Prince Andrew, what a cowardly little ****.

No wanting to derail the thread but what do you propose replacing them with?

Er.. No one.! Constitutionally they are superfluous to the running of the country.

Looks like a ****
Acts like a ****
Sounds like a ****
Lies like a **** (proven)
Abuses his position like a ****

Ah Duck typing……

I don’t think he cared the where’s and why’s of how he got his poonanny, must have been a great life jetting off to sex parties with your best bud on private islands without any of that annoying press intrusion.

A lifestyle few of us get to indulge in other than a week in magaluf when we were young:-)(although not put on a plate for us)

Behaviour stinks, especially for not spilling the beans for the Epstein case but theses people aren’t for the little people and tbh how Epstein even managed to cash out is frightening.

The whole Epstein incident reeks and if your defending people implicated, my brother the Nigerian Prince could do with some help 🙂

we may all have overlooked the “acting on legal advice” angle

I mentioned it earlier, I think.

EDIT:

Of course we don’t know if he is “guilty” (ie what went on in which jurisdictions and which side of the relevant laws those actions put him)… but his recent actions do suggest to me that he might not know for sure himself either, or has had advice that he has crossed a legal line somewhere. He’s not risking court, that’s for sure.

No wanting to derail the thread but what do you propose replacing them with? How certain are you that we don’t end up with Boris, Farage or other leeches replacing them?

Just pick from the best system that the rest of the world without a monarchy uses. Even if we did end up with a system that allowed a terrible president they could have a time limited presidency and no heirs allowed to takeover. Even if we did have Farage/Boris they could have one residence and a limited income. We don’t have to give them everything the Windsors currently enjoy.

I hope he does get a fair hearing because I think every person deserves to be treated equally and fairly by the law.

This is about the one thing here I agree with completely and wholeheartedly.

Perhaps the legal advice was to avoid stepping into a US court whatever the cost, and he’s decided that the extra reputational damage to him, and his mother, is worth it.

The indisputable core of the matter for me is that, after Epstein was convicted of sexual offences, he continued to fraternise with him. That is the measure of the creature, and he deserves all the opprobrium he’s getting.

Sooner or later the Queen is going to have to realise that her favourite son is endangering the entire monarchy and treat him appropriately. She happily cast out her grandson for simply wanting a semi-private life with his family.

Er.. No one.! Constitutionally they are superfluous to the running of the country.

Well we’ve certainly seen that at least outwardly the monarch does nothing other than rubber-stamp government instructions. However, I’m not sure that the head of state should be entirely superfluous. Just the fact that things need to go to someone “independent” to be rubber-stamped is in itself a little bit of a controlling influence on governments who have a desire to rush through some policy change, or break with hundreds of years of convention.

Many countries have both a President and a Prime Minister (or equivalent). The former should provide some safeguard against a rogue PM attempting to prorogue parliament to force their personal will through. Usually, pro-republicans are keen also on Lords reform, but again people often underestimate the importance of the lords to maintaining some sanity in the legislative process and as a degree of safeguard against a strong govt majority being free rein to do whatever they wish. At the end of the day if you abolish the Monarchy’s constitutional role, without carefully defining what replaces it – you’ll end up with the usual suspects or their allies filling the gap. I think they are past their sell-by date – but they are so entrenched in many aspects of how our country is run that removing them is not an overnight decision.

Even if we did end up with a system that allowed a terrible president they could have a time limited presidency and no heirs allowed to takeover. Even if we did have Farage/Boris they could have one residence and a limited income

That’s worked well in Russia, Zimbabwe etc. Even Hitler came to power through a corrupted democratic system.

Andrew’s situation here is from the abuse of money and power – getting rid of the monarchy will only remove one head of that monster. He’s a symptom rather than the cause.

It’s a very weird starting point to assume you won’t reach the standard of proof before the first witness has even taken the oath.

It really isnt. You only need to look at similar cases of historical sex crimes. They are notoriously hard to prosecute beyond reasonable doubt.

A presumption of innocence (until proven guilty) is not the same as “withholding my guilty verdict”. Its no wonder Andrew is scared to go in front of jurors – they mostly seem to be pretty opinionated before the evidence has even been officially presented.

He can avoid the courtroom but by doing so he will raise doubts about his innocence. Personally if someone is avoiding the entire “proven” part of the process it does make me doubt their innocence.
I would agree he should be worried though given that, as far as I am aware, most people are basing their opinion of him on his own words in an interview which hasnt has any criticism about false editing etc.

How certain are you that we don’t end up with Boris, Farage or other leeches replacing them?

Yeah thank god we dont have Johnson running the country eh?
The major flaw with this argument is via the soverigns prerogative Johnson has a lot more power than the average president/PM does.
As for Queenie reining him in. That only seems to be the case for laws which might impact her families money making ability. When it comes to protecting the country as a whole the courts have been doing a better job.

No right to silence in the UK. Well, there is but it can be used against you.

That’s not quite right, but adverse inferences can be drawn in some circumstances where you have not chosen to explain yourself, or more to the point if when first questioned about something you don’t mention it and then introduce it as an excuse later.

And yes there’s a right to silence in the US, something very useful to guilty people who don’t want to incriminate themselves.

But I’m pretty sure the US also have the ability to draw adverse inference when people “take the 5th”. Be very careful saying it’s only so guilty people don’t incriminate themselves. It doesn’t just protect the guilty – it protects people who aren’t particularly good at explaining themselves* but weren’t guilty; it protects people from the state going on a fishing expertise to find something to stick on him; it protects people from having to admit to some personally embarrassing situation (like having an affair, or being at the local tory party cheese n wine – which possibly has no bearing on the alleged crime).

* A huge number of people in our justice system are far less eloquent or logical than a STW “politics” thread and can make themselves seem like they are hiding something just because they aren’t used to standing in a witness box being asked questions which may be designed to back them into a response. Even those who are trying to tell the truth are often a bit confused or forgetful and can seem like they are changing their story. Many people who end up in the justice system are to put it bluntly, not that bright, and a Jury can hear that and draw damaging conclusions (sometimes it might be helpful to the defendant, but often it won’t be). I dare say in some trials sounding like a smarmy etonian trying to be smart with words would be just as damaging.

Yeah thank god we dont have Johnson running the country eh?
The major flaw with this argument is via the soverigns prerogative Johnson has a lot more power than the average president/PM does.

I’m with you there – but that was my point, you can’t just rub out the monarchy and expect a better Britain. You actually need MAJOR constitutional reform. I’m all for it – but I think many “get rid of the monarchy” calls ignore just what you may be leaving open…

As for Queenie reining him in. That only seems to be the case for laws which might impact her families money making ability. When it comes to protecting the country as a whole the courts have been doing a better job.

I agree. I understand for example she was in a difficult position to refuse the request to prorogue, but it undermined the institution in my opinion. And yes the courts have done a better job of protecting democracy/constitution than the queen – but those Judges were appointed by the queen (based on recommendations from an independent committee) – take HM out of the picture and who is appointing judges? the PM? you end up with the US where judges are appointed on political lines – that cannot be good.

The indisputable core of the matter for me is that, after Epstein was convicted of sexual offences, he continued to fraternise with him. That is the measure of the creature, and he deserves all the opprobrium he’s getting.

He covered that. He stayed with the convicted child sex trafficker because Prince Andrew was ‘too honourable’ and because Epstein offered ‘a convenient place to stay’.

He also said he did not regret his friendship with Epstein, saying “the people that I met and the opportunities that I was given to learn either by him or because of him were actually very useful” and “had some seriously beneficial outcomes”

But yes, let’s not judge him by the prerecorded interview that he willingly gave to the BBC after 6 months of negotiation. Have they offered the accuser(s) the chance to explain her side of the story?

Going from queenie ceremonially rubber stamping judge appointments to having US style political appointments is quite a jump

I hope he does get a fair hearing

Yes absolutely. But the problem is he is doing everything he can to avoid getting that fair hearing in the first place.

Going from queenie ceremonially rubber stamping judge appointments to having US style political appointments is quite a jump

the point being, I’m a republican, I think the monarchy is an outdated idea that should be replaced in any modern democracy. BUT a bit like saying we should leave the EU, or Scotland should leave the UK or any other major political change – you need to go beyond just the headline and explain the substance otherwise we can’t decide if it’s out the frying pan and into the fire. Make no mistake, the current government would not think twice about putting in place a structure for appointing the judiciary that let them influence sentences and avoid awkward judicial reviews etc. They’d even dress it up as “giving the people what they want”. I asked the question because I’ve not seen any pro-republic politician actually spell out what they envisage and I wondered if I’m the only one who wonders what it looks like. If there was one common vision for a new world it would be far easier to get the vaguely monarchists to consider it…

Have they offered the accuser(s) the chance to explain her side of the story?

The alleged victim is trying to tell their story in court, it is the prince of slime that decided to go to the court of public opinion and try to avoid the legal courtroom.

Yes absolutely. But the problem is he is doing everything he can to avoid getting that fair hearing in the first place.

and doing that is part of his right to a “fair process”. Whether it helps or hinders his case long term is more his worry than ours.

My money would be that the Judge today says the papers are served anyway… I don’t see how he can send a lawyer to say the papers were not served, without the papers then being served on the lawyer on his behalf! Of course his strategy might be to just pretend its not happening and let judgement happen by default, and either pay out so it relatively quickly blows over or make them go through the process of trying to extract it internationally! He can potentially do all that without ever admitting fault, and saying “I never even received the formal papers, so had nothing to deny.” Afterall 80% of the British public have already decided his guilt, or think its OK cause he’s a prince.

The alleged victim is trying to tell their story in court, it is the prince of slime that decided to go to the court of public opinion and try to avoid the legal courtroom.

This is the thing – he clearly thought the interview was going to help get the public on side and make it all go away. He/his supporters can hardly complain because it backfired so spectacularly.

She happily cast out her grandson for simply wanting a semi-private life with his family.

Yes, but he committed a far higher crime (in the screwed up eyes of Brexit Britin) by marrying ‘one of them’.

I’d like to see the monarchy removed for two main reasons:

1. It is massively unfair that a person can be born into such unearned privilege. Even more so if that privilege gets you a more advantageous brand of ‘the law’.

2. It removes a childish and pointless rallying point for the Plastic Patriots who just wave a Union Jack every time it looks like an inconvenient rendezvous with the reality of the UK’s position in the world looks likely. The type of person who instinctively rejects any form of constructive compromise with other nations as ‘unpatriotic’. I’d like to see many of their cherished ‘certainties’ smashed on the floor in front of them until they are forced to concede that their sepia-tinted fantasy land of plucky chaps in cotton vests being Olympic champions, spitfires overhead and a quarter of the globe imperial pink is just what it is. A fantasy.

Then we might be able to reconstruct our international reputation to some extent.

This is the thing – he clearly thought the interview was going to help get the public on side and make it all go away. He/his supporters can hardly complain because it backfired so spectacularly.

The arrogant, out of touch, over-fed and under-mannered man probably thought he could ‘Do a Diana’.

It is precisely correct that he tried to conduct his defence in the court of public opinion, appealing (via the good old Beeb) to as narrow a segment of popular opinion as possible. His monumental arrogance also probably led him to believe it would be a whitewash job.

Out of touch, anachronistic and past his sell by date. As good a frontman for the monarchy as anyone realistic could wish for.

I know a few are questioning the picture, but i remember this picture being used several times in Private Eye as an inside joke on Prince Andrew, same with Andrew Neill and the picture of him with a young asian lady.

I doubt it’s fake if it’s been doing the rounds in the press for the last decade or two, only now that it’s being used as evidence is it being argued about!

I hope he does get a fair hearing because I think every person deserves to be treated equally and fairly by the law.

This is about the one thing here I agree with completely and wholeheartedly.

Me too 😉 Not sure (as I think was the intent of your comment) those trying to swerve justice agree…

Many people who end up in the justice system are to put it bluntly, not that bright, and a Jury can hear that and draw damaging conclusions (sometimes it might be helpful to the defendant, but often it won’t be). I dare say in some trials sounding like a smarmy etonian trying to be smart with words would be just as damaging.

Does that include those tooled-up with the best legal defence money can buy? Sure I get you’re on your own on the witness stand but I suspect your comment is better applied to those who simply don’t have access to coaching to present the best defence, which wouldn’t be the case here.

I’m sure he would have suggested it was fake if that was the case, instead of hiding behind the classic ‘I do not recollect meeting’ non-denial.

No wanting to derail the thread but what do you propose replacing them with?

They’ve already been replaced. The process started with Magna Carta. Moving from a prehistoric way of running things to….well at least you don’t have to actually be born at Eton to go there.

I suppose I could be persuaded about a few statues and an exhibit at Madame Tussauds at a stretch.

I’m sure he would have suggested it was fake if that was the case, instead of hiding behind the classic ‘I do not recollect meeting’ non-denial.

“I categorically deny ever having met her” is a million miles from “I don’t recall ever having met her”.

Especially in the ‘law as tool of the cynic’ section of society.

I don’t recall ever riding my bike on a public footpath either, then.

I’m sure he would have suggested it was fake if that was the case, instead of hiding behind the classic ‘I do not recollect meeting’ non-denial.

He has suggested it can’t be proven whether it’s fake or not, but pointed out that he doesn’t think it can be genuine because those are his ‘travel clothes’ and he would never go out without a suit and tie in London. I’m convinced.

Does that include those tooled-up with the best legal defence money can buy? Sure I get you’re on your own on the witness stand but I suspect your comment is better applied to those who simply don’t have access to coaching to present the best defence, which wouldn’t be the case here.

1. you’d have to recognise you have an issue / fault first (he obviously didn’t before the Maitliss interview).
2. I’m not sure he can be coached not to just talk nonsense (that doesn’t mean he’s guilty – just because he lies / exaggerates about what/why etc doesn’t mean he’s a rapist – but it undermines his evidence)
3. you can have the best legal defence, but you get no control of what the otherside might ask or spring on him – and we can be pretty sure they will be faster thinking than he is; so if he has a habit of bullshitting under pressure he will, and they’ll show it.

I’m with you there – but that was my point, you can’t just rub out the monarchy and expect a better Britain. You actually need MAJOR constitutional reform. I’m all for it – but I think many “get rid of the monarchy” calls ignore just what you may be leaving open

Just keep the monarchy but on a scale of 1% of what it currently is. Do they need all the land, all the buildings, all the money etc,.? Just have a King/Queen by name with everything else much reduced. Then plan for complete removal by covering all the stuff that actually needs to be done via other processes.

you can have the best legal defence, but you get no control of what the otherside might ask or spring on him

So you think in the 6 months of negotiating with the BBC that reportedly happened before the interview, the nature of the questions that would be asked never came up?

So queenie gets to send a hand delivered letter to a tennis player in New York without any problems, but when a letter for her lad comes from New York it all seems so difficult.

It doesn’t just protect the guilty – it protects people who aren’t particularly good at explaining themselves* but weren’t guilty;

A very key point. I may have mentioned the writings of the Secret Barrister before.

They’ve already been replaced. The process started with Magna Carta.

King John rescinded most of the Magna Carta within months, the process was restarted several times.

The idea that Prince Andrew needs to be even more protected from a potential miscarriage of justice than he already is, is bizarre to say the least.

And yes there’s a right to silence in the US, something very useful to guilty people who don’t want to incriminate themselves.

I watched a vid a bit back on this subject. The comment and this case brought that to mind so i’ve went and found it.

The idea that Prince Andrew needs to be even more protected from a potential miscarriage of justice than he already is, is bizarre to say the least.

I know! Good job nobody’s actually suggested this should happen.

They are. They’re suggesting that some people on a mountain bike forum thinking he appears guilty are somehow going to kill his chances of a fair trial. Despite the fact that he went on TV through his own choice to tell his far-fetched tales and be grumpy and self righteous.

Interesting video dyna-ti but that guy has cherry picked examples. Are you really telling me there’s never been a case where someone talking to police has helped identify/convict other people? He’s chosen not to help identify child sex traffickers and make them face justice with the hope of saving his own skin.

Also, why has he repeatedly claimed he will co operate with police if he’s not going to?

Are you really telling me there’s never been a case where someone talking to police has helped identify/convict other people?

I’ve no idea and im not telling you anything.

But there are a great number of cases of miscarriage of justice both here and in the US. Plus we know the police are prone to withholding evidence from the defence.

So its a case of you decide, should such a scenario suddenly arise where youre involved.

King John rescinded most of the Magna Carta within months, the process was restarted several times.

Yes, I’m aware of that, thanks. I just picked the first well-known example of the monarchy being brought to heel that I could think of. I couldn’t remember if the other deal with the barons thing was before or after or, indeed, if it had a catchy title like ‘Magna Carta’.

Do you reckon King John ran around furtively trying not to be found when he rescinded most of Magna Carta?

He should just pull a Michael Jackson special. Settle out of court, which will make everyone believe he’s guilty, then die and all will be forgiven!

Settle out of court, which will make everyone believe he’s guilty, then die and all will be forgiven!

Well, two out of three ain’t bad.