David Craig, on November 18th, 2019(Monday blog)
OMG! OMG! OMG! What to say? When even the royalty-obsessed Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday turn against the royal family, you know things are really bad.
I’m afraid my stomach wasn’t strong enough to watch the supposedly ‘no holds barred’ interview done by Emily Maitlis with Prince Andrew. But I picked up a few impressions from the press reports.
I had been expecting Maitlis to ‘do a Chakrabarti’. I’ve no idea (having not watched the interview) whether she was as ‘forensic’ and brutal with Andrew as she usually is on TV with anyone daring to suggest we leave the EU (constantly interrupting them and shouting them down) or whether Maitlis was grovellingly sycophantic. From the little I could stomach, I felt she did treat Andrew rather deferentially. But Andrew is (IMHO) such an arrogant, brainless, clueless, spoilt, self-opiniated, dumbassed clod that he managed to repeatedly incriminate himself despite Maitlis’s kid-gloves treatment of him. I doubt Maitlis will be joining Dame Shami ‘Shameless’ Chakrabarti in the Lords, honoured (IMHO) for her services to the whitewash industry.
Maybe these are some of Prince Andrew’s greatest hits from his motorway pile-up interview:
Firstly, the reason our noble Prince stuck with Epstein, even after Epstein’s conviction, was because Prince Andrew was too honourable: “I admit fully my judgment was probably coloured by my tendency to be too honourable”.
Secondly, I did see a very brief excerpt from the interview on the Internet. Looking at Prince A’s body language one might notice he blinks quite a bit when claiming he doesn’t remember the girl he is alleged to have had sex with when she was 17-years-old. From a guide to reading body language here’s a possible explanation: “Blinking is a neat natural process whereby the eyelids wipe the eyes clean, much as a windscreen wiper on a car. Blink rate tends to increase when people are thinking more or are feeling stressed. This can be an indication of lying as the liar has to keep thinking about what they are saying”
Thirdly, if I have understood correctly the great Prince suggested that the photo of him with his arm around the girl’s waist might have been faked as it was ‘taken upstairs’ at Ms Maxwell’s London house and Andrew had, he claimed, never been upstairs there. But, if he had never been upstairs, how did he know the photo had been taken upstairs? Oooops!
You might be wondering why Prince Andrew became one of Epstein’s friends in the first place. If I remember correctly, Epstein started his career as a Maths teacher in a New York school. He was noticed by the father of one of his students and offered a job on Wall Street. Due to his mathematical genius he managed to amass a huge fortune and move into the top levels of society.
Given Prince Andrew’s well-known reputation as an intellectual colossus, it’s quite clear to me that Andrew and Epstein became friends due to their shared interest in discussing complex mathematical concepts rather than Epstein’s ability to provide an almost limitless number of recently pubescent females for his own and his friends’ pleasure. Here’s that well-known picture of Andrew and Epstein discussing mathematics where our great Prince is explaining some complicated mathematical theorem to an obviously impressed Epstein:
After his success on TV on Saturday evening, I rather suspect Prince Andrew will be reducing his public appearances and spending more time with his golf clubs and less time representing once great Britain.
But while the British media still tiptoe around Randy Andy’s alleged cavorting at Mr Epstein’s many young-female-stuffed residences around the world, the Australian press has not been quite so forgiving:
Category: 
I didn’t watch the interview.
It was the interview or Spiral.
No contest!
In any case, I don’t give a monkeys what Andrew’s up to – now or then.
A car crash of a blog to go with a car crash of an interview. It is never a good idea to comment on something you haven’t seen. I have no idea if Andrew was telling the truth and the body language experts have said what they were expected to say. I cannot recall seeing Andrew being interviewed before so I have no idea what he is normally like. There is is uncertainty about whether the Queen approved it as well.
One thing came out of it for me and that is the Royals and the rich live in a different world to the rest of us. Andrew described a dinner for perhaps 10 people as small. I have never been in a house that has a table that big. He gave a lot of detail that can be checked. Is he that stupid to lie about those? Since he knows the downstairs of Maxwell’s house, the photo must have been taken upstairs. Ooops. He says he was introduced to Epstein through his girlfriend Maxwell who he was at school with. Another reason you should watch before commenting.
My view is this interview should never have taken place. He has been accused of sex with an underage girl. The only place this should be discussed is in a courtroom. This is trial by the media. He has been asked by the media for comments, and now he is being accused by the media of using his position to manipulate the case. As always these days people are expected to express sympathy. How does that change anything and why should he express sympathy for a woman accusing him of something he says he hasn’t done?
The one person who should know about Epstein is Ghislane Maxwell and she is doing what Andrew should have done and that is remain silent.
In this insane world there is a glimmer of hope this weekend in an interview with Laurence Fox in The Times who is protesting about the woke generation. Worth a read.
You can do better than this David.
There are many people who might be perpetrators, accomplices or witnesses. Why have none been arrested or interviewed?
A publicly maintained ornament has sex with a teenage hooker. Be still my beating heart. Has nobody ever heard of King Edward the Seventh?
But a full summary of the fascinating career of a ‘respected parliamentarian’ and former Labour Government Minister such as Keith Vaz? When can we expect a Brussels Broadcasting Corporation programme about that? Or a BBC investigation into ‘that photo’ of a former Tory Chancellor and current London newspaper editor? These characters were actually in positions of power and authority, and had the ability to seriously affect the lives of the general public.
One also wonders whether the visit of a certain failed US Presidential candidate, a Leftist very popular with the MSM, to the UK at the time of the above interview might possibly have had anything to do with an attempt to overshadow certain stories about a close relative’s relationship to Epstein, and his visits to the latter’s island.
I haven’t seen the interview or particularly followed the story. But if the girl was 17 and therefore legal age, what is he supposed to have done wrong?