As the whole world knows by now, Julian Assange is being drugged and subjected in a solitary confinement for doing what every journalist worth his salt should do. This is being done to serve as a strong warning against all truth tellers out there, while the more deserving criminal is still at large, thanks to the active suppression of evidence by the Scotland Yard.
Last Tuesday, the Sun reported that the,
SCOTLAND Yard has refused to reveal where Prince Andrew’s protection team was on the day he’s accused of having sex with a teenager.
During his car crash BBC interview, Andrew claimed he had taken his daughter Princess Beatrice to a Pizza Express in Woking on the night he is accused of sleeping with Virginia Roberts, a “sex slave” of paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
However, the Metropolitan Police refused to provide details of Andrew’s police bodyguards’ movements on that day – March 10 2001.
They claimed the information could put national security at risk and aid criminals.
Responding to that, Professor Anthony Glees, an expert on security and intelligence, told the Mirror Online: “There are no conceivable national security implications.
“As a senior royal, Prince Andrew would have been given protection. There are no reasonable grounds for not confirming this.”
Graham Smith, who heads campaign group Republic, which wants to replace the monarchy with an elected head of state, told the newspaper: “Their response is nonsense and should be challenged.
“It is common knowledge that senior royals have police protection, as it is with the PM and some other government ministers.
“Revealing locations from 19 years ago cannot possibly reveal personal data either directly or indirectly.
“In my opinion the police are keen not to risk embarrassing the royals.
“The police are tasked with protecting the royals from physical harm, not from legitimate inquiry, criminal investigation or embarrassment.
“I hope this decision will be challenged as far it needs to go.”
NATIONAL SECURITY
Scotland Yard said sharing the information, requested under the Freedom of Information rules, could “undermine the safeguarding of national security”.
They added: “It would allow those with a criminal intent to gain an operational advantage over the MPS and place those who the MPS have confirmed are afforded protection, as well as protection officers, and members of the public at risk”.
Buckingham Palace have been approached for a comment.
The Duke of York faced a public backlash following his disastrous BBC interview, where he said he didn’t regret his friendship with convicted sex offender Epstein.
Andrew was heavily criticised for showing a lack of empathy towards Epstein’s victims.
The duke has only been seen in public a handful of times since the interview and a large number of his major patronages have accepted his resignation while others have cut ties with him.
Last week his private secretary Amanda Thirsk, who was behind his decision to go ahead with the interview in November, agreed to quit.
It’s understood Ms. Thirsk, who was employed by the Royal Household for 15 years, received a payout worth tens of thousands of pounds.
Andrew has already been caught in several lies since his appearance on BBC including a leak of private emails where he mentioned Virginia Giuffre by name despite claiming to have never heard of her during his interview.
But look here instead…
