Disgraced Prince Andrew heckled at Queen Elizabeth’s funeral procession

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

It's not a conspiracy theory. He died in custody. That is an indisptable fact.

 

Even if you believe he comitted suicide that is a huge red flag against the New York authorities. Why would we have confidence to send a Prince over to a system that has proved itself utterly incompetent in keeping alive high profile defendants awaiting trial in the very same case?

I don't indulge in conspiracy theories as was suggested in the post I read.

 

And I certainly wouldn't weep over the fate of any man who had sex with at least one trafficked woman

[James105]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe.

 

Not only a great institution but also a money making one.

You mean their estates make that money... right?  The individual people that make up the royal family, as far as I am aware, do not produce or make anything to generate that level of income.   That income would probably be higher if we did not have the royal family and the estates were opened up to tourism.  I'm sure tours of the inside of Buckingham palace would be a great money spinner for the UK.  

[transam]

1 minute ago, James105 said:

You mean their estates make that money... right?  The individual people that make up the royal family, as far as I am aware, do not produce or make anything to generate that level of income.   That income would probably be higher if we did not have the royal family and the estates were opened up to tourism.  I'm sure tours of the inside of Buckingham palace would be a great money spinner for the UK.  

"As far as you are aware".....????

 

Think you need to do some of your own research on the matter if it bothers you that much. Your guesswork just ain't having any impact.........????..........................????

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

You mean their estates make that money... right?  The individual people that make up the royal family, as far as I am aware, do not produce or make anything to generate that level of income.   That income would probably be higher if we did not have the royal family and the estates were opened up to tourism.  I'm sure tours of the inside of Buckingham palace would be a great money spinner for the UK.  

They already do inside tours of Buckingham palace do some research

[DaLa]

6 minutes ago, James105 said:

You mean their estates make that money... right?  The individual people that make up the royal family, as far as I am aware, do not produce or make anything to generate that level of income.   That income would probably be higher if we did not have the royal family and the estates were opened up to tourism.  I'm sure tours of the inside of Buckingham palace would be a great money spinner for the UK.  

 

[Woof999]

It's a shame that the British monarchy have lay rest to some of their powers.

 

"Off with his head" is one that might have greeted one or two posters here.

[billd766]

6 hours ago, 2baht said:

Why then was a settlement necessary, for what?

Why are you asking the same stupid question of the posters here.

 

If you really need to know write or email Prince Andrew and ask, nobody else, why he paid the money.

 

If he responds, which I doubt, it will probably be along the lines of "Nothing to do with you. Not your business>

 

At least that is the response that I would give, and it IS nothing to do with you, and definitely NOT your business.

 

You are simply trolling now.

3 hours ago, James105 said:

Indeed, and where did he even find the money to pay for this settlement?  He didn't have the money himself so it must have come via the Queen via the grant she receives from the UK treasury, which in turn comes from the taxpayer, which is a particularly nauseating aspect of this whole thing.  

Really?

 

Try doing a little research before blundering off.

 

This might help you.

 

https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0

 

The Royal family get the ‘Sovereign Grant’, 

 

The Sovereign Grant is designed to be a more permanent arrangement than the old Civil List system, which was reign-specific. Funding for the Sovereign Grant comes from a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estate revenue (initially set at 15%)

 

Or here may help as well.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family

 

Until 1760, the monarch met all official expenses from hereditary revenues, which included the profits of the Crown Estate (the royal property portfolio). King George III agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for payments called the civil list. Under this arrangement, the Crown Estate remained the property of the sovereign,[2] but the hereditary revenues of the crown were placed at the disposal of the House of Commons.[1] The civil list was paid from public funds and was intended to support the exercise of the monarch's duties as head of state of Great Britain. This arrangement persisted from 1760 until 2012. In modern times, the Government's profits from the Crown Estate always significantly exceeded the civil list.

[BarraMarra]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Can't have American royalty (Bill) 'disgraced'.

Anyone remember Chappaquiddick (Kennedy's)?

 

It's interesting that in the UK it's always the patriarchal right wingers accused. 

And in the USA it's always the woke, 'new world order' leaders being accused.

Mmm we can't forget Monica Lewinsky's dry cleaning bill after the US Presidency ended  due to him cheating on Hilary with a Tart 27 yrs younger. America's finest, not exactly honest was he? After all he was the most powerful man in the World.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

I don't indulge in conspiracy theories as was suggested in the post I read.

 

And I certainly wouldn't weep over the fate of any man who had sex with at least one trafficked woman

No evidence to suggest she was trafficked.

 

Or that he had sex with her.

 

Maybe better you stick to the facts rather than indulging in celebrity gossip and conspiracy theories.

[proton]

The sanctimonious tut tutting on here about a 30 year old bloke having it off with a 17 year old is quite amusing, as if this forum were not populated by many who have not done very similar and paid for it, making that a crime in this country. ????

[transam]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Sounds more like some rich guy with connections buying his way out of having to face ‘Discovery’ and provide a ‘Deposition under oath’.

Which is what it was.

 

 

More guesswork, or unless you have a link, or found something in the USA Federal Law archives.....

 

Do you have such info.....Yes/No   ?

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, transam said:

More guesswork, or unless you have a link, or found something in the USA Federal Law archives.....

 

Do you have such info.....Yes/No   ?

“Andrew was staring down the barrel of discovery, and the decision to settle will ultimately save him from that process. As part of discovery, both Giuffre and Andrew were set to give video depositions under oath”

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-settlement-jeffrey-epstein-1300515/

[transam]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“Andrew was staring down the barrel of discovery, and the decision to settle will ultimately save him from that process. As part of discovery, both Giuffre and Andrew were set to give video depositions under oath”

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-settlement-jeffrey-epstein-1300515/

Oh wow, The Rolling Stone magazine, an American gossip rag...????

 

I was really looking for FBI or similar Law stuff, that you seem to be heavily into, not your USA, The Guardian.....????

[Bluespunk]

41 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No evidence to suggest she was trafficked.

She was, it was what epstein did.

 

41 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Or that he had sex with her.

Settling rather than face the courts and his ludicrous excuses when questioned during an interview with the bbc say otherwise

 

41 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Maybe better you stick to the facts rather than indulging in celebrity gossip and conspiracy theories.

his refusal to fight the case in court [despite saying would do so] is fact enough

Edited September 15, 2022 by Bluespunk

[transam]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

She was, it was what epstein did.

 

21, 000, 000 reasons say otherwise

 

his refusal to fight the case in court [despite saying would do so] is fact enough

Yet again, more anti-Brit twisting and turning assumptions...????

 

I will ask again, was he charged with any wrong doing in the USA or UK.......Yes or No....?

[JonnyF]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

She was, it was what epstein did.

 

21, 000, 000 reasons say otherwise

 

his refusal to fight the case in court [despite saying would do so] is fact enough

No facts there, just your biased opinions based on a dislike of the Royal family.

 

A man is innocent until proven guilty. What we have here are people acting like it's 1692. What is it with you guys? Wishing to bring back racial discrimination (rebranded as positive discrimination), wishing to shut down freedom of expression (rebranded as outlawing hate speech), and now declaring people guilty without even having a trial. Doesn't sound too progressive to me. 

[proton]

13 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

She was, it was what epstein did.

 

Settling rather than face the courts and his ludicrous excuses when questioned during an interview with the bbc say otherwise

 

his refusal to fight the case in court [despite saying would do so] is fact enough

Do 'trafficked' victims (got on a plane) ask for photos to show thier mum, then go back for another lucrative transaction?

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, proton said:

Do 'trafficked' victims (got on a plane) ask for photos to show thier mum, then go back for another lucrative transaction?

You'd think if she was really a victim then she'd want justice. The offer of a cash payout to see her abuser go free would have been an insult.

 

But no, little Miss "it's not about the money" couldn't drop the charges fast enough once a few million quid was waved in her face. Tells you everything you need to know about the woman and her false accusations. That's before you consider that she herself is a self confessed sex trafficker.

[2baht]

The deniers are out in force today, all 3 of them! Give him a hug for me when he re surfaces! ????

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, transam said:

Oh wow, The Rolling Stone magazine, an American gossip rag...????

 

I was really looking for FBI or similar Law stuff, that you seem to be heavily into, not your USA, The Guardian.....????

Don’t want to address the fact my statement was correct then.

[Chomper Higgot]

56 minutes ago, proton said:

Do 'trafficked' victims (got on a plane) ask for photos to show thier mum, then go back for another lucrative transaction?

Perhaps they do.

 

Use of a phone is not a definition of what constitutes being trafficked.

 

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps they do.

 

Use of a phone is not a definition of what constitutes being trafficked.

 

Just as the words of a self confessed procurer of girls for sex trafficking does not constitute the guilt of a man who may have had a photo taken with her.

 

I don't know why you Americans are so obsessed with the British Royal family. Jealousy?

[Chomper Higgot]

50 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You'd think if she was really a victim then she'd want justice. The offer of a cash payout to see her abuser go free would have been an insult.

 

But no, little Miss "it's not about the money" couldn't drop the charges fast enough once a few million quid was waved in her face. Tells you everything you need to know about the woman and her false accusations. That's before you consider that she herself is a self confessed sex trafficker.

It was a civil law suit, the outcome of which is always a two part decision.

 

Is the allegation substantiated?

 

If substantiated how much compensation must be paid?

 

Prince Andrew first demanded a trial by jury and then decided, of his own volition, to pay up.

 

So innocent he thought paying out millions was the best option.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Just as the words of a self confessed procurer of girls for sex trafficking does not constitute the guilt of a man who may have had a photo taken with her.

 

I don't know why you Americans are so obsessed with the British Royal family. Jealousy?

So why did he pay out millions.

 

I’m not the subject of this thread, neither is your imaginations on what my nationality might be.

 

Stick to topic please. 

[Chomper Higgot]

I wonder why his mum stripped him of all those military titles and Royal appointments?

 

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So why did he pay out millions.

 

I’m not the subject of this thread, neither is your imaginations on what my nationality might be.

 

Stick to topic please. 

Going over old ground here. I believe he paid out to avoid weeks of exaggerated, sordid headlines that would have no doubt caused his parents a great deal of grief in their final months.

 

Criticizing everyone else's nationality and their government, Royal Family, populace etc. while trying to keep your own nationality hidden seems a bit lily livered to me. But if that's your nature, carry on...

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, transam said:

Yet again, more anti-Brit twisting and turning assumptions...????

Nonsense

 

1 hour ago, transam said:

I will ask again, was he charged with any wrong doing in the USA or UK.......Yes or No....?

You have asked me no such thing, nor have I mentioned any such thing...duh!

[JonnyF]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I wonder why his mum stripped him of all those military titles and Royal appointments?

 

 

 

 

One doesn't have to break the law for one's actions to be considered inappropriate for that of a member of the Royal family.

 

His behaviour at times has been ill judged and unbecoming for a Prince. But there is no evidence that it was illegal. 

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

No facts there, just your biased opinions based on a dislike of the Royal family.

He paid out 21,000,000 dollars...Fact.

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

A man is innocent until proven guilty.

Then he should have fought the civil suit in court like he said he would...

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

What we have here are people acting like it's 1692.

Hyperbole.

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

What is it with you guys? Wishing to bring back racial discrimination (rebranded as positive discrimination), wishing to shut down freedom of expression (rebranded as outlawing hate speech), and now declaring people guilty without even having a trial. Doesn't sound too progressive to me.

Nonsensical off topic hyperbole

[Chomper Higgot]

Prince Andrew had his chance to clear his name, he decided he’d rather pay out millions in order to forgo that chance.

 

He paid out millions and left the question of his guilt unanswered.

 

He’s in a position suspicion that is of his own choosing, and aid for it even.