Also, people bringing up that Andrew is 'innocent' until proven otherwise - you are talking about the court of law. (which we all know is always just /s)
Yes, the court of law is
sometimes just /s [your phrase]. But not
always.
On the other hand, lynching someone because you think they are guilty, without any proof, and despite their vehement denials, is
always just /s.
Retiring Andrew would not be an admission of guilt or an 'unjust' decision. It would be a direct result of Andrew's decision to continuously and knowingly associate himself (and thus the Royal Family) with a convicted sex trafficker (of underage girls).
But Epstein was
never convicted of sex trafficking. He was convicted of soliciting prostitution from underage girls. Reprehensible as that is, it's not the same as sex trafficking. And as others have stated (sometimes in response to my own posts) Epstein's sentence could be seen as a slap on the wrist for a "mistake." So he wasn't, as you state, "exposed for what he really is."
It's also been pointed out Epstein was invited to Beatrice's 18th birthday party. Granted this was before Epstein's conviction, but this could be interpreted to mean that Andrew wasn't aware of Epstein's criminal activities. Would Andrew expose his daughters to a man he knew to be a sex trafficker of young girls?
While we know that Andrew, Sarah and Epstein go back many decades - any contact that they have had should have come to an abrupt end when Epstein was convicted for the first time over 10 years age.
I agree, Andrew should have ended the relationship once Epstein was convicted. His failure to do so baffles me. At the very least it shows extremely poor judgment on his part.
So you may believe that Andrew is innocent of all he has been accused (despite numerous testimonials, other circumstantial evidence and even pictures)
Virginia Giuffre has accused Andrew of having sex with her when she was 17 which Andrew has vehemently denied. I'm not aware of any other accusations of criminal activity on his part. We don't know if Andrew is guilty or not. Unfortunately all we have is she said/he said.
The pictures only prove Andrew knew Epstein and visited him in his home, which Andrew has admitted. They don't prove he was guilty of having sex with underage, sex-trafficked girls.
but it is undeniable that he made decision to be proudly (and PUBLICLY) associated with Epstein long after he was exposed for what he really is.
But Epstein wasn't exposed for what he really is (a sex trafficker of underage girls) when Andrew severed their relationship. As I pointed out earlier, he was only convicted of soliciting underage
prostitutes, not the same as sex trafficking. It is only recently that we have learned the complete truth.
I have to say the painful incompetence in the BRF is really reaching new heights these days. They can't manage a situation to save their lives.
How do you suggest they respond to the half-truths you have stated in your post?