|
-
Prince Andrew............. Again.
The Lawyers pursue the rat and if my reading is correct;
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part06
have served him despite his defence team trying to help him wriggle.
He did remember, promise to "co-operate with any legitimate inquiries by the US authorities"
The Queen apparently is "careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law"
So does she have to turn her rat in and get him to answer the allegations?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
-
Originally Posted by local
The Lawyers pursue the rat and if my reading is correct;
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part06
have served him despite his defence team trying to help him wriggle.
He did remember, promise to "co-operate with any legitimate inquiries by the US authorities"
The Queen apparently is "careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law"
So does she have to turn her rat in and get him to answer the allegations?
He knows and knew he was breaking the law , should be known as the "phonie" prince cant stand him .
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by local
The Queen apparently is "careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law"
So does she have to turn her rat in and get him to answer the allegations?
We hear a lot about Her Maj's dedication to 'duty'.
We also hear about how she's willing to bend / change the law to benefit her and hers. So I guess she should be considering her position. She's obviously allowing him to skip out of the way of American justice, otherwise she'd have instructed him to face the music.
I'd say the future of the Monarchy, while not hinging on this case, could certainly be affected. Charlie handing out honours for cash, Queenie shielding a nonce. The public generally wanting them to skip a generation to install Saint William () as king. Not looking rosy.
I'd say she, as the Monarch, has a duty to see justice done. Favourite son or not.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Toodles McGinty
We hear a lot about Her Maj's dedication to 'duty'.
We also hear about how she's willing to bend / change the law to benefit her and hers. So I guess she should be considering her position. She's obviously allowing him to skip out of the way of American justice, otherwise she'd have instructed him to face the music.
I'd say the future of the Monarchy, while not hinging on this case, could certainly be affected. Charlie handing out honours for cash, Queenie shielding a nonce. The public generally wanting them to skip a generation to install Saint William ( ) as king. Not looking rosy.
I'd say she, as the Monarch, has a duty to see justice done. Favourite son or not.
You make some very pertinent points.
Which does she consider more important the family or the "firm"
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
I don't like the assumption that Andrew is guilty. However, he has not helped the perception that he has something to hide.
The Queen will go for the Firm all day but as a mother she may try to delay the inevitable. I hope she is not advised to do so.
I don't blame Andrew for not wanting to get embroiled in the US justice system. It's all about contorting the law and not seeing justice done. But mud sticks even if unfairly.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 3 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by joan ofarc
I don't like the assumption that Andrew is guilty. However, he has not helped the perception that he has something to hide.
The Queen will go for the Firm all day but as a mother she may try to delay the inevitable. I hope she is not advised to do so.
He comes across as guilty as sin. And as a spoilt-rotten man-child spouting dumb lies and excuses of a standard that Bart Simpson would be embarrassed by.
Originally Posted by joan ofarc
I don't blame Andrew for not wanting to get embroiled in the US justice system. It's all about contorting the law and not seeing justice done. But mud sticks even if unfairly.
It is often said that the US systems are more open to manipulation by the rich. Although if ultimately he loses the potential court case, he could be ordered to pay damages that could run into the tens of millions.
If that scenario comes to pass, It'll be interesting to see how subjects feel about having a tax-payer funded paedo.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 1 Dislikes
-
He comes across as guilty as sin. And as a spoilt-rotten man-child spouting dumb lies and excuses of a standard that Bart Simpson would be embarrassed by.
Maybe. That's your opinion. Very judgemental.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by joan ofarc
Maybe. That's your opinion. Very judgemental.
Yes, it's my opinion in that it was me there giving it. I daresay it's an opinion more or less shared by many other people, too.
It is very judgemental. It's difficult not to form some sort of (provisional) conclusion in regard to information...
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...s-account-his-
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by joan ofarc
He comes across as guilty as sin. And as a spoilt-rotten man-child spouting dumb lies and excuses of a standard that Bart Simpson would be embarrassed by.
Maybe. That's your opinion. Very judgemental.
It's hard to come to any other conclusion about him without coming out into a "dry sweat"
He did say publicly he would co-operate but it appears his staff has been instructed to protect him from the pursuit of the truth of what happened.
The trouble is if he is found liable we the tax-payer indirectly get the bill to add insult.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by joan ofarc
He comes across as guilty as sin. And as a spoilt-rotten man-child spouting dumb lies and excuses of a standard that Bart Simpson would be embarrassed by.
Maybe. That's your opinion. Very judgemental.
He went on TV to be judged by the nation, surely. To be given a chance to put his point across. To give his side of the story. His defence?
In front of a virtual jury, he was found guilty on all counts. I've seen 4 year olds spout more convincing lies. Never seen her, don't remember her, pizza parlours, inability to sweat...
I can only assume his advisors are heartily sick of working for a paedo. Because that interview was a car crash.
I've a family member accused of something similar - underage teens - though not as horrendous as having actual sex with them. A teacher, no less. He protested his innocence. Got 2 years jail. Protested some more when he came out. Had everyone convinced it was a miscarriage of justice. But he never actually sought to clear his name.
I always wondered why. Because if I'd been unjustly accused of such things, I'd move heaven and earth to prove my innocence. I wouldn't hide behind my mother's skirts and hope it all went away. I'd want my day in court. Even in a system apparently skewed away from justice.
Prince Nonce will have to be dragged kicking and screaming, obviously. If his interview hadn't convinced me of his guilt, then that certainly does.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 1 Dislikes
-
A lot of very righteous people on this forum.
Yes, he's got a lot to explain and hasn't handled it well. Yes, he was foolish in his associations and should have known better. It's a civil case not a criminal one but still he should defend himself otherwise it looks bad even though there is no jurisdiction here. Given that, I think the move to serve him and involve him so publicly by American lawyers is a power play and it seems to be working with you. Cynical really as the US rarely reciprocates when Americans need to answer charges in the UK.
I doubt the British tax payer will be paying his legal fees or the substantial compensation the complainant is seeking.
He IS a public figure but I don't think that entitles people to sling crude names at him. Most of the invective is symptomatic of anti royal sentiments rather than cooler heads.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 3 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by joan ofarc
A lot of very righteous people on this forum.
Yes, he's got a lot to explain and hasn't handled it well. Yes, he was foolish in his associations and should have known better. It's a civil case not a criminal one but still he should defend himself otherwise it looks bad even though there is no jurisdiction here. Given that, I think the move to serve him and involve him so publicly by American lawyers is a power play and it seems to be working with you. Cynical really as the US rarely reciprocates when Americans need to answer charges in the UK.
I doubt the British tax payer will be paying his legal fees or the substantial compensation the complainant is seeking.
He IS a public figure but I don't think that entitles people to sling crude names at him. Most of the invective is symptomatic of anti royal sentiments rather than cooler heads.
Remember the Carl Beech saga.
Innocent until proven guilty.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by joan ofarc
A lot of very righteous people on this forum.
Yes, he's got a lot to explain and hasn't handled it well. Yes, he was foolish in his associations and should have known better. It's a civil case not a criminal one but still he should defend himself otherwise it looks bad even though there is no jurisdiction here. Given that, I think the move to serve him and involve him so publicly by American lawyers is a power play and it seems to be working with you. Cynical really as the US rarely reciprocates when Americans need to answer charges in the UK.
I doubt the British tax payer will be paying his legal fees or the substantial compensation the complainant is seeking.
He IS a public figure but I don't think that entitles people to sling crude names at him. Most of the invective is symptomatic of anti royal sentiments rather than cooler heads.
Its a civil case based on criminal actions.
The US not reciprocating is irrelevant.
He has been given years to respond.
The Tax Payer has to foot the bill where else is the money coming from?
I like the Queen but she is stretching things at the moment.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
The Tax Payer has to foot the bill where else is the money coming from?
The Firm will pay. They know not to push their luck.
The US not reciprocating is relevant because it illustrates that they know how to play the system. No one there really expects Andrew to go over but if they make enough fuss about it they 'prove' the allegations. The so called justice system over there allows for all sorts of public discussion of cases, allegations tossed about and the court of public opinion nicely deciding someone's fate in away that wouldn't happen here as no trial could be fair in such an atmosphere. They have no jurisdiction over Andrew. It's an American civil case and they know it. I believe they are pushing it to ensure a private settlement of damages. This is the likeliest result and Andrew could have avoided it if his lawyers had had better tactics.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by joan ofarc
A lot of very righteous people on this forum.
Yes, he's got a lot to explain and hasn't handled it well. Yes, he was foolish in his associations and should have known better. It's a civil case not a criminal one but still he should defend himself otherwise it looks bad even though there is no jurisdiction here. Given that, I think the move to serve him and involve him so publicly by American lawyers is a power play and it seems to be working with you. Cynical really as the US rarely reciprocates when Americans need to answer charges in the UK.
I doubt the British tax payer will be paying his legal fees or the substantial compensation the complainant is seeking.
He IS a public figure but I don't think that entitles people to sling crude names at him. Most of the invective is symptomatic of anti royal sentiments rather than cooler heads.
Simple enough solution: go and face the music.
Foolish in his associations? He went to stay in the home of a convicted child trafficker. A child rapist. He went to 'paedophile island'. That goes beyond 'foolish'.
He's denying he even remembered a child acknowledged to have been raped by the same child trafficker? A child he was photographed with? A child that witnesses say he was pawing on that island?
It seems some are overlooking the fact that he might be a rapist in favour of his blue blood.
I couldn't give a rat's arse if he's royal or not. I do care that the monarch is shielding a nonce. He's definitely getting special treatment in this country because of his narrow gene pool.
A 'power play'? To bring a nonce to justice?
The British tax payer is already paying for him. The question is are we paying for a grown man who rapes children? And is the woman with a sworn duty to the people of this country deliberately shielding a rapist?
It's just a great shame he isn't answering a criminal case.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
|
Search Qlocal (powered by google)
Privacy & Cookie Policy
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Booking.com
Supporting Local Business
Be Seen - Advertise on Qlocal
UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
UK,
UK News,
|