It's not even confirmed he's going to speak, hilarious!
Is his travel to the Falklands war on the list?
And you mean what ? ?? He gets a pass for anything he does for the rest of his life because he went to the Falklands , he wasn't the only one on the boat
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Did I say that?! I don't think so.
Andrew is a member of the royal family and therefore travels for royal duties as does every other member of the royal family. His role means he travels more than other royals, I don't see the problem.
The man has had accusations levelled against him. He is not named in a court case, he has not been charged with a crime, he is not in the dock answering questions about a criminal act. So why should everything he's done for this country be called in to question?
Two sides to every story but it appears only one is being portrayed.
January is a slow news month and Andrew is being pushed further and further inside the "rags" people call papers and further and further down the internet versions. Currently the top story for the DailyMail is how a five year old boy was invoiced £16 for not showing up to a skiing party. How times change.
What I find interesting is he's hired a criminal defence barrister. Not someone who specialises in libel or defamation but criminal defence.
Andrew seems like a man with a lot on his mind at the moment
I simply asked what you meant ? So can I ask again why you mention Falklands war just didn't get what that had to do with the article
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
This according to the MailOnline, same paper that was positively adamant Andrew was going to make a speech in Davos next week which is now a "maybe/possible" at best.
The article from said paper says the MailOnline has learned that Clegg was handed papers apparently from DOYs team 11 days ago, however the mail did not manage to learn why the papers were handed to him, what he is doing with said papers or what the outcome has been. I can't imagine it takes the grandfather of the Barr 11 days to come up with an answer.
And I responded to your question in my post. I mentioned the Falklands war because the constant drivel from papers about Andrew seem to be forgetting that he serves his country and The Queen and has done so on thousands of occasions like during the Falklands war.
Never let it be said that the private sector was as short sighted as the government. Having resigned his position as a UK Special Representative for International Trade and Investment due to;Don't know if anyone has posted this. Think there are lots of questions to be answered
http://www.theguardian.com/media/gr...et-the-agenda-on-globe-trotting-prince-andrew
It surprised the hell out of me considering that posters on this thread have been banging on about him having to resign because of the Jeffrey Epstein affair in 2011.Wiki said:"His suitability for the role was challenged in the House of Commons by Shadow Justice Minister Chris Bryant in February 2011, at the time of the 2011 Libyan civil war, on the grounds that he was "not only a very close friend of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, but also ... a close friend of the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni".
Boris Johnson said:Mr Johnson told listeners to LBC Radio: "Prince Andrew, let's be very clear, is a guy who does a huge amount of unsung, unheralded work for this country.
"People, they go on and and about the air miles and so on, actually I have seen that guy get out there and sell this country, try and help British firms to get business around the world.
"He does a huge amount of good and a huge amount of hard work. So if you are asking me whether I have sympathy for him, of course I do."
Mr Johnson added: "We may think it's bizarre, but somebody who is the second son of the Queen is felt in many parts of the world to be an interesting and significant figure and they will receive him cordially and people who come with him they want to hear what business suggestions they have.
"So I think that people should respect that side of his work."
Any court action over this affair is a lot more legally convoluted than Mike's libel case and the engaging of a leading QC seems only prudent.What I find interesting is he's hired a criminal defence barrister. Not someone who specialises in libel or defamation but criminal defence.
Andrew seems like a man with a lot on his mind at the moment
I read somewhere that the alleged "under-age" sex happened in a London house in 2001. The girl was 17 at the time. At the time the age of consent in England was (and is) 16 - so it was not "under-age" if it happened at all.
So (in 2001) Andrew was 41 years of age and this girl was 17. No, it wasn't illegal, just completely disgusting.
What I find interesting is he's hired a criminal defence barrister. Not someone who specialises in libel or defamation but criminal defence.
Andrew seems like a man with a lot on his mind at the moment
I'm catching up, so apologies.
Has he actually hired this lawyer or is it alleged by a certain newspaper? Is there actually any proof?
UK media is not to be trusted as a stand alone source.
The retention of the British barrister, if true, is interesting to me for two reasons:
1) Timing - the Judge rules suggesting he was leaning towards unsealing the 1500 pages of sealed documents and right after Prince Andrew hires a criminal defense lawyer.
2) Why a British barrister, rather than one from the U.S. - the issue being whether Andrew was a co-conspirator in Epstein's violations of the Mann Act, or maybe there's something in those papers about him using his position to minimize Epstein's consequences which could violate U.S. Law. Perhap's the British barrister is in contact with a discrete U.S. Law firm.
I will say that if someone retains a lawyer in, say, a murder case before they are charged (or even a strong suspect) it's like waving a red flag at the investigators - if they weren't a suspect before they become one.
Having said all that, I suspect Andrew and the Queen are under some stress about all of this and even though the normal lawyers have probably opined that there wouldn't be any criminal consequences from all of this, it certainly doesn't hurt to get confirmation from a criminal law specialist, although one who is an expert in U.S. Federal criminal practice makes more sense.
Most of the 'drivel' Andrew has brought on himself. He consorted with some shady characters and continued his friendship with a convicted paedophile. So whether its fair or not, his name is now being brought up again in relation to having sex with minors.
Can't blame this one on the tabloids
Then we hear Andrew has hired a Criminal Lawyer today. Why would anyone do that for what is a Civil Case? Or at least has been to this point?