The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #661  
Old 01-08-2015, 06:30 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,897
From Republic

Prince Andrew affair: Government needs to come clean over what it knows and what it's done
January 8 2015

Campaign group Republic has called on the government to allow a full parliamentary debate on the Prince Andrew scandal and to come clean over its own involvement in the affair.

MPs are banned from criticising or debating individual royals in parliament - a rule Republic has condemned as undemocratic and an attack on freedom of speech.

Despite a cosmetic removal of Prince Andrew's trade ambassador role a few years ago he continues to receive government funding and to represent Britain around the world.

The campaign group has set out three questions the government needs to answer on the Andrew/Epstein affair:

1 - What did the government know about the allegations and when were they made aware of them?
2 - Has the government lobbied the US in an attempt to protect Andrew from legal action?
3 - Why is Andrew still representing Britain given all the revelations about his friendship with Epstein?

Republic's CEO, Graham Smith, said today:

"Andrew is denying the specific charges of under-age sex, but it has been reported he has remained friends with a convicted abuser, and there is plenty of evidence that his judgement and character fall well short of the standards of public office."

"If Andrew were a politician he would no longer be in a job - his royal status is protecting him from accountability."

"It is unlikely Prince Andrew was unaware of these allegations before they broke last week. It is hard to believe the government weren't warned. We need to know if ministers have lobbied the US authorities on this matter."

"Commons rules need to change immediately, to allow MPs to debate the matter in parliament and question ministers. It is outrageous that our elected MPs cannot challenge a prince in parliament."

"MPs need to be asking serious questions about Andrew's continuing role as a trade representative and the government's role in protecting him. If he is representing Britain, why, when he is bringing the country into disrepute? If he is representing private interests then he has to come clean on who is paying for his trips overseas and in whose interests he is acting."

"The problem is you can't sack someone from a family, whatever the government does Andrew will still be a prince. So instead they're motivated to sweep the whole thing under the carpet."

"The public has a right to know if ministers have been trying to protect Andrew from investigation and scrutiny. We have a right to expect our MPs to be able to ask those questions in parliament."



- See more at: http://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-d....97LGyUrH.dpuf


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #662  
Old 01-08-2015, 06:38 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob View Post
From Republic

Prince Andrew affair: Government needs to come clean over what it knows and what it's done
January 8 2015

Campaign group Republic has called on the government to allow a full parliamentary debate on the Prince Andrew scandal and to come clean over its own involvement in the affair.

MPs are banned from criticising or debating individual royals in parliament - a rule Republic has condemned as undemocratic and an attack on freedom of speech.

Despite a cosmetic removal of Prince Andrew's trade ambassador role a few years ago he continues to receive government funding and to represent Britain around the world.

The campaign group has set out three questions the government needs to answer on the Andrew/Epstein affair:

1 - What did the government know about the allegations and when were they made aware of them?
2 - Has the government lobbied the US in an attempt to protect Andrew from legal action?
3 - Why is Andrew still representing Britain given all the revelations about his friendship with Epstein?

Republic's CEO, Graham Smith, said today:

"Andrew is denying the specific charges of under-age sex, but it has been reported he has remained friends with a convicted abuser, and there is plenty of evidence that his judgement and character fall well short of the standards of public office."

"If Andrew were a politician he would no longer be in a job - his royal status is protecting him from accountability."

"It is unlikely Prince Andrew was unaware of these allegations before they broke last week. It is hard to believe the government weren't warned. We need to know if ministers have lobbied the US authorities on this matter."

"Commons rules need to change immediately, to allow MPs to debate the matter in parliament and question ministers. It is outrageous that our elected MPs cannot challenge a prince in parliament."

"MPs need to be asking serious questions about Andrew's continuing role as a trade representative and the government's role in protecting him. If he is representing Britain, why, when he is bringing the country into disrepute? If he is representing private interests then he has to come clean on who is paying for his trips overseas and in whose interests he is acting."

"The problem is you can't sack someone from a family, whatever the government does Andrew will still be a prince. So instead they're motivated to sweep the whole thing under the carpet."

"The public has a right to know if ministers have been trying to protect Andrew from investigation and scrutiny. We have a right to expect our MPs to be able to ask those questions in parliament."



- See more at: Prince Andrew affair: Government needs to come clean over what it knows and what it's done | Republic


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Don't make me laugh.

This was not meant to you, royal rob.
__________________

__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #663  
Old 01-08-2015, 06:49 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,897
I didn't know this

MPs are banned from criticising or debating individual royals in parliament - a rule Republic has condemned as undemocratic and an attack on freedom of speech.

I can understand it for the Queen and direct heirs but I'm not so sure if I agree about the lesser royals


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #664  
Old 01-08-2015, 06:56 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 775

There are far more important things to worry about.
Reply With Quote
  #665  
Old 01-08-2015, 07:06 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,897
Of course there is but can't help but agree on this
"If Andrew were a politician he would no longer be in a job - his royal status is protecting him from accountability."




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #666  
Old 01-08-2015, 07:06 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
This has been a good time for Republicans, as the telegraph put it 'They are rubbing their hands in glee.'
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #667  
Old 01-08-2015, 07:33 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 775

They shouldn't the rest of family haven't done anything wrong. The Queen should have to deal with this rubbish at her age.
Reply With Quote
  #668  
Old 01-08-2015, 07:42 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,897
Well we don't know how the Queen feels about it. She might just be ..your problem Andrew don't come to me for help and goes off with her dogs for a walk.
Well that's how I like to think she handles it


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #669  
Old 01-08-2015, 09:30 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob View Post
Well we don't know how the Queen feels about it. She might just be ..your problem Andrew don't come to me for help and goes off with her dogs for a walk.
Well that's how I like to think she handles it


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
This does not sound like The Queen. She will probably try to help him. There were some rumors that she was stressed, I think it was on BBC news channel or sky news that I heard it.

She has fortunately good experience with her childrens many scandals, but she is almost 90.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #670  
Old 01-08-2015, 09:36 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,897
Well I will think of her walking her dogs rather than being stressed at nearly 90


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #671  
Old 01-08-2015, 09:37 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Finally found it! I subscribe to "The Times" online but it's only in the last half hour that I have learned how to search for articles. I have been under-utilising the resource!

Starts by summarising the allegations against Epstein, refers to photos of Andrew with the topless girls on the yacht, to claims evidence against Epstein has been covered up following lobbying by "political and social connections", that women have refused to answer questions about Andrew's involvement, noting names of persons listed in Epstein's contacts book, the claim prosecutors are refusing to release important evidence, refers to the plea bargain and allegation US attorney’s office promised Epstein that he would not be prosecuted for the sexual abuse of 30 under-age girls if he admitted a lesser charge, to letter from Robert's lawyer to Attorney-General in 2008 in which he said Epstein “may be the most dangerous sexual predator that the country has ever seen”, refers to the three women who refused to give self-incriminating evidence when interviewed about Prince Andrew and other matters, and sets out the terms of the questions they would not answer.

It then goes on to talk about Andrew's life since he left the navy. Then says:

"Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is clear that while Prince Andrew’s life out of uniform has not been short of entertainment, it has been short of structure. He has been content to craft for himself the portfolio existence of a freelance royal. He has depended too much on his friends to help to support a lifestyle that, even as a scion of one of Britain’s richest families, he could not fund himself. And he has chosen those friends poorly."

Then discussion about the changes over the last 2 decades with HM starting to pay tax, cost cutting and savings including the sale of the R.Y. Britannia, and proceeds to say the RF is too big and needs to be streamlined, for the sake of the family and the country.

"As elected leaders wrestle with tight budgets and taxpayers struggle to fund them, it is only right that the royal family cuts its cloth accordingly. This is not only a question of funds, but of expectations and an evolving sense of what the monarchy stands for. It has endured as a symbol of constancy and as a ceremonial focal point at times of national mourning and celebration. To go on enduring it must become more like the royal families that coexist comfortably with modernity elsewhere in Europe, and less like the retrograde clichés foisted on it by an endlessly fascinated media."

It then says that the monarchy's official duties should be performed by HM and those in direct line to succeed her, that others (Anne, Harry and Andrew) have set inspiring examples but have been most constructive when gainfully employed. "Outside such roles they represent more of a risk than a benefit to the royal family."

[Comment: Don't understand the remark about Anne, who is one of the most productive and impressive, since she has never been "gainfully employed". Maybe she's the exception that proves the rule.]

"For too long Prince Andrew has lacked a real role. He has tried and failed to find one because he has been looking in the wrong place. It is not unreasonable to suggest that his predicament is a by-product of this fruitless search; or to exhort younger members of the “firm” to learn from this urgent cautionary tale, forget their lineage and make their own ways in the world."

Concluding paragraph points out that, according to its website, Britain’s royal family has 18 official members, notes that Sweden’s and Belgium’s have nine, Denmark’s seven and Norway’s five, all keeping official numbers low by making clear distinctions between those with representative duties and those without, then says, "The House of Windsor needs more clarity along these lines. More importantly, it needs a clearer vision of itself, not as a crisis-prone family business but as a family led by the head of state. Last year Spain’s king abdicated; this year his daughter could face trial for fraud. No royal family is indispensable, or permanent."

I totally agree, the royal family should be streamlined.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #672  
Old 01-08-2015, 09:44 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,897
And it will be , when they older ones are no longer with us it will only be William and his family and Harry ( and family ?) Williams cousins are all making careers for themselves away from royal duties


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #673  
Old 01-08-2015, 11:40 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob View Post
Of course there is but can't help but agree on this
"If Andrew were a politician he would no longer be in a job - his royal status is protecting him from accountability."




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

What's he got to be accountable for? He is not charged with anything, he is not in court for anything. His name has been mentioned in a case in Florida and he is not the defendant.

He had a friendship with Jeffery Epstein which at the minute is all he has to be accountable for.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #674  
Old 01-08-2015, 11:49 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,897
If he was a politician he would have been made to quit by his party for being involved with a convicted sex offender who got a short jail sentence due to special deals. There is no way in hell he would get away with that. But he's not a politician he's a prince and can't get thrown out


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #675  
Old 01-08-2015, 12:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
What's he got to be accountable for? He is not charged with anything, he is not in court for anything. His name has been mentioned in a case in Florida and he is not the defendant.

He had a friendship with Jeffery Epstein which at the minute is all he has to be accountable for.
I think that your standard is pretty low for someone who is supposed to represent the UK. Just because it's not a crime for a 40+ year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl doesn't mean there should be no consequences.

The story has traction because of Andrew's lifestyle. If someone were to make this allegation against William, Edward, or even Charles, most people wouldn't believe it. Regardless of the truth of these allegations, his actions have hurt his family and the UK government and he has to accept some--if not all--of the responsibility for that.

Regarding the sweetheart deal Epstein received, it is outrageous for anyone to come to the aid of a child sex trafficker. Again, if Andrew were involved then I think the people in the UK could be forgiven for not wanting him to represent them.

That said, there could have other reasons the prosecutor made the deal he did. He may have been concerned the case would collapse.

We don't have the facts yet.
Reply With Quote
  #676  
Old 01-08-2015, 12:40 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,126
Jane Doe wants some cash from an out-of-court settlement.
__________________
Yes, I said it. No, I won't apologize. Yes, I will say it again.
Reply With Quote
  #677  
Old 01-08-2015, 12:53 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
Jane Doe wants some cash from an out-of-court settlement.
Then why didn't she sue Epstein when she had the chance?
Reply With Quote
  #678  
Old 01-08-2015, 01:41 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,452
I got to hear Alan Dershowitz on a talk show this AM. He is not kidding around and has fairly clear evidence that refutes claims about his behavior/location at various times named in the suit. And he is on a mission.

Now, anyone that has heard Alan in multiple interviews knows that he is careful about what he says (and does not) and has been know to use hyperbole.

But, in my opinion Jane Doe and her legal team are toast on this part of the suit.
__________________
A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...bob_dylan.html
Reply With Quote
  #679  
Old 01-08-2015, 01:43 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 1,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob View Post
If he was a politician he would have been made to quit by his party for being involved with a convicted sex offender who got a short jail sentence due to special deals. There is no way in hell he would get away with that. But he's not a politician he's a prince and can't get thrown out


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Are you so sure about that? It will be interesting to see, if in the future, more information comes out ..... I have to wonder who the Prime Minister was who was noted in the comments by the accuser/s and her attorneys. Will the comments of outrage still be heard?
Reply With Quote
  #680  
Old 01-08-2015, 01:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess of Durham View Post
Are you so sure about that? It will be interesting to see, if in the future, more information comes out ..... I have to wonder who the Prime Minister was who was noted in the comments by the accuser/s and her attorneys. Will the comments of outrage still be heard?
I will be outraged if it is true. There have been mention of some prominent U.S. politicians involvement. I just don't think 40 year old men should be having sex with 17 year old girls.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece haakon iceland kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess marie eveningwear princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary eveningwear princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 sheikh hamdan bin mohammed state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:21 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises