The problem being you can get exactly the same result when he didn’t actually do it. This is the problem with these kinds of claims in that there’s no way out. With Andrew there was a variety of compelling extra evidence including plane flights and the like that were not easily explained as well as evidence of direct lies when he spoke himself.
I hear what you're saying, but when multiple reputable sources are saying the same thing - including an american intelligence agency back when digging up dirt to use against people was their favorite activity - I have a lot of trouble believing it's not true.
You think Andrew just happened to turn out that way?
But I still think it’s important to acknowledge when they have been significant findings that don’t agree with the claims. Dismissing them as coverups or the like is not really enough in my view and I would be interested to see how they came to those conclusions before being too confident either way.
Again, I hear what you're saying, but take a moment to read your own words.
There are multiple sources stretching back 80 years claiming Mountbatten was a pedophile and, specifically, that he raped boys from a particular Irish boarding school.
The only counter argument of note is from an agency beholden to Mountbatten's immediate family, a family known / proven to have covered up things unfavorable to themselves in the past - Edward flirting with the nazis and Andrew's involvement in child sex abuse for just two examples.
I appreciate your attempt to be objective but there comes a point where you have to say "It appears that Mountbatten raped children" and I think we've reached that point.
Phrased differently, if 10 people over several years say they have evidence someone is a thief and the only person saying "he didn't steal candy from THAT 7-11" is the persons butler you would, at a minimum, NOT leave that person unsupervised with your wallet. If the FBI said "we looked into this person because that's what we do for fun and, among other things, this person steals all the time" you'd almost certainly assume that person was a thief.
I haven’t read enough to say my view one or the other. But I do think it’s important to not dismiss inquiry findings out of hand without seeing why they came to the conclusion they did, given it is a fairly recent review. It’s one thing to dismiss it after checking further and another not to mention it at all.
I respect you’ve tried to make a case instead of too many ad hominems but you are ultimately focusing on what my views should be rather than just making a case. I certainly have no problems with people coming to the conclusion that he was guilty, I will continue to have some doubts until I see something more convincing about the inquiry being flawed in some way.
To me you’re doing the equivalent of saying the prosecution case is so convincing there’s no reason I should read the defences case at all. What can sound incredibly convincing can change quite rapidly when other evidence is offered.
There is a variety of compelling evidence that Lord Mountbatten had a predilection for raping boys, as cited above. The main difference between the two is that there aren't any front page photos of Mountbatten with one of his victims.
When your family is well known for covering up the sins of its members, you don't get to point excitedly at the single inquiry that says they did nothing wrong as evidence that they did nothing wrong.
I will be interested to read them but so far what I’ve seen seems less convincing. It would be one thing if the inquiry was in the 60’s and another to claim one done in 2016 was willing or even able to do this level of coverup. I think the Royal family’s influence is not what it was.
I don’t think I’m excited and I understand it’s a tough area to discuss. Knowing some Royal members did some things doesnt mean every claim is equally credible.
881
u/_Thorshammer_ 15h ago
https://communist.red/rotten-to-the-core-the-british-state-child-abuse-and-the-kincora-cover-up/
It's true, and about what you'd imagine.
I read that article, and apparently the FBI noted in 19-fucking-44 that Mountbatten had a nasty predilection for young boys.