Gordon Brown is a man who gets into the detail.<\/p>\n
In office, and since then, he has applied his forensic mind to the matters that concern him. Lately, he has been focused on the Epstein files.<\/p>\n
What he discovered shocked him. There was the immediate anger about the \u201cextent of betrayal\u201d by his former business secretary, Peter Mandelson, during the global financial crisis.<\/p>\n
But it was the \u201cthe abuse of women by male predators and their enablers \u2013 and Britain\u2019s as yet unacknowledged role\u201d that has left the deepest mark.<\/p>\n
He looked at flight records, examined the evidence and came to a conclusion: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor<\/a> should face police questioning over Jeffrey Epstein.<\/p>\n He\u2019s not on his own in that conviction.<\/p>\n This week, voices around Westminster and beyond have insisted the role of UK institutions in this most horrifying of scandals must be now examined. And that includes the monarchy.<\/p>\n Gordon Brown examined the evidence and came to a conclusion: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should face police questioning over Jeffrey Epstein. Photograph: Leon Neal\/Getty Images<\/p>\n On Thursday, Cabinet Office parliamentary secretary Chris Ward was cornered about the former prince by Sarah Owen, chair of the Commons women and equalities committee.<\/p>\n Mountbatten-Windsor was trade envoy to critical countries, including China and Hong Kong, between 2001 and 2011.<\/p>\n Wasn\u2019t it time for him \u201cto answer both to the police and parliament\u201d, she asked.<\/p>\n MPs can no longer afford to be deferential when it comes to the royals, Owen told the Guardian.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have to do this to put faith back into systems where people have lost it,\u201d she said. \u201cIf we don\u2019t it weakens people\u2019s belief in democracy, their trust in politics as a force for good. That risks us going down to a really dark path.\u201d<\/p>\n Writing in the New Statesman<\/a>, Brown referenced a BBC investigation<\/a> which found many of Epstein\u2019s private planes had travelled through Stansted and other UK airports, where women \u201cwere transferred from one Epstein plane to another\u201d.<\/p>\n But Brown had been \u201ctold privately\u201d that previous Metropolitan police inquiries \u201crelated to the former Prince Andrew did not properly check vital evidence of flights\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Stansted revelations alone require them to interview Andrew,\u201d he argued.<\/p>\n Former Victim\u2019s Commissioner Vera Baird told the Guardian that she had spoken to the police about Mountbatten-Windsor before the Covid pandemic struck, but was assured the issue was being investigated thoroughly in the US.<\/p>\n \u201cClearly, [Mountbatten-Windsor] is not going to do anything himself. Clearly, there\u2019s a limit to what the royal family can do,\u201d she said. \u201cSo the police need to investigate.\u201d<\/p>\n Even from his bolthole in Sandringham, Norfolk, to where he is exiled by his brother, King Charles, can Mountbatten-Windsor, despite his vociferous denials of any wrongdoing, still ignore the deafening roars for him to cooperate with any police investigations, and to testify to the US Congress on what he himself knew about Epstein?<\/p>\n Media gather on Sandringham Estate, reported to be the interim accommodation for Andrew Mountbatten\u2011Windsor, after the latest release of Epstein files. Photograph: Jack Taylor\/Reuters<\/p>\n Thames Valley police is assessing whether to investigate the apparent sharing of some documents by Mountbatten-Windsor to Epstein during his time as trade envoy, and is engaged in discussions<\/a> with specialist crown prosecutors from the CPS. The same force is assessing claims a woman was sent to the UK by Epstein for a sexual encounter with the then prince, which allegedly occurred at his former Royal Lodge residence in 2010. The woman, who is not British, was in her 20s at the time. The allegation is separate to the one made by Virginia Giuffre.<\/p>\n As Mountbatten-Windsor\u2019s past answers over his relationship with Epstein are apparently blown apart, there has been no response from him.<\/p>\n When, with titles still intact, the then Prince Andrew told interviewer Emily Maitlis and 1.7 million BBC Newsnight viewers in 2019 of his Pizza Express in Woking alibi, and revealed a temporary medical inability to sweat, he would have expected to be believed, especially as the queen\u2019s son.<\/p>\n Not any more.<\/p>\n There was also the matter of that March 2001 photograph, with Mountbatten-Windsor\u2019s hand seemingly around the bare waist of a 17-year-old Virginia Giuffre, who would later claim she was forced to have sex with the royal, a claim he has always denied, and said to have been taken in Ghislaine Maxwell\u2019s London Belgravia mews home.<\/p>\n The March 2001 photograph, with Mountbatten-Windsor\u2019s hand seemingly around the bare waist of a 17-year-old Virginia Giuffre. Photograph: US Department of Justice\/PA<\/p>\n Asked about it, he had stared at Maitlis, earnestly. It was difficult, he insisted, to \u201cprove\u201d it was \u201cfaked\u201d, because it was a photograph of a photograph.<\/p>\n \u201cWhether that\u2019s my hand, or whether that\u2019s the position \u2026\u201d he went on, before concluding: \u201cI\u2019m afraid to say that I don\u2019t believe that photograph was taken in the way that has been suggested.\u201d<\/p>\n Was it taken by Epstein? The then prince said that he had never seen Epstein \u201cwith a camera in my life\u201d.<\/p>\n Yet Epstein appears to have kept many photographs of people, presumably to utilise for some purpose at a future date.<\/p>\n Mountbatten-Windsor\u2019s explanation of that photograph is now robustly questioned by a July 2011 email from Epstein <\/a>to his publicist, which states: \u201cyes she was on my plane and yes she had her picture taken with Andrew\u201d, in an apparent reference to Giuffre.<\/p>\n Maxwell further strengthens the argument for its authenticity in an email to Epstein in 2015<\/a>, headed \u201cdraft statement\u201d. She appears to write: \u201cIn 2001 I was in London when [redacted] met a number of friends of mine including Prince Andrew. A photograph was taken as I imagine she wanted to show it to friends and family.\u201d<\/p>\n Another reason to doubt the photo, Mountbatten-Windsor insisted to Maitlis, was he was \u201cnot one to, as it were, hug and public displays of affection\u201d. Yet, a photograph recently disclosed of him crouching on all fours, barefoot and smiling, over an unidentified woman lying on the floor, also casts doubt on this claim.<\/p>\n A photo recently disclosed of Andrew crouching on all fours, barefoot and smiling, over an unidentified woman lying on the floor. Photograph: US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE\/AFP\/Getty Images<\/p>\n What of another photograph, pivotal to his downfall, and taken in early December 2010, five months after the financier\u2019s release from prison for soliciting sex with a minor, showing the two men strolling in New York\u2019s Central Park?<\/p>\n Wielded as proof of his ongoing relationship with Epstein that conviction, Mountbatten-Windsor would brush it aside as the final moment of their friendship.<\/p>\n He had to show \u201cleadership\u201d, he told Maitlis, and tell Epstein: \u201cThat\u2019s it.\u201d It was the \u201chonourable and right thing to do\u201d face-to-face. Crucially, he insisted, \u201cfrom that day forth, I was never in contact with him\u201d.<\/p>\n But a thank-you email he appears to have written to Epstein on 22 December 2010 reads: \u201cIt was great to spend time with my US family. Looking forward to joining you all again soon.\u201d<\/p>\n Then with imminent publication by the Mail on Sunday of an article about Andrew, Epstein and Maxwell, \u201cThe Duke\u201d writes to Epstein in February 2011: \u201cIt would seem we are in this together and we will have to rise above it.\u201d Another, in March 2011 reads: \u201cPlease make sure that every statement or legal letter states clearly that I am NOT involved and that I knew and know NOTHING about any of these allegations. I can\u2019t take any more of this my end.\u201d<\/p>\n These emails may raise serious questions about the personal integrity of a public figure, but what of professional integrity.<\/p>\n Emails between Andrew and Epstein show the former prince sharing information about potential investments for his friend \u2013 all while he was on the government payroll as UK trade envoy.<\/p>\n When the anti-monarchy campaign group Republic this week reported Mountbatten-Windsor to Thames Valley police, its CEO Graham Smith said: \u201cI cannot see any significant difference between these allegations and those against Peter Mandelson.\u201d<\/p>\n Emails between Andrew and Epstein show the former Prince sharing information about investments while he was UK trade envoy. Photograph: Toby Melville\/Reuters<\/p>\n Christmas Eve 2010, after he has insisted he had no contact, the former duke appears to forward to Epstein a document including information on investment opportunities in gold and uranium in Afghanistan.<\/p>\n The document, specifically prepared by government officials for him, according to the BBC<\/a>, references \u201csignificant high value mineral deposits\u201d and the \u201cpotential for low cost extraction\u201d, including valuable natural resources such as marble, gold, iridium, uranium, thorium and possible deposits of oil and gas. All sent, apparently to Epstein.<\/p>\n Another email indicates that on 7 October 2010, he sent Epstein details of his official upcoming trips as trade envoy to Singapore, Vietnam, Shenzhen in China and Hong Kong, where he was accompanied by business associates of the child sex offender. After the trip, on 30 November, he appears to have forwarded official reports of those visits sent by his then special assistant, Amit Patel, to Epstein, five minutes after receiving them.<\/p>\n Buckingham Palace may have said in October, when Charles stripped his brother of all vestiges of royalty, and booted him and his ex-wife out of his 30-room Windsor residence, Royal Lodge, that such \u201ccensures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him\u201d.<\/p>\n King Charles stripped his brother of his titles and booted him and his ex-wife out of his 30-room Windsor residence in October last year. Photograph: Adrian Dennis\/AFP\/Getty Images<\/p>\n As the drip-drip of disclosures continues, Buckingham Palace has stressed this week that Charles has \u201cprofound concern\u201d<\/a> at the allegations and is ready to support any police investigation. Though \u201cspecific claims in question are for Mr Mountbatten-Windsor to address\u201d, it said, \u201cif we are approached by Thames Valley police we stand ready to support them as you would expect\u201d. The Prince and Princess of Wales, were also said by their spokesperson to be \u201cdeeply concerned\u201d by the continuing revelations.<\/p>\n