Prince Andrew to be sued

zorro_mfc said:
yes ok they are powerless remind again how the prime minister is appointed in this country. Or what is The exact moment they become prime minister. Here a clue it doesn’t involve the ballot box

by the way they are governments I said family.

the commonwealth exists through them.
Click to expand...

You said..... 'Nothing and I mean nothing on earth can or will rival the house of Windsor. For power' - no mention of family in your original message.

I don't understand the first part, are you suggesting that the PM isn't chosen by the public but instead by the Royal Family?
 
Norman_Conquest said:
but can we hand Andrew over in return for Anne Sacoolas?
Click to expand...
Of course she should be held to account for what she did, but it's irrelevent to the case we are discussing.

I don't want my country to be the type that protects a pedo just because he is rich and influential, full stop. We should take the higher ground.
 
Brian Marwood said:
You said..... 'Nothing and I mean nothing on earth can or will rival the house of Windsor. For power' - no mention of family in your original message.

I don't understand the first part, are you suggesting that the PM isn't chosen by the public but instead by the Royal Family?
Click to expand...
technically we don't choose the PM but the monarchy do give approval for that PM to form a government.
 
Brian Marwood said:
They don't rule half the world and I would suggest that the Chinese, Russian, American and EU governments have way more power. The mafia, NRA and Teamsters Union probaly have more power than the House of Windsor too.
Click to expand...
where the monarchy sit in the league table of powerful people is open to conjecture. What is clear is that they have immense power, disproportionate to any value we get from them. They influence laws, lobby for preferential treatment, close down accountability and hide responsibility for their actions behind PR statements to deflect and detract.

This is all beyond any serious discussion, just how far their fingers stretch is open to conjecture but because of the PR and the lack of accountability such as removal from any freedom of information requests, it's fairly obvious that they have a lot of influence and power but difficult to prove. But this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that is prepared to challenge the media perception and scratch away at the veneer of being ceremonial and political.
 
zorro_mfc said:
Ok name another family that rules half the world then ??
Click to expand...
Soros and Rockafeller to name two. 😉 That's not taking away the power the royal family have by the way but there are more powerful families out there.

Case will be settled out of court.
 
Randy said:
Soros and Rockafeller to name two. 😉 That's not taking away the power the royal family have by the way but there are more powerful families out there.

Case will be settled out of court.
Click to expand...
If they both control half the world does this mean that they control the whole world between them? :ROFLMAO:
 
Randy said:
Soros and Rockafeller to name two. 😉 That's not taking away the power the royal family have by the way but there are more powerful families out there.

Case will be settled out of court.
Click to expand...
True they had money and power lots of it but they didn’t have their face on it. The queen doesn’t just have money

the queen is money.

28bn according to Forbes

www.forbes.com

Inside ‘The Firm’: How The Royal Family’s $28 Billion Money Machine Really Works

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's explosive interview with the Queen of Media has the Windsors tied in knots. Here's how it affects their 1,000-year-old business.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
BoroMart said:
Of course she should be held to account for what she did, but it's irrelevent to the case we are discussing.

I don't want my country to be the type that protects a pedo just because he is rich and influential, full stop. We should take the higher ground.
Click to expand...
I know we aren’t discussing a young man who was unlawfully killed, but his killer is hiding behind the same judicial policies you want Andrew dealt with. I personally think it acceptable to ask for this trade. Let’s face it, neither are going to do the time they both deserve, which you will agree is wrong.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
I know we aren’t discussing a young man who was unlawfully killed, but his killer is hiding behind the same judicial policies you want Andrew dealt with. I personally think it acceptable to ask for this trade. Let’s face it, neither are going to do the time they both deserve, which you will agree is wrong.
Click to expand...
I do agree it's wrong, I just don't agree either case is linked in any way shape or form and the discussion is a complete distraction from the point at hand, that we (our government and royal family) are allowing someone to effectively rape a minor and to get away with it.

Personally I'm simply not comfortable with protecting anyone in such a case, and lets be honest if this was a working class bloke our government would have handed him over by now.
 
I guess we'll see. I have no idea whether a civil case can go ahead without him but I would doubt it. If it does go ahead it just becomes a pay off and the royal family not commenting.

A legal case brought in the uk may be more interesting if there is some evidence and people come forward with witness statements.

I think we all know that a legal challenge in the uk is unlikely as those involved will probably close ranks.

Does anyone actually doubt he is guilty of statutory rape in the US and sex with a minor in the uk?
 
Laughing said:
If it does go ahead it just becomes a pay off and the royal family not commenting.
Click to expand...
That is the concern, and we know the royal PR will send stories about how Guffre is on holiday in a paradise island, or how she has bought a vineyard in australia or whatever, to give a message that she is purely money motivated and not sincere in her accusations. I don't think the woman actually needs the money as her husband is fairly comfortable, but she does need closure on this, she does need justice.

I've been watching this case for long before it become knowledge in the general public and other than him defending himself with Matlis this has gone how I expected, the royals stating they would help any investigations while simultaneously stonewalling the authorities. They hope people's memory is short, they hope people will give the benefit of the doubt, they hope to discredit Guffre. They hope in 3-5 years Andrew can start to reappear, I hope he gets fully prosecuted.
 
BoroMart said:
That is the concern, and we know the royal PR will send stories about how Guffre is on holiday in a paradise island, or how she has bought a vineyard in australia or whatever, to give a message that she is purely money motivated and not sincere in her accusations. I don't think the woman actually needs the money as her husband is fairly comfortable, but she does need closure on this, she does need justice.

I've been watching this case for long before it become knowledge in the general public and other than him defending himself with Matlis this has gone how I expected, the royals stating they would help any investigations while simultaneously stonewalling the authorities. They hope people's memory is short, they hope people will give the benefit of the doubt, they hope to discredit Guffre. They hope in 3-5 years Andrew can start to reappear, I hope he gets fully prosecuted.
Click to expand...
I suspect all that's right, except I can't see him ever taking part in public life ever again. The Royal family is a business and he is bad for the brand.

We can hope but most of us do that without expectation. If my son had rapped a sex trafficked minor I would match him down to the police station myself. The fact his mother is protecting him tells us all we need to know about her integrity.
 
Angus said:
assuming that there is any potential offence committed in this country and I note she was apparently 17 at the time
Click to expand...
If she was trafficked to the UK & sex took place then age of consent is not relevant.
Max sentence is 14 years at his mother's pleasure.

Angus said:
This just can’t be buried, there is no statute of limitations in this country.
Click to expand...
Obviously she couldn't wait to lodge the civil claim as that was going to be time barred but for the criminal charges I think she will wait until Maxwell's trial. If she spills the beans on others to get a plea deal then it would make a getting a conviction much easier.
 
BoroMart said:
I do agree it's wrong, I just don't agree either case is linked in any way shape or form and the discussion is a complete distraction from the point at hand, that we (our government and royal family) are allowing someone to effectively rape a minor and to get away with it.

Personally I'm simply not comfortable with protecting anyone in such a case, and lets be honest if this was a working class bloke our government would have handed him over by now.
Click to expand...
I am not myself comfortable with defending him (we both agree there), but at the same time we cannot allow people to abuse the diplomatic system to escape prosecution. That is what she did and Andrew is using his Royal status to do the same.

I am not trying to hijack this thread and 100% of me wants to see him face justice, but put yourself in this lads families shoes, wouldn’t you want to use Andrew to bargain with? This is a great opportunity for this family to see Anne Sacoolas face justice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top