RuamRudy

"Prince Andrew is reported to police over Epstein files: Calls on both sides of the Atlantic for the Duke of York to face prosecution" This seems very much like the Daily Mail is putting the cart before the horse, or simply lazy, weak journalism. Prior to any prosecution there needs to be a thorough police investigation. This appears not to have yet been done.

Everyone seems to think they are forum police these days... I neither altered nor misquoted you. In fact, you altered my post by highlighting some of the text, which is against your beloved rules but I am not so petty as to get bent out of shape by it. I stand by my post. You initially stated that he had been fully investigated by the police.

I stated thus: To which you replied: It not me who has you confused. You have confused yourself.

Make up your mind. Firstly you said that he had been fully investigated and subsequently exonerated. Now you are acknowledging that he has not complied with requests from the US authorities to provide further information. If he had nothing to hide, why would he not help them to the fullest?

UK authorities protected Prince Andrew from US Epstein investigation, book says "British authorities protected Prince Andrew from US prosecutors investigating his relationship with the financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a new book by a US attorney who led the investigation in New York."

Oh wow! That's my evening sorted, thank you so much!

I saw Tom Conti perform that play about 25 years ago in the Aberdeen Playhouse; a fantastic piece of writing, magnificently acted out.

2 questions: 1) what is unsubstantiated? 2) Who made you forum police? There's a report button if you feel my post is contrary to the rules.

If he were to be faced with the full scrutiny of the police as if he were a regular person then we could all be satisfied that due process is being served. But he hasn't - and he uses royal privilege to avoid scrutiny, just as his paedophile uncle, Mountbatten, did.

Boringly contemporary but I don't really have any heroes from history. Alive - Nick Cave because I have loved his music since I was a teenager, and his life has gone from extreme to esteemed. Dead - Anthony Bourdain because he seemed such an engaging and interesting man, or maybe Jeffrey Bernard because he lived his entire life like Nick Cave lived his younger days.

I was more in awe of the breathtaking hypocrisy of the man who has taken so much from the country whilst returning so little, trying to show solidarity with those who are struggling to support the most vulnerable in our society.

It would be interesting to know exactly what Charles did to acquire those multitude of stately homes, palaces and vast swathes of land across the UK. I suspect, like his mother before him, he has done diddly squat to acquire them. Had he been taxed like us mere mortals upon inheriting them, it would be a start, but my preference would be to turn them over in their entirety to the people of the UK. Property which can be shown to have been purchased by his family could be kept, Castle Mey, for example, but those which have been passed down from one incumbent to the next by dint of being stolen in bygone times should revert to the people of the UK and all royal ties and obligations be cut.

The hopefully the police will be given full and unhindered access to investigate whether a crime has been committed.

Democracy doesn't always give pretty results, but having a choice is preferable to not. Are you suggesting we should do away with all forms of popular mandate?

So he is on a par with Esther Rantzen but much, much more costly. Thanks for clarifying.

He gets other people to give their money to charities? We have Children in Need for that. Give me something more tangible than that.

Several things to unpack there. Firstly, if Blair was, God forbid, president, it would be because he won a mandate from the electorate, and would be accountable to them. He could be replaced if the electorate so desired. Tourists don't come to see Charles. They don't get to spend time with him and his family. They come to see the history of the British isles. Much in the same way that they go to France to see their palaces and historical sights. As to his actual role, well that would need to be defined and codified but the question remains, how does the British royal family make life better for UK citizens?

You have called her a prostitute on several occasions and I have shown you that it's illegal in England to purchase sex from someone under the age of 18. So by your own criticism of her you acknowledge that she is a victim.

No, I asked what Charles has done to improve the lives of the people of the UK. You seem unable to identify anything either.

If only the supreme court judges were as knowledgeable of the law as you seem to be... https://time.com/6335423/uk-migrants-rwanda-plan-unlawful/

I am pretty sure that the trafficking minors for sex is illegal in England, but then again I have not spent a lot of time looking for get out clauses. What I have discovered, however, is that it is illegal to pay someone under the age of 18 for sex. In fact, English law is clear - if someone is engaged in sex work under the age of 18 (and it is you who insists on calling her a prostitute) then she is considered to be a child and a victim. She is not a sex worker, as English law makes clear. She is the victim of predatory men and women who are exploiting her. In the UK at 17 you cannot vote, fight for your country or get married without parental consent. She was not emancipated in the eyes of the law. I bow to your obviously superior knowledge about the nuances of noncery. I am afraid that, as is so often the case, you are wrong. See the link I supplied above to to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Ditto my previous point. We are not talking about a 50 year old and a 30 year old. We are talking about a powerful adult and a child. To suggest that there is no difference between that and two adults of significantly differing ages grossly insults those forum members who are in consensual adult relationships. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is your friend. Read it and understand why you are wrong.

Of course, I have never personally handed over anything to him or his mother for 2 important reasons - firstly, I object to their presence so would resist any requirement to do so personally, but also they like to remain aloof from the hoi poloi and rather that their flunkies go out to fleece the population directly from the treasury. The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy is £345m In what ways has he improved the lives of the people of the UK? What specifically has he done for the betterment of the population. Like his mother, he has interfered in the formulation of laws proposed or being drafted by Westminster and Holyrood, and presumably the Senedd and Stormont, literally hundreds of times - but not once did either of them do so for the sake of the population. Each and every time was to carve out concessions for themselves and their family to ensure that they remain insulated and protected from having to comply with the laws that our democratically elected government decree. Revealed: Queen’s sweeping immunity from more than 160 laws Revealed: how Prince Charles pressured ministers to change law to benefit his estate Revealed: Queen vetted 67 laws before Scottish parliament could pass them Queen secretly lobbied Scottish government ministers for climate law exemption The Queen Used Her Lobbying Powers To Avoid Scotland’s New Green Energy Law The reality is that they do nothing to help the people of the UK; their focus is on further enriching themselves and shoring up their family position so that future generations of parasitic Windsors can continue to exploit the UK taxpayers.

All blocked because what the government was proposing is illegal.

He has tac exemptions that are not available to anyone else. Why is that? He is not special? He has no remarkable qualities that makes the lives of the rest of us better. He is simply a man who has done nothing in his entire life to better the people of the UK, but sat with his hand out each and every day and had us hand over more and more to him.

What has that got to do with taxes? Why is he exempt from paying his way? He did not create the crown estates and he does not manage them - he simply consumes without giving back.