Prince Andrew

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
newfhouse

newfhouse

pleb
BoldonLad said:
Sort of behaving like "normal" people in other words, which I thought many on here (including me) would like them to be, when Monarchy is ditched.
Click to expand...

Let's ditch them first and once that's out of the way I'll decide how much slack they deserve. Fair?
 
Rusty Nails

Rusty Nails

Country Member
I come from a large extended family with some members of that family having committed much worse acts than Andrew, but, while the actions of those people are certainly not being condoned they have done their time and are not struck from the family as in some melodramatic Victorian pot boiler, or barred from family events. There is however usually an uncomfortable undercurrent when they are present.

The main difference, I suppose is that my family members are not public figures and are not put in positions where they are seen by the public as representing their family, plus Andrew has not really done any time.

I have no issues with William or Charles, or whoever, being seen occasionally in Andrew's company in informal or ostensibly private situations, but mission creep needs to be avoided at all costs where these events are used as a gradual precursor to his increased involvement,
 
OP
OP
Pale Rider

Pale Rider

Veteran
Rusty Nails said:
I come from a large extended family with some members of that family having committed much worse acts than Andrew,
Click to expand...

I have an extremely dull and uninteresting family.

Seems to this is one occasion where dull and uninteresting is good.
 
icowden

icowden

Squire
newfhouse said:
A thought provoking read.
Click to expand...
But also deeply silly.

For example:-
In case you didn’t know, Buckingham palace vetted over 1,000 laws during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II via queen’s consent. One can only assume a clause was added so Prince Andrew could not be prosecuted for child rape.
Click to expand...
All laws are public. You can go and look at criminal justice laws and see if Royalty have an exemption because it would be published.
And then:-
The foreign office is essentially saying a member of a family that is funded with our money - the brother of our head of state, no less - who was working in an official capacity as trade envoy should be shielded
Click to expand...
That isn't what they are saying at all. They are saying that they cannot release documents because there is a law stating that they cannot release documents held under Section 37 and 40. Only the Government could do that by changing the law. That's how laws work.

Then
For example, if Princess Anne axe-murdered the butler because he’d slightly burnt her toast, would we be allowed to know? What if Prince George went all King Joffrey and threw the queen’s corgis into a moat of piranhas, would anyone tell us? These are serious questions! What is the limit here?
Click to expand...
There is no limit. These things would swiftly become public. The firm is as leaky as hell. What they would have is access to the very top barristers in the country.

Than:
Andrew evaded justice by paying off Virginia Giuffrey and now he is evading justice through a coverup.
Click to expand...
He was not subject to a criminal prosecution and Giuffrey chose to take the cash. There is no criminal prosecution. That is a matter for the CPS.

Why are we not unanimously demanding Andrew is locked behind bars? Why are we not demanding an end to this vile institution that is above the law?
Click to expand...
Because we are not a tin-pot dictatorship (yet). He cannot be locked behind bars unless a criminal prosecution is brought by the CPS and he loses his case. That's how the law works.

At best the limitation is in bureaucracy. Documents that might incriminate may have been certified confidential so that they did not incriminate. It seems unlikely however that he was keeping a secret diary of all the teenagers he may or may not have had sex with.
 
OP
OP
Pale Rider

Pale Rider

Veteran
newfhouse said:
A thought provoking read.

https://open.substack.com/pub/councilestatemedia/p/why-the-hell-is-the-foreign-office
Click to expand...

As cowden says, silly, childish, moronic even.

I'm reassured when I read garbage like this.

If that's the best the abolitionists can do, I know the future of the monarchy is assured for decades to come.

By the by, I'm disappointed newie thinks this is 'thought provoking'.

It tells him what we wants to hear, so it's another example of 'critical thinking out, blind prejudice in'.
 
newfhouse

newfhouse

pleb
Pale Rider said:
By the by, I'm disappointed newie thinks this is 'thought provoking'
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, sometimes even your output provokes the odd thought.

Going back to the blog post, I wasn’t aware of the 105 years from birth rule. I’d always assumed secrets would be hidden until a suitable period after death. Thought provoking, no?

Why would trips made at our expense, ostensibly as a trade envoy, need to be protected from public scrutiny for decades? I mean, it’s safe to assume that Andrew isn’t actually a trade expert and that his only purpose is to add a bit of marketing sparkle, isn’t it? So, why the FOI exemption?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom