Cressida Dick says Prince Andrew is ‘not above the law’ – after she put many others above it
How can we believe Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick when she says Prince Andrew is “not above the law”?
She put Wayne Couzens above the law. He was the murderer and rapist of Sarah Everard, who was known as “The Rapist” by colleagues at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, years before he transferred to the Met, because of the unease he provoked in women.
It was reported that Kent Police had taken no action when in 2015 it was informed that he had been seen driving around Dover, naked from the waist down.
And the Met – which he joined in 2018 – received further accusations of indecent exposure by Couzens on two further occasions. Neither of them were investigated properly in the days before he kidnapped, raped and murdered Ms Everard.
She put the murderer(s) of Daniel Morgan above the law. She refused to provide vital documents to the independent inquiry into his death, and never provided a reasonable explanation.
She put all the police who attacked women during the vigil for Sarah Everard above the law too – by finding that they had done nothing wrong.
Who knows how many other people she has protected?
Now she says she will not protect Prince Andrew – a member of the Royal Family who enjoys a huge amount of privilege due to an accident of birth.
He is facing legal proceedings in the United States, after Virginia Giuffre filed a lawsuit under New York’s Child Victims Act, asserting that he had sexually assaulted her in that city and in London.
The case alleges the prince sexually abused Ms Giuffre – then known as Virginia Roberts – at the London home of Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, and at Epstein’s homes in Manhattan and Little St James in the US Virgin Islands.
Ms Giuffre was an accuser of Epstein, who died of apparent suicide in his jail cell before he could be brought to trial for sex trafficking offences after being accused in 2019.
Dame Dick did not expressly refer to Prince Andrew when she was asked about the Giuffre case. Instead, she said [boldings mine] “No one is above the law.”
She then went on to refer exclusively to the way the Met had handled evidence in the Epstein case:
“The position there is that we’ve had more than one allegation that is connected with Mr Epstein and we have reviewed those, assessed those and we have not opened an investigation.”
She explained that the police force asks “is there evidence of a crime, is this the right jurisdiction for this to be dealt with and is the person against whom the crime is alleged still alive?”
“We have concluded that there is no investigation for us to open and we haven’t.”
Of course they wouldn’t, if one of the criteria is that the person against whom the crime was alleged had to be still alive. Epstein is dead. And the circumstances of his death in that jail cell have always seemed more than a little suspicious to This Writer.
The most she would say about the new case was that the Met would “again review our position”.
What does she mean, “again”? It seems to me, from what she was saying, that the Met has never examined evidence against Prince Andrew. Any repeat review of the evidence would be a review of the position regarding information the Met holds against Epstein. Wouldn’t it?
But she did say, “We are of course open to working with authorities from overseas, we will give them every assistance if they ask us for anything – within the law.”
Again with the caveats: “Within the law.” As defined by whom?
And will her co-operation – or lack of it – matter?
According to New York law, Prince Andrew will have to answer the accusations against him.
If he refuses, or ignores the court – as Ms Giuffre’s lawyer says he has ignored her legal team – then it seems Ms Giuffre will win the case by default.
If that happens, then it seems the verdict could be enforced in the UK, due to agreements this country has with the United States.
Prince Andrew has denied the accusation and has even claimed that a photo showing him with an arm around Ms Giuffre (then known as Roberts) had been doctored. Would that be the photo at the top of this article? If so, what do you think?
This case will run for a while, I reckon.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
