[News] Prince Andrew interviewed about allegations

[Fitzcarraldo]

All of this stuff wouldn't just disappear. We'd still need a head of state who would need to be supported by the taxpayer. All the abolitionists will be screaming even louder when it ends up as Boris Johnson.

Screaming all the way to the ballot box when we could vote him out when the time came. How can we vote out Prince Andrew?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

In reputational terms, I don't think that's going to make a lot of difference, detailed allegations have been made, are in the public domain and will be heard and considered in a court. And this is in the context of Andrew's continued association with Epstein AFTER he was convicted as a paedophile and that car crash interview, which has comprehensively undermined any credibility he may have had.

I am personally against the Royal Family, on principle (and I also think the economic arguments in favour are very flimsy indeed). But I don't think it's been the most important battle to choose, or hill to die on, - given overwhelming public opinion in favour.

But I have always detested Andrew. He's arrogant, greedy, entitled and sleazy. and these allegations just back up my opinion of him from stories I've heard from behind the scenes, and the public actions of the man himself. I think it's apparent the Royal Family and the 'firm' have already been shielding him to some extent. It's what they do, it's their default and they are very well practiced at it. But it's not clear exactly what they know, or don't know. It may yet become apparent that they've known for some time of some of the details of what he's been up to (assuming the accusations stand up of course) - in which case they are going to find themselves in a difficult position - where 'cutting him loose' won't be enough and they may be forced to double down, dig in and use all their powers to protect him.

It's already messy and could get much worse.

I don't like Andrew and heard many tales from people in the Navy, so no argument from me. I suspect this will be settled out of court.

 

[peterward]

Does it though really? I've not seen a convincing case.

I also haven't seen the figures put forward for the tourism an historic royal family still attracts, even if they are no-longer a current one. Take the French for example, the Palace of Versailles is one of the most visited places in the world with the French Royal Family gone some 200 odd years ago. That history still has great tourist economic value even if it's not current.

The British Royal Family as a tourist attraction still has value whether the monarchy is active or not. All that revenue from people visiting the Royal palaces etc. wouldn't be lost altogether.

I actually think the stronger economic argument is to get rid.

You've not searched to hard then!

The queen and Charles for starters pay tax and capital gains on things not associated with Royal duties. The sovereign grant, that is used to pay for many of the lesser royals and bits of the more important ones has run from somehwere in the 50's to the hundred million marks pa occasionally a bit higher.

The Duchey's of Lancaster and especially the Duchy of Cornwall (charles) pays from its business enterprises a very large part of the royal finances, including for William, kate, Chales and Camilla and some other senior Royals. Their royal duties are financed fom the profits of the Duchey. Thats self perpetuating. a different question is maybe whether thats morally right.

A consultancy called Brand Finance estimated in 2017 that the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.

https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/valued-at-67-billion-the-monarchy-is-britains-greatest-treasure

Thats massively more than the soverign grant (the taxpayer portion of their annual allowance).

Again I concede with others points on whether that would remain, decrease or disappear if there were no Royal family living in the palaces and no guards in bearskin hats doing royal parades etc. But that again is a different argument, a moral one on whether its right or wrong, and I fully accept there are plenty of people who dont agree morally with a royal family.

The economic argument, pure cost/revenue argument is sound.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

All of this stuff wouldn't just disappear. We'd still need a head of state who would need to be supported by the taxpayer. All the abolitionists will be screaming even louder when it ends up as Boris Johnson.

Depends on the system you put in place after. Germany as an example has an elected Chancellor as head of government, but also has an elected President as head of state. Angela Merkel isn't Germany's head of state.

Of course if abolitionists in a system whereby Boris Johnson was head of state were screaming, they would only have until the next election to vote him out of the position. Not an option we have with an hereditary monarchy.

We have been fortunate of course for 70 years to have a monarch who has been a decent human being, but that is just luck really. In a birth lottery we could have ended up with Andrew as Monarch. There would be no voting him out either...

 

[SeagullDubai]

A "passable description" ??
I could probably give a "passable description" of what your meat 'n' two veg looks like and I haven't even seen it as far as I'm aware.

How does he disprove the claim. I can’t imagine him flopping out his wedding tackle in a courtroom. Unless it’s an all female jury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wardy's twin]

I think a major part of the attraction of Royal Family is the queen , the fact that she has been around as queen for nearly 70 years and seems to be respected by many politicians as a politician . The next big attraction is the pomp and ceremony generally associated with the family and the buildings and to the outside world its one of the things that defines British hence its attraction to tourists. Not sure what one can say about the rest what are their credentials for leadership?

 

[Clive Walker]

All of this stuff wouldn't just disappear. We'd still need a head of state who would need to be supported by the taxpayer. All the abolitionists will be screaming even louder when it ends up as Boris Johnson.

Friends in the US had a similar situation with Trump. At the end of the day he was democratically elected as HOS. He got voted out democratically.

In the UK it is only by pure luck that Andrew isn't the next in line to the thrown. If it were the case there is nothing you or I could do about it as its a totally undemocratic way of appointing a HOS.

 

[m@goo]

I've had a quick look but is it possible or legal for the British public to vote whether there should be a monarchy? I suspect the majority would vote to either abolish it or substantially reduce it after the Queens death.

 

[marlowe]

How does he disprove the claim. I can’t imagine him flopping out his wedding tackle in a courtroom. Unless it’s an all female jury.

He wouldn't necessarily be required to flop it out in situ during the actual hearing, but it's not unknown in cases such as these for the accused's genitalia to come under very detailed and intimate scrutiny with respect to its various distinguishing characteristics, which might include its size, shape, incline, colouring, blemishes and other idiosyncracies etc.

It happened to Michael Jackson, Max Clifford, and even Bill Clinton where the various distinguishing characteristics of their respective genitalia were openly discussed during the hearing as part of the evidence.

But rather than flopping it out during the witness testimony, corroboration is usually sought by a prior medical examination, the results of which are then presented as evidence, either in support of the defence or prosecution/plaintiff.

 

[clapham_gull]

I've had a quick look but is it possible or legal for the British public to vote whether there should be a monarchy? I suspect the majority would vote to either abolish it or substantially reduce it after the Queens death.

The majority wouldn't, they are still incredibly popular. However I suspect we will see a number of changes with the next one in charge.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Get rid of the leeches when Elizabeth moves on, this country doesnt need one family heading it

 

[beorhthelm]

I've had a quick look but is it possible or legal for the British public to vote whether there should be a monarchy? I suspect the majority would vote to either abolish it or substantially reduce it after the Queens death.

we have a monarchy by act of parliament, so a matter of having a majority in the house of commons to abolish or overhaul it.

 

[Clive Walker]

The majority wouldn't, they are still incredibly popular. However I suspect we will see a number of changes with the next one in charge.

I think the last polling suggested that 66% of people are in favour.

I think the thing that republicans hold onto is the fact that things can change rather quickly. Once the Queen dies the swing may take place with Charles.

Its worth noting that 20-25 years ago the vast majority of people in the UK were against Gay marriage. I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of people are all for it in 2021.

I happen to think that the monarchy will be abolished within my lifetime.

 

[Hugo Rune]

we have a monarchy by act of parliament, so a matter of having a majority in the house of commons to abolish or overhaul it.

This would be a huge voter loser but is the right thing to do after the death of the queen.

 

[Bry Nylon]

He wouldn't necessarily be required to flop it out in situ during the actual hearing, but it's not unknown in cases such as these for the accused's genitalia to come under very detailed and intimate scrutiny with respect to its various distinguishing characteristics, which might include its size, shape, incline, colouring, blemishes and other idiosyncracies etc.

It happened to Michael Jackson, Max Clifford, and even Bill Clinton where the various distinguishing characteristics of their respective genitalia were openly discussed during the hearing as part of the evidence.

But rather than flopping it out during the witness testimony, corroboration is usually sought by a prior medical examination, the results of which are then presented as evidence, either in support of the defence or prosecution/plaintiff.

I can imagine there is the capacity for all manner of confusion should he be asked to get the crown jewels out.

 

[m@goo]

The majority wouldn't, they are still incredibly popular. However I suspect we will see a number of changes with the next one in charge.

Maybe I'm being too idealistic but I'd like to think most people would vote to have a much smaller monarchy at the very least.

we have a monarchy by act of parliament, so a matter of having a majority in the house of commons to abolish or overhaul it.

So, never gonna happen in my life time then...

 

[Bry Nylon]

He wouldn't necessarily be required to flop it out in situ during the actual hearing, but it's not unknown in cases such as these for the accused's genitalia to come under very detailed and intimate scrutiny with respect to its various distinguishing characteristics, which might include its size, shape, incline, colouring, blemishes and other idiosyncracies etc.

It happened to Michael Jackson, Max Clifford, and even Bill Clinton where the various distinguishing characteristics of their respective genitalia were openly discussed during the hearing as part of the evidence.

But rather than flopping it out during the witness testimony, corroboration is usually sought by a prior medical examination, the results of which are then presented as evidence, either in support of the defence or prosecution/plaintiff.

[MENTION=205]Tom Hark, Preston Park[/MENTION]. This post is awaiting your simple tap in.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Will Buckingham palace be made into flats?

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

[MENTION=205]Tom Hark, Preston Park[/MENTION]. This post is awaiting your simple tap in.

It'd never stand up in court



(assist by the boy [MENTION=600]Bry Nylon[/MENTION])

 

[marlowe]

[MENTION=205]Tom Hark, Preston Park[/MENTION]. This post is awaiting your simple tap in.

I don't think [MENTION=205]Tom Hark, Preston Park[/MENTION] will want to get too involved. He's probably still worrying about my ability to give a "passing description" of his "meat 'n' two veg" (see post #267) and the legal implications that might raise.