That doesnt need them all to be putting the boot in though.
Agreed. Must be irresistible though.
demonstrating that perhaps it isnt a good idea to not allow mps to criticise/comment on the royal family.
Good point.
They're having a debate, tabled by the lib dems, in the commons nominally about the sweaty nonce and releasing documents about his role as a trade envoy. This seems to involve a succession of MPs standing up and recounting their dealings with him and what an arrogant, entitled and utterly obnoxious **** he was/isits strange - all these people very close to the heart of power who "always knew he was a wrongun" but did bugger all about it (at least publicly). The enablers - royal protection officers (particularly senior ones who stamped out any concerns) and dept of trade staff who have approved his claims (particularly those who stamped out concerns) need to be worried that the blame game will come their way.
They're having a debate, tabled by the lib dems, in the commons nominally about the sweaty nonce and releasing documents about his role as a trade envoy. This seems to involve a succession of MPs standing up and recounting their dealings with him and what an arrogant, entitled and utterly obnoxious **** he was/is
They're all rushing to distance themselves from any involvement, as @poly says above ^^.
Never mind the potential national security scandal or the exact details, so long as we all know that the MP for [insert random constituency] had nothing at all to do with it Your Honour, in fact I always knew there was something not right, then we can all move on thank you, nothing to see here.
Always good to know there are people more cynical than myself! I think the willingness to shed more light on what's happened, including by those MPs who were in government while Andrew was lording it around the world as a Trade Envoy, is a positive thing. It's not a "move on, nothing to see" move... it could turn out to be an open up the cupboards and let the air in moment. Sorry for the optimism. Back to normal again soon.
Basically hiding behind layers of security so he can't be served by the legal team launching the civil action taking place in New York. Just attempting to get off on a technicality. Nice.
He really believes the law is for little people like us I suppose?
Not guilty? Ok, have your say, but don't hide behind the outdated institution of monarchy.
If he's found guilty in his absence he won't be jetting round the world anymore that's for sure.👍
Legal stuff like this always turns into procedure fights first, facts later. Service, jurisdiction, timing, all that boring process can drag things out for months before anyone even argues the actual claims. It is not really about hiding, it is how civil cases work when lawyers try to control where and how the case moves. The court will eventually force clarity one way or another.
I'm losing track of the details on this saga, but weren't the government trying to avoid this stuff being made public until the Police had finished with it all first?
I'm all for putting the boot in, but let's not **** up any Police enquiries first.
I'm all for putting the boot in, but let's not **** up any Police enquiries first.
'Sorry everyone, but we can't prosecute Randy Andy and Mandy because somebody on an obscure bike website populated by about 30 old men made an off colour joke.'
I'm losing track of the details on this saga, but weren't the government trying to avoid this stuff being made public until the Police had finished with it all first?
the police investigation will be about actions Andrew took as Trade Envoy and any illegality that might have been part of that, its not about how or why he was deemed suitable to be made a Trade Envoy in the first place (its worth keeping in mind he wasn't the our only trade envoy - we currently have 30 trade envoys) which is what is being discussed in parliament. There'll be questions about what due diligence was or wasn't untaken - and given that it's an unpaid post there might be less of that than we'd imagine. But these are just HR (rather than HRH) issues really for the government itself, they don't have any bearing on what the police will be investigating.
the police investigation will be about actions Andrew took as Trade Envoy and any illegality that might have been part of that, its not about how or why he was deemed suitable to be made a Trade Envoy in the first place (its worth keeping in mind he wasn't the our only trade envoy - we currently have 30 trade envoys) which is what is being discussed in parliament. There'll be questions about what due diligence was or wasn't untaken - and given that it's an unpaid post there might be less of that than we'd imagine. But these are just HR (rather than HRH) issues really for the government itself, they don't have any bearing on what the police will be investigating.
And the obvious question that should be on everyone's lips is, "if these are unpaid roles, why are people doing them?". It might be that the 8th in line to the throne had nothing else to do and felt a moral duty to support his mummy's country - but are we sure the 21 MPs, and 11 Lords/Baronesses are doing it for the good of the country? And are any of the others putting ridiculous stuff through their expenses?
There'll be questions about what due diligence was or wasn't untaken - and given that it's an unpaid post there might be less of that than we'd imagine. But these are just HR (rather than HRH) issues really for the government itself, they don't have any bearing on what the police will be investigating.
Thanks, I was getting the different strands muddled
There'll be questions about what due diligence was or wasn't untaken - and given that it's an unpaid post there might be less of that than we'd imagine.
There may be some interesting questions there though.
Private Eye reported issue before last that Charles had argued against him getting the "job" on the grounds he would just play golf and chase women but he got chosen by Blair anyway.
Although looks to be more recent reporting suggesting both Mandelson and the queen both lobbied/pressured Blair to chose him.
the obvious question that should be on everyone's lips is, "if these are unpaid roles, why are people doing them?"
This is the kind of question that says more about the self-interested cynicism of person asking it than the people doing the jobs. You'd be stunned to find out that lots of people do unpaid work for their community and country. They're all people with a decent income (either as an MP or a peer, and usually a pension in the latter case).
Being a trade envoy would be an interesting assignment that gets you in the meeting room with a bunch of interesting people, and maybe the occasional trip to the place to which you've been assigned. I can think of worse hobbies - it's not a full time job or anything close. And, hey, if you're an MP and do a decent job of this non-ministerial role, maybe next reshuffle you can be in with a shot for a junior FCDO job. Who knows?
Obviously Prince Andrew is not one of those people, was unqualified in business and government, and used these trips to pick up Rolexes and make scummy introductions. The reports that he was misbehaving were ignored. (I think even Popbitch carried stories about his entitlement and temper tantrums - although there was never anything nonce-related). On the principle of "never hire who you can't fire", Blair shouldn't have touched him with someone else's bargepole. But he always did want to suck up to the Queen.
Private Eye reported issue before last that Charles had argued against him getting the "job" on the grounds he would just play golf and chase women but he got chosen by Blair anyway.
I think mummy had quite a role in him getting the gig. She clearly didn’t agree with Charles and Blair took the easy option
Popbitch from 2015:
>> Handy Andy <<
Prince's rough trade mission
Back when Prince Andrew was a business ambassador for the government, he went on a trade mission to Kazakhstan for a big energy firm. Fellow members of the mission remember him most for his translator.
a) The translator was female
b) The translator was young
c) Weirdly, the translator didn't know a lot of English so couldn't translate much.
FYI: Andrew's nickname on the trip(out of earshot) was Mr Tickle. Apparently everyone was pleased to escape his "party hands".
The reports that he was misbehaving were ignored. (I think even Popbitch carried stories about his entitlement and temper tantrums - although there was never anything nonce-related).
TBH IMHO the nonce things probably come from the US side with the different age of consent, back in the day 16 wouldn't have been seen as under age for U.K.
But I’m not going out on a limb to defend him… other stuff could come out the woodwork since it’s open season on him.
Obviously was a different time as Bill Wyman (with Mandy Smith)wasn’t exactly hunted with pitchforks.
As an aside
In 1993, Wyman's son Stephen Wyman married Patsy Smith, the 46-year-old mother of Wyman's ex-wife Mandy Smith. Stephen was 30 years old at the time. Consequently, the ex-Rolling Stone became his own son's ex-son-in-law, the father-in-law of his ex-mother-in-law, as well as the stepgrandfather of his ex-wife.
Wyman's son Stephen Wyman married Patsy Smith
And I thought Woody Allen marrying his step-daughter was ****ing weird!!
TBH IMHO the nonce things probably come from the US side with the different age of consent, back in the day 16 wouldn't have been seen as under age for U.K.
Aye, the whole 'trafficking' accusation came about because he / Epstein crossed state lines to take advantage of more relaxed consent laws.
Obviously was a different time as Bill Wyman (with Mandy Smith)wasn’t exactly hunted with pitchforks.
As I recall at the time, a common sentiment was "go on then son, get in there you lucky bastard" with a side order of how Mandy Smith was nothing but a gold-digger hussy hoping he'd die sooner rather than later. See where the wrong 'un is in this narrative?
It's ****ed up. But it's easy to overlook just how commonplace, how normalised this all was. Rock stars dripping with young dripping women was just what rock stars did. Tabloids ran countdown clocks on 15-year olds towards the day they'd be legal to get their tits out. Savile goosed a young woman live on TotP. Love songs routinely waxed lyrical about being sweet sixteen and suchlike (seriously, just listen to the lyrics of 'wholesome' songs of the 60s and 70s, there's all manner of Wrong going on).
And now we're all going "well, why did nobody say anything?" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
the obvious question that should be on everyone's lips is, "if these are unpaid roles, why are people doing them?"
This is the kind of question that says more about the self-interested cynicism of person asking it than the people doing the jobs. You'd be stunned to find out that lots of people do unpaid work for their community and country. They're all people with a decent income (either as an MP or a peer, and usually a pension in the latter case).
Or, alternatively, the question is posed by people who don't have a private income that allows them to do work as a hobby, and are worrying whether they can afford to pay their mortgage this month, or are expected to be happy that they might save £10 on gas this month. And, it also turns out that, in this case, any cynicism was well directed.
Love songs routinely waxed lyrical about being sweet sixteen and suchlike (seriously, just listen to the lyrics of 'wholesome' songs of the 60s and 70s, there's all manner of Wrong going on)
I wouldn't be stunned at all. Indeed, I spend a considerable amount of my time doing just that. But I would be stunned if they've found 32 politicians who are always acting in everyone else's interest rather than their own.This is the kind of question that says more about the self-interested cynicism of person asking it than the people doing the jobs. You'd be stunned to find out that lots of people do unpaid work for their community and country.
They're all people with a decent income (either as an MP or a peer, and usually a pension in the latter case).
Well peers don't have an automatic income they get paid an attendance fee, which when they are trade envoying they won't be doing. Feathering your nest doesn't have to be about earning cash - political favours, self promotion etc are all reasons why MPs or Peers may well be volunteering for this.
If UK Plc needs people to do these jobs, and they bring a good ROI, why not pay them to remove the impression that there might be self-interest? Why not make them open for "anyone" with relevant skills to apply for? The impression from the list is that to be useful as a Trade Envoy you need to have some very high level access to people outside normal channels...
Google Lori Maddox/Mattix and Bebe Buell, they both have their own Wiki pages in French, I assume they do in English too. Chuck Berry did 20 months in jail for crossing the county line with a 14-year-old girl to work in a club. His error, firing her.
Chuck Berry did 20 months in jail for crossing the county line with a 14-year-old girl to work in a club. His error, firing her.
That might be how he got found out - but that wasn't his error.
And I thought Woody Allen marrying his step-daughter was ****ing weird!!
Other than a fairly large age difference, why is it weird? There was no blood connection, they weren’t even from the same ethnic background!
There was a 14 year age gap between me and a couple of my g/f’s, a 15 year gap between me and my late partner Jo, but she was 55 when she died. The older the people involved, the less the age gap between them actually matters.
And I thought Woody Allen marrying his step-daughter was ****ing weird!!
Other than a fairly large age difference, why is it weird? There was no blood connection, they weren’t even from the same ethnic background!
There was a 14 year age gap between me and a couple of my g/f’s, a 15 year gap between me and my late partner Jo, but she was 55 when she died. The older the people involved, the less the age gap between them actually matters.
She was 9 or 10 when they first met - he was 34? I think from a quick search. That's the difference.
This review of the Andrew biog in the LRB doesn't pull its punches
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n05/andrew-o-hagan/stay-classy
This review of the Andrew biog in the LRB doesn't pull its punches
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n05/andrew-o-hagan/stay-classy
That made my blood boil.
The former Yorks come across as a net drain on society. There's usually a lot of outdoor pigs in the Sandringham area, just saying.
Completely agree. What is less clear is why that makes them any different to the rest of the Windsor familyThe former Yorks come across as a net drain on society. There's usually a lot of outdoor pigs in the Sandringham area, just saying.
What is less clear is why that makes them any different to the rest of the Windsor family
Worse PR? That's all I can come up with. (Oh, but the others are so hardworking and empathetic to the plebs like us...)
Oh I think there is a range from best ( Princess Anne) to worst ( the nonce formally known as Prince Andrew)
why is it weird?
because.. Step-daughter?! Guess it would've been ok if it was just some girl he met outside a school or down the park. 🤔
because.. Step-daughter?! Guess it would've been ok if it was just some girl he met outside a school or down the park.
I first met my step-siblings when I was mid-40s. If I had a relationship with a step-sister does that mean anything other it being weird when we are around our parents? 😆
Back in student days, a then-friend got uncharacteristically lucky with a girl one night, took her home.
As they're in bed together and just about to commence proceedings, his parents arrived home and caught them. They went mad, told her to get dressed and kicked her out.
Turned out that unbeknownst to him, a) she was his cousin and b) she was 15.
anyone with an irish parent can surely relate to chatting someone up in a bar and then discovering that you're related...