night.
In her latest court salvo, Miss Roberts states: ‘I have seen Buckingham Palace’s recent “emphatic” denial that Prince Andrew had sexual contact with me. That denial is false and hurtful to me. I did have sexual contact with him as I have described…under oath.
‘Given what he knows and has seen, I was hoping that he would simply voluntarily tell the truth about everything. I hope my attorneys can interview Prince Andrew under oath about the contacts and that he will tell the truth.’
She said she had directed her lawyers ‘to pursue all reasonable and legitimate means to bring criminal charges against these powerful people for the crimes they have committed against me and other girls.’
She added: ‘If a judge wants me to present my information in more detail, including more specific descriptions of the sexual activities with the men Epstein sent me to, I could do so.’
She also denies having sex with former US President Bill Clinton.
The letter served on Andrew was written by lawyer Jack Scarola, dated January 14, and included the now-notorious photo of the Prince posing next to Miss Roberts.
He told the Prince: ‘This letter is a formal request…to interview you, under oath, regarding interactions that you had with Jane Doe No. 3 [the name used by Miss Roberts in legal proceedings] beginning in approximately early 2001. Jane Doe No. 3 was then 17 years old. Among other things, I would like to discuss events that occurred at the time that the photograph below was taken — and shortly thereafter.
‘I would also like to discuss Jane Doe 3’s claims of your subsequent interactions with her in New York City, New York later that year.
‘Details of those claims have been widely reported in the British press (with varying degrees of accuracy) as have your denials of the claims , so I assume that it is unnecessary for me to be any more specific about the proposed areas of our inquiry.
‘The interview could be conducted at a time and place of your choosing, and with your cooperation,’
The letter tops a damaging three weeks for Andrew since he was sensationally accused in U.S. court papers of abusing Miss Roberts when she 17.
She alleged that under the orders of billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, she was ‘forced’ to have sex with him three times in 2001 - in London, New York and on Epstein’s Caribbean island.
Andrew, 54, fiercely denies ‘any form of sexual contact or relationship’ with Miss Roberts and has consulted top criminal QC William Clegg.
Last night Miss Roberts spelt out for the first time in court papers the detail of her allegations against the Prince, Epstein and their mutual friend Ghislaine Maxwell – daughter of crooked tycoon Robert Maxwell.
Miss Roberts stated: ‘Epstein made me have sex with Prince Andrew several times. I had sex with him three times, including one orgy. I knew he was a member of the British Royal Family, but I just called him “Andy.”’
She said the first instance of sexual contact happened in London at Miss Maxwell’s townhouse. ‘I got news from Maxwell that I would be meeting a prince. Later that day, Epstein told me I was meeting a “major prince.”
‘Epstein told me “to exceed” everything I had been taught. He emphasised that whatever Prince Andrew wanted, I was to make sure he got.’
‘Eventually Prince Andrew arrived, along with his security guards. The guards then went out of the house and stayed out front in their car. It was just Epstein, Maxwell, and me inside alone with Andy. I was introduced to the Prince, and we kissed formally, cheek to cheek. Maxwell said “guess how old she is.” Prince Andrew guessed 17.’
Andrew took her to Tramp club before they returned to the townhouse where she and the Prince allegedly ‘went to the bathroom and bedroom…We engaged in sexual activities there. Afterwards, Andy left quickly with his security.’
The legal documents filed yesterday say that although Buckingham Palace has ‘recently denied that Prince Andrew had sexual contact’ with Miss Roberts, ‘it has not attempted to explain what led to the Prince having his picture taken with his arm around a 17 year old American girl at night in London in an intimate setting in a private residence’.
‘Nor has the Palace explained what Ghislaine Maxwell is doing there and who took that picture – while Jane Doe 3 (Miss Roberts) has provided a sworn affidavit that the photographer was Prince Andrew’s close friend (as well as sex trafficker and now registered sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein.’
In her statement, Miss Roberts said that in 2011, while living in Australia, she was interviewed by two FBI agents about her allegations.
Last night a Buckingham Palace spokesman said: ‘We have nothing to say in addition to our earlier comments on the issue.’
Previously, the Palace has said ‘any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue’, adding: ‘The Duke would never interfere in an active legal case and did not do so in this case’
Epstein, 61, was sentenced to 18 months in jail for paedophile offences. But he only served 13 months behind bars. This was due to a controversial plea bargain agreement between his ‘army of legal superstars’ and the U.S Government.
A spokesperson for Miss Maxwell, 53, daughter of disgraced tycoon Robert Maxwell, has strongly denied the allegations.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz - who is also named in the court papers - said the claims against him were part of a pattern of “made-up stories” by Miss Roberts (chck) and her lawyers against prominent people.
Royal parasites symbolism shows its Saxe-Coburg-Gotha roots
Maltese cross on the Coronation crown also used by the Nazi's
Royal parasites under age sex scandal shows them acting as if they are immune from the law
Try taking a writ out against ANY royal and you'll soon find out its impossible to get them into courts they totally
Prince Andrew allegations: Duke of York is not above the law says top Home Office committee
After claims Prince Andrew slept with a teenage "sex slave", veteran MP who sits on Home Office Select Committee says Duke of York is not above the law
Pressure was mounting on Prince Andrew last night over bombshell claims he slept with a teenage “sex slave”, as a top politician insisted he “should not be above the law”.
The Duke of York emphatically denies allegations he had sex three times with Virginia Roberts, then 17, while she was working for his former close friend and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
But veteran Labour MP Paul Flynn, who sits on the influential Home Affairs Select Committee, said the royal still had questions to answer.
He blasted: “Prince Andrew must not be above the law. He has been unwise generally in his choice of friends, and exposed himself to public suspicion.
“He should have broken any links with a convicted child sex offender.”
The MP added of the scandal: “While this is debated throughout the country, debate is forbidden in Parliament because no criticism can be made of Royalty here.”
Virginia, now 30, claims she slept with Andrew in London, New York and at an orgy on banker Epstein’s private Caribbean island Little Saint James.
She says she was made a “sex slave” by Epstein between 1999 and 2002 and is now considering lucrative offers to tell her story in an explosive interview and book.
The married mother-of-three is poised to rake in more than £1million, with agents clamouring for her signature.
American Virginia said from her hideout in Colorado that “there will be a time when we explain stuff, just not this time”, although she is thought to have been working on a book since 2011.
US law allows many of the allegations to be published and sources say Virginia wants to provide for the first time “every minute detail” of her time with Andrew, 54.
The seriousness of Virginia’s claims and the scale at which they have circulated globally have the potential to be the most damaging episode ever to hit the royals.
And despite strong denials by Buckingham Palace and other individuals she has accused, the prospect of her memoirs has attracted the attention of many top publishers, with HarperCollins said to be interested.
Literary agent Ryan Fischer-Harbage said Virginia could get £1million from a book deal alone. He said: “Publishers will look for her to take readers through her journey from pseudo prostitute at the hands of Epstein to a mother-of-three.
“It would not work just naming high powered men at alleged sex parties she attended.
“She could earn with US and British rights a million.”
TV executives have already approached Virginia, offering another £500,000 for an interview.
A US media source said: “We’re sure there are more secrets Virginia knows. When she gives that first interview, it will be dynamite. And worth every penny.” Meanwhile, another man named by Virginia as a friend of Epstein who she was forced to have sex with has begun legal action.
Alan Dershowitz has angrily denied Virginia’s allegations and applied to a Florida court to have his name removed from the documents. A Palace source said yesterday there were no plans for Andrew to take similar legal action.
Epstein is believed to be on his private island in the US Virgin Islands. His former assistant, British businesswoman Ghislaine Maxwell, denies allegations she acted as his “madame” procuring underage girls.
Sensational court documents filed in Florida last week allege Epstein ordered one of the girls – named only as Jane Doe 3 but later identified as Virginia – “to give the prince whatever he demanded” and told her to “report back to him on the details of the sexual abuse”.
He regularly demanded such information after “lending” girls like Virginia to “powerful people” in part – the document alleges – “to obtain potential blackmail information”.
It also claims Epstein “used his powerful connections to secure a favourable plea deal” when he was jailed for 13 months in 2008 for soliciting sex with a minor.
Virginia, along with three other alleged victims of the tycoon, now want access to documents that reveal how Epstein’s lawyers reached a bargain that allegedly let him and his co-conspirators escape more serious sex trafficking charges. Virginia’s lawyer claims papers show “Epstein’s lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favourable plea agreement, including efforts on his behalf by Prince Andrew”.
Buckingham Palace issued two unprecedented statements categorically denying Virginia’s allegations.
But she hit back, saying: “It appears that I am now being unjustly victimized again. These types of aggressive attacks on me are exactly why sexual abuse victims typically remain silent and the reason why I did for a long time. I’m not going to be bullied back into silence.”
Andrew was yesterday backed by Tory Mayor of London Boris Johnson, who said he had “sympathy” for the prince.
He said: “Prince Andrew, let’s be very clear, is a guy who does a huge amount of unsung, unheralded work for this country. So if you ask me whether I have sympathy for him – of course I do.”
But Labour London Assembly member Tom Copley, hit back: “I’m not sure he should be defending someone in a case where very serious allegations have been made. He should hold back on his comments until the facts are known.”
Graham Smith of Republic, which wants an elected Head of State, said yesterday: “Andrew has to defend himself. He not only has to answer these allegations but also defend his behaviour. Anyone in the public domain should set a higher standard and he clearly has no intention of doing so, so he should go.”
Buckingham Palace has said Andrew “emphatically denies” the claims he had any sexual contact with Virginia.
But it has not offered any explanation as to why he continued to befriend Epstein after his conviction.
Senior press officers were keeping silent yesterday as Andrew was locked in talks with royal lawyers Harbottle & Lewis and his Private Secretary, former banker Amanda Thirsk. His team were liaising with the Queen’s representatives.
Paedo royal parasite only the tip of an enormous iceberg
For everyone that knows, through being a victim, of how the royal parasites operate it will come as no surprise the latest allegations that Prince Andrew is a paedo. The royals and their main masonic mobster the Duke of Kent have been expert at ensuring loyalty by setting up their duped goons using a vast paedo network leaving them open to blackmail and assurances that they wont deviate from their monstrous political, legal and banking structures that continue to remain intact until now.
The system ensures their vast network of thieves are protected while they fleece an unsuspecting public of the trillions that leave them the richest and most powerful despots on the planet thanks to their secret network of spies and thugs only to willing to sell their souls to the devil to share the spoils of the biggest racketeering on the planet by far. When so many of her knighted goons like Jimmy Savile an avid pathological advocate of pushing royalist bullshit down the throats of the unsuspecting BBC sheeple throughout the decades and who was given a vast platform to promote them as some sort of force for good , meanwhile he was allowed to abuse children STOLEN by her state judges into homes for that paedo network to satisfy their vile tendencies for young flesh.
A controlled media that ensured not only Savile but a vast array of top cops, judges and lawyers could operate a paedo network that was UNTOUCHABLE thanks to the hold freemasonry had over every aspect of law enforcement. The very bastards who have charged themselves with enforcing the law gave themselves immunity from the very laws that have kept the peasants in their place for centuries while they live opulent hedonistic and sick psychotic lifestyles on the back of the peasants graft while laughing all the way to the bank.
Thanks to advances in technology their millions of victims are no longer silenced and now coming out of the woodwork to expose the deviants responsible for the grotesque system of law and order that allows a sinister group of YES men to get away with anything they want protected by police that sign their souls away to the same devil worshipping coven.